Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

The most expensive and highly regarded 135 I have is crap!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
woodrim wrote:
Ian, to ensure you're testing a lens and not your focusing ability, a shot like this can be helpful. Here I might have thought the lens was soft, but the brick told me I was off on the focus.



erm I don't get a few of you guys arguments e.g. if you shoot a row of houses then something must be in focus and sharp unless either there is something wrong with the lens OR the camera OR the lens was set for a distance of something like 2ft.


I agree, the only other parameter is the adapter. The camera is fine, the lens was definitely focussed to infinity, that leaves just the adapter and the lens. I am sure the adapter is fine as I have used it with at least three other FD mount lenses with no problems.

So that leaves the lens as the cause of the problems.

Whether it is faulty or just crap I don't know.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian: When I suggested the row houses, I specifically said to focus at some point BEFORE infinity so that we could eliminate infinity as an issue and also find the point of focus. Other lenses working well with the adapter at infinity does not assure this lens' infinity adjustment is the same. I can use the same adapter and have some lenses working well at infinity and others not. You really don't know if a lens is set properly at infinity - it can stop just short or go a hair over and you'll end up thinking it isn't sharp.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Whether it is faulty or just crap I don't know.

Faulty crap. Probably a "Friday afternooner". Lob it/fleabay it/hold a door open with it. Move on. You have plenty of other good'uns. No point flogging a dead horse. Do it now, cos I'm starting to get withdrawal symptoms from your gorgeous landscapes Wink

Graham, wot's all practical, an' that Cool


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Ian: When I suggested the row houses, I specifically said to focus at some point BEFORE infinity so that we could eliminate infinity as an issue and also find the point of focus. Other lenses working well with the adapter at infinity does not assure this lens' infinity adjustment is the same. I can use the same adapter and have some lenses working well at infinity and others not. You really don't know if a lens is set properly at infinity - it can stop just short or go a hair over and you'll end up thinking it isn't sharp.


Well using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html if you use a X100 with the 135mm lens@f16 and focus on the hill @ 10,000 ft away the minimum DOF for acceptable sharpness is 184ft (9816ft) erm so focussing at infinity in theory will not result in sharp houses. At hyperfocal distance set at 187ft and it's 93ft to inf.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
Ian: I work in Photoshop, so am not as familiar with other tools. In PS, you simply enlarge the image enough to see the CA clearly, then go to Image - Adjustments - Hue/Saturation. Then change the menu selection where it says Master to the color you're correcting, most cases blue, but sometimes magenta. If you're wrong, it will correct the selection. Then take the pointer, which is now an eyedropper tool, and click on the CA where the color is obvious. You'll then see that color come up in your swatch selection. Now take the saturation and lightness sliders and find the best reductions to correct the CA. I typically do them about equally, but you can see the change as you're doing it and will know how much to adjust. Note: don't forget to select the color from the Master, otherwise the entire image will be effected, not just the CA color/area.


This really is a very effective method of removing CA, I've saved a lot of pictures using this method. And I use a free version of Photoshop Elements.

And quite possibly using the terrace picture with focus set halfway instead of infinity any lens errors will be more definable ?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
GrahamNR17 wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Whether it is faulty or just crap I don't know.

Faulty crap. Probably a "Friday afternooner". Lob it/fleabay it/hold a door open with it. Move on. You have plenty of other good'uns. No point flogging a dead horse. Do it now, cos I'm starting to get withdrawal symptoms from your gorgeous landscapes Wink

Graham, wot's all practical, an' that Cool



Cheers Graham, I tend to agree with ya, I have given this lens a fair crack and I really don't think it's a focus issue.

Car will be back on the road in a few days so I can get out and about and do what I enjoy - shooting landscapes, I find lens testing really boring these days now I have a good number of really nice ones to work with.

I might find time to have one final try with this lens, I'll pit a couple of other 135s against it for comparison's sake.

Maybe I can send it to David to try on film if he's so inclined?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I give up, Ian. I can't help you. I'm about ready to shoot myself...


PostPosted: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quick - call the Samaritans ! Laughing

I'll gladly have a go with it Ian, I was actually looking longingly at one at the last camera fair, but it was Nikon and no good for me.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
I give up, Ian. I can't help you. I'm about ready to shoot myself...


I don't get it, it's a crap lens, that's hardly my fault.

I appreciate the tip on CA removal.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Take the lens and hold it in front of your computer monitor (an inch or two away) with the front element facing you. (This works best if your monitor has black bezel/borders). With the lens wide open look through it and move the lens up from the illuminated portion of your monitor to the black border. Look for any hazing or other defects. I have seen lenses that look good and clear through the white light, but when seen against the black border defects become noticable. For example, if the lens has been exposed to high heat, the inner lube can sometimes vaporize and coat one or more internal elements. Kirons are notorious for this. However, yours is a Komine and I don't know if it shared similar problems.

It may be worth it to have a camera/lens doctor dismantle the lens, clean all elements and put it back together if the defect is correctable.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only thing that could cause chromatic aberration is poor design, or possibly separated elements.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 4:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have examined it thoroughly and I can't see any internal haze or fungus or signs of balsam separation, I'll take another look tomorrow with a led torch.

Wish my AE-1 worked then I could try this lens with film.

I agree about the CA though, it's present by design. I really don't see much use for a lens with bad CA when I have others in the same length that don't suffer from it. If this lens had some other redeeming feature (other than the dubious advantage of being a tad faster) then I could perhaps live with the CA, but as it stands, I just don't see anything to redeem this lens, not bokeh, sharpness, colours, nothing.

Just to prove I can shoot adequately with a 135mm lens on my NEX, here are some quacking objects I captured with my Konica Hexar 3.5/135, I forget what aperture now, probably f5.6, maybe f8, it's sharper than the Vivitar and doesn't have the nasty CA. These were on a tripod on a pretty dull day, shutter speeds were around 1/50:

http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-hexar-3-5-135-on-nex-3-t45151.html







PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Wish my AE-1 worked then I could try this lens with film.




Using a film camera will show any faults to the edges, with my crap DSB 28mm it looks like the left side is a bit sharper than the right

My crap Yashica DSB 28mm.


What the view should look like using e.g. an ensinor 24mm


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
AhamB wrote:
woodrim wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
Again, these lenses were designed for film. Digital tends to exaggerate the CA.


The CA from this lens is very easy to correct with a 10 second investment.

At the cost of global saturation.


??????????? No, not at all.

I thought you were suggesting to use a defringe feature like Lightroom has. This does decrease global saturation in a noticeable way.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
AhamB wrote:
woodrim wrote:
AhamB wrote:
woodrim wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
Again, these lenses were designed for film. Digital tends to exaggerate the CA.


The CA from this lens is very easy to correct with a 10 second investment.

At the cost of global saturation.


??????????? No, not at all.

I thought you were suggesting to use a defringe feature like Lightroom has. This does decrease global saturation in a noticeable way.


Sounds like Lightroom treats the entire image while what I described targets the problem areas.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That DSB looks to have a misplaced element, hence it's soft one side and not the other. Not fair to call all DSB lenses crap cos you have a faulty one. I had a 35mm lens that had the same issue and that one was mint in original box so probably came out of factory faulty.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That DSB looks to have a misplaced element, hence it's soft one side and not the other. Not fair to call all DSB lenses crap cos you have a faulty one. I had a 35mm lens that had the same issue and that one was mint in original box so probably came out of factory faulty.


The market has decided DSB lenses are inferior, look at the cheap prices on the bay and for a well known name like Yashica prices shouldn't be this low unless........................................


PostPosted: Tue Dec 20, 2011 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Perhaps poor quality control could be one of the reasons why DSB lenses are generally avoided.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Maybe so, but excalibur's lens is clearly faulty, that is no reason to 'give warnings' about them, reputations mean very little and often fall apart when put to the test.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Maybe so, but excalibur's lens is clearly faulty, that is no reason to 'give warnings' about them, reputations mean very little and often fall apart when put to the test.


erm Orio has also mentioned the DSB 28mm gave poor results in an Italian photo magazine.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Regardless, your lens is clearly faulty so no reason to be so strident.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 12:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Regardless, your lens is clearly faulty so no reason to be so strident.


Why not...... IIRC I had a thread about the 28mm DSB lens and I can't remember swarms of posts saying how great the lens was. And you yourself said something like "opinions are important on lenses" (what to buy etc). So It just has to be accepted that this lens plus many others e.g. Domiplan are best avoided and your money spent on something better.
So a newbie says "I want a Yashica 28mm lens" will your advice be to him/her... is to get a DSB or ML lens Wink


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A lot depends on condition, a DSB in good condition will beat a faulty ML. Same with the Domiplan, some are junk, some are good, bad QC.

Your DSB lens is clearly faulty so any results from it can be disregarded as giving any insight into that product.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey, "boys and girls", it's Christmas Eve so let's all be neighbourly. Time to put all our photo toys aside, log off and get packing those presents ready for tomorrow Very Happy


PostPosted: Sat Dec 24, 2011 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
A lot depends on condition, a DSB in good condition will beat a faulty ML. Same with the Domiplan, some are junk, some are good, bad QC.

Your DSB lens is clearly faulty so any results from it can be disregarded as giving any insight into that product.


Well I'm not impressed with my 50mm DSB lens as well.......erm becoming a coincidence eh Laughing
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5