Kilfitt image quality?

[Anu]

I am aware of the quality control Kilfitt had, but not of the image quality. I kind of have a fever for Kilfitt lenses, but I have no idea how they actually perform (today) - anyone with experiences?

[mflex-on]

I made some pictures with the 2.8/90 Makro-Kilar which my father has since the early 60s.

It is an impressive piece of craftsmanship.
Optically I would rate it beyond my Vivitar 2.5/90 or Canon Macro 100 Mk1.
Not so impressive.

I would rate it as a collector’s item.

[Sevo]

Kilfitt was a watchmaker, no optician, and he was a obsessive inventor in his own field of expertise, mechanics. Most Kilar lenses are unique in their time by having multiple moving parts or a double helicoid. The optics are the real drawback, computing power was limited back then, and his inhouse optics department was no Leitz or Zeiss either. Research on zooms and moving element optics has progressed tremendously, and the typical Kilfitt designs are now much more outdated than more traditional single block Leitz and Zeiss designs of the same age.

[scsambrook]

I used to have two Makro Kilars, 40mm f3.5 (silver finish)and 40mm f2.8 (black finish). The mechanical quality of the f2.8 seemed better than the older f3.5 but the earlier lens was also well made.

Optically the f2.8 had more contrast and gave a "brighter" image which was slightly "warmer" than the f3.5. Centre definition was excellent at close ranges when closed down to f8 with both.

The back element of the f2.8 protrudes when focused on infinity. I was unable to use it on my Pentax because the mirror struck the lens mount when set at distances beyond - I think - arout 1.5 metres. I'm not too sure of the exact distance but there certainly was problem. The 40mm lenses were designed originally for the Edixa cameras which had small mirrors, so there was no problem with them. I think if you plan to get one to use on a DSLR you would need to check carefully before use - maybe the small mirrors on crop-format will be ok, but not the full-frame ones. One possible benefit is their extremely light weight.

I'm astonished at how much these sell for on eBay - interesting, but I think over-priced at £150+. A Micro-Nikkor is far better optically, and so is a 55mm Vivitar, a 50mm Canon f3.5, or a Schacht Macro Travenar, all of which I've tried in the past. On film, though, not digital. Digital seems to work differently somehow, lenses which are average on film so often seem excellent on digital, I think.

That probably sounds as though I'm not impressed by the Kilfit 40mm macros, but in the context of their own time they were good. As Sevo says, they are outdated, but that doesn't mean they're poor in absolute terms. And to be really kind to Herr Kilfitt, I don't think Leitz or Zeiss were marketing similar types of lens around 1960, so he was perhaps something of a pioneer.

[mflex-on]

Some pictures of the Makro Kilar 2.8/90.
This lens is with bayonet for Pentacon 6 medium format.

[Univer]

[Anu]

Thank you all for your replies! I think I'm going to forget about Kilfitts then, at least for now, as I can't really afford lenses that don't perform well at this time, especially not at the prices they sell nowdays.

[mflex-on]

I think you make the right choice. The bokeh of the 2.8/90 Makro Kilar offers structures which I personally do not like: double contours and multiple lines, so actually an "emphasis on edges".

[Nesster]

This may be of interest, from 1952:

[a77]

Has anyone some manuals for this lenses?