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

Two offbeat 135s compared
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 4:30 pm    Post subject: Two offbeat 135s compared Reply with quote

I took two frames with each lens at a distance of about 10'(3M)


1. Bushnell @ 2.8




2. Sears @ 2.8




3. Bushnell @ f8




4. Sears @ f8




It looks to me that the Sears is slightly sharper but the Bushnell has more contrast. What say you?


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have same opinion Ron. I had this Sears too, nice lens.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got to go with the Sears one ...


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There's not a lot in it. I prefer the Bushnell though.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 06, 2010 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well we have one vote for the Bushnell.

I left the Sears on & did a walk-about the property & took this one down at our ponds.





He had just made a deeep mating call sending out waves in the water & I caught him before the throat deflated.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which lens looks better? Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Scheimpflug wrote:
Which lens looks better? Very Happy



Laf! They both look pretty good actually but the Bushnell is heavier.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I prefer the Buhsnell.

To my eyes it has better off-center sharpness and I like the somewhat lower contrast.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had read that at least one version of the Sears 135mm was Mamiya Sekor. Any information on that?


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

revers wrote:
Scheimpflug wrote:
Which lens looks better? Very Happy

Laf! They both look pretty good actually but the Bushnell is heavier.


Ahh, well that is worth some points! I'll vote for the Bushnell then. Very Happy


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A bit difference in contrast and in rendering colors.

Have you any pic of both lenses??

Thanks for sharing

Rino.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

estudleon wrote:
A bit difference in contrast and in rendering colors.

Have you any pic of both lenses??

Thanks for sharing

Rino.


I will take some later, right now I have to go help my wife clean some windows. Sad


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 6:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Bushnell is made in Japan & the Sears in Korea.

The diaphragm is set to f4 on both lenses for this shot.




The shorter Bushnell is actually the heavier of the two. Both lenses have pull-out lens shades that are retracted in the photo to demonstrate minimum length of each lens.




You can see some residue of packing tape on the grip of the Bushnell but otherwise it is very clean. Not bad for $10 @ a pawn shop. I got the Sears off eBay for about $20 including shipping.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 07, 2010 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Ron

Both are clean and nice.

Sears for me.

Rino.