View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:13 pm Post subject: Duds? |
|
|
Sven wrote:
I bought two lenses for what I thought were bargain prices, but now I'm leaning more towards that it was "you get what you pay for" prices.
The first one is a Takumar Bayonet 2.8/135 at 40$ and the second one is a Meyer Domiplan 2.8/50 for 4 $ (less than a hamburger).
The Takumar looks solid and works perfectly from a mechanical point of view, but I'm not happy it's sharpness and color saturation. It can also produce CA in some situations.
I had less expectations on the Meyer and it's probably still worth more than a hamburger, but it's rather soft and I will probably not use it much. It had a stuck F-stop mechanism, but I managed to take the blades out and de-grease them, so that part works now.
Anyway, are these lenses known to be less than average performers or did I just get bad samples?
Some samples
Takumar
Meyer (This was before blade cleaning so the lens is wide open)
Picture resized - click on the image for the full size. Please observe the max width of 900px or post large images in the Oversized Gallery. Thankyou _________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE
Joined: 20 Aug 2007 Posts: 5486 Location: Left Coast
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
F16SUNSHINE wrote:
The domiplan I have is crap others feel the same
That Bayonet Takumar was a low price line from Pentax also known to be crap
Thats a lot of crap you should hold your nose on the way to the bin
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Domiplan can be pretty good one. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
zewrak
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1212
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
zewrak wrote:
Haha. I have tried to sell my Domiplan for 10skr and failed. And to be honest, it's not worth it.
Stick to Super Takumars :p. The bayonet ones are black sheeps. _________________ My homepage, all manual shots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
It's easy to get carried away.
And you seem to be proud owners of Domiplans as well
I will try them out bit more, but generally most pictures are worth a better faith than being shot with an inferior lens.
At least I didn't spend a fortune.
Thanks for your replies _________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
glockman99
Joined: 23 Jul 2008 Posts: 233 Location: Aberdeen, WA USA
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
glockman99 wrote:
You can always think of those lenses as sort of having a built-in soft-focus filter...Sort of a "glass is 1/2 full" sort of thing. _________________ Dann Fassnacht
Aberdeen, WA USA
glockman99@hotmail.com
The film cameras I use are:
Nikon F4s, Nikon F3HP with MD4 (X2), Nikon N8008, Nikon N8008s. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zewrak
Joined: 12 Apr 2008 Posts: 1212
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
zewrak wrote:
glockman99 wrote: |
You can always think of those lenses as sort of having a built-in soft-focus filter...Sort of a "glass is 1/2 full" sort of thing. |
Some say the glass is half-full,
Some say the glass is half-empty,
I say, the glass is too big for its purpose. _________________ My homepage, all manual shots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
http://www.mflenses.com/gallery/v/german/meyer/domiplan_50mm/meyer-optik_gorlitz_domiplan_50mm_f2_8-11.jpg.html
This is my experience , I think not worst than any other common 50mm lens. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
I guess there could be a variation between samples of the Domiplan.
When I took it apart I noticed that the positioning of rear lens didn't look very reliable, only 3 tiny screws fitting into a v-grove both for centering the lens and for positioning it longitudinally. Maybe of no significance but it could also indicate a build standard which could be less repeatable.
Like the soft focus idea! _________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Meyer made their best lenses before war, I have a few pre-war copy with excellent quality. They made good lenses with stable quality before "Pentacon" years. Yes, Domiplan quality can be very vary, it was a cheap budget lens for that price every copy was ok in any quality. If somebody would take better lens many excellent one was available. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
peterqd
Joined: 28 Feb 2007 Posts: 7448 Location: near High Wycombe, UK
Expire: 2014-01-04
|
Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
peterqd wrote:
My Domiplan is simply awful. It was the cheapest option kit lens for my Praktica in 1967, below Tessar and Pancolar. I never took one good picture with it. _________________ Peter - Moderator |
|
Back to top |
|
|
orly_andico
Joined: 02 Jul 2008 Posts: 253 Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
orly_andico wrote:
That's probably a 135/2.5 Takumar Bayonet, which was made from 1980 - 1988. It's a simple 4-element lens. I got mine for $30 (plus shipping).
I did some tests on this Takumar Bayonet. Basically any Takumar Bayonet is a consumer lens. But it's still mechanically very good, to be honest I can tell no difference between this one and an SMC-Pentax M mechanically.
Here's my test: http://orlygoingthirty.blogspot.com/2008/08/pentax-135mm-lens-comparison.html
compared to the SMC-Pentax M 135/3.5.
Seems that at f/4 the Tak-Bayonet is sharper than the SMC-Pentax M.
Or is my focusing off? I put a split-image screen in my K10D but I am not entirely sure if I'm focusing critically enough (the K10D's AF module is also known to be not that accurate so I can't rely on AF confirm).
I also compared the Takumar-A 70-200/4 to the SMC-M 135/3.5 at 135mm and the Tak-A seemed just as sharp.. so either (1) my MF skills really suck; (2) my split-image screen is incorrectly placed (it's a cheap Chinese one and I used tape to adjust it); (3) I have a horrible 135/3.5; or (4) I have a really excellent 70-200/4 which seems unlikely.. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wormhandler
Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wormhandler wrote:
I saw the auction and it was in fact a 135mm 2.8 takumar (bayonet).
Never saw one of those before.
The 135mm 2,5 takumar (bayonet) you talk about have a bad reputation but I must say that my copy is excellent. Seems to be in line with your observations. Maybe some CA to mess things up in bad situations. I don't have the 135mm 2,5 k-mount to compare to though.
I will post a few pictures taken with my 135 2,5 (bayonet) if anyone is interested.
/Jan |
|
Back to top |
|
|
orly_andico
Joined: 02 Jul 2008 Posts: 253 Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
orly_andico wrote:
there is a Super-Takumar 135/2.5 (screw mount) which goes for a heck of a lot more money than the T akumar Bayonet
it's also supposed to be much better than the Tak Bayonet, , but to be honest at f/4 i can't say my copy is bad (compared to the 135/3.5 which supposedly has a great reputation "sharper than the Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 some people claim).
here's another test I did:
http://orlygoingthirty.blogspot.com/2008/07/more-lens-testing.html
of course this is only center performance, wide-open at 200mm and f/4 on both lenses.
this photo #1 was taken with the Canon 70-200/4 L IS on EOS 400D.
this photo #2 with the Takumar-A 70-200/4 on Pentax K10D.
The photo from the "L" looks better to me.. by how much I don't know. What do you guys think? of course the "L" costs $1000 and the Tak-A 70-200/4 cost something like $40 (I forget the exact value). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sven
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Posts: 818 Location: Linköping Sweden
Expire: 2011-12-29
|
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 5:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sven wrote:
Wormhandler wrote: |
I saw the auction and it was in fact a 135mm 2.8 takumar (bayonet).
Never saw one of those before.
The 135mm 2,5 takumar (bayonet) you talk about have a bad reputation but I must say that my copy is excellent. Seems to be in line with your observations. Maybe some CA to mess things up in bad situations. I don't have the 135mm 2,5 k-mount to compare to though.
I will post a few pictures taken with my 135 2,5 (bayonet) if anyone is interested.
/Jan |
It is indeed a 2.8 and I think I have seen two auctions with it (could be the same lens).
I haven't given up on it yet. Stopped down a bit the sharpness is acceptable. My main concern is CA in high contrast motives and that the colours often come out a bit dull.
Made a "non scientific test" half an hour ago comparing it to my Nikkor zoom at 135. Not much light now and I shot hand held so motion blur may play it's part. F-stop is 5.6 on both and ISO is 200.
Not much difference except for the colours which could be the two cameras handling the white balance differently.
Takumar
Nikkor
_________________ DSLR: Nikon D200, Pentax *istDL, Nikon D100 IR converted
SLR: Pentax Spotmatic, Pentax ME,
Nikkor:N 2.8/24 H 3.5/28, 2/35, 2/50, 1.4/50 1.8/85, 3.5/50-135, E 2.8/100, P C 2.5/105, 2.8/135, 2.8/180 ED, 4/200,
M42: Pentacon 4/200, S Takumar 1.8/55, Meyer Orestor 2.8/135, CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35, CZJ Pancolar 1.8/50, CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135
AF Lenses: Nikkor 1.8/50, Pentax 18-55
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/29261959@N08/
Website http://www.hundbilder.nu/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
orly_andico
Joined: 02 Jul 2008 Posts: 253 Location: Philippines
|
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
orly_andico wrote:
Click here to see on Ebay
here's another 135/2.8 Takumar Bayonet. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|