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

Voigtlander Zoomar 36-82mm f2.8 M42
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:26 pm    Post subject: Voigtlander Zoomar 36-82mm f2.8 M42 Reply with quote

I got a chance to take one, this was first zoom in 1958. Price is 250 USD , I don't I able to sell after testing or not. Please give me some input!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think it's rather a collector's item than a really usable lens.
It was the very first zoom lens for format 135 and was called "Gummilinse" (=rubber lens).

I don't know about the price but if you find the right guy who is interested in this lens, you will sureyl be able to sell it.

But from what I have read about it, don't expect a too high performance.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I never tested one.
When I was searching Voightlander listings last summer for RF lenses there was always one or two up for auction.
I would search completed listings for price.
If you find a live auction in the US I can bid for you.
It is a big ass lens from what I recall.
Maybe LuisAlegria or another member knows more about quality of images produced.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you guys!


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://m42.artlimited.net/lens_detail.php?lid=283

If that 95mm filter thread detail is right then yes, "big ass lens" indeed!

~Marc


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It was in my hands today I like it , nice piece.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope, I've never had one in my hands.

Way too expensive a collectors piece for me - unless I get lucky.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had it with my Ultramatic CS.

As I thought that my copy was a bad ones, I bought another.

Well, both were bad lenses.

I didn't like this lens.

Aberrations. It's a luminous kaleidoscope .

The unique beauty thing, the little bag for the zoom and the ultramatic. And the ultramatic CS too.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 8:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you !


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But remember that you have in your hands a piece of history (the first zoom for 35 mm) and only that give high value to the lens, beyond of the yield of the same one.

Within the zoom lens there are many calculations, studies, tests, etc and that they have its value, that is not cheap.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 12, 2009 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, also true, thanks!


PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

So, as Estudleon says, the lens is more for a collector than for regular use. Especially if you look at this (large) photo taken with the lens in question at f2.8:

http://210.238.185.197/~maro/lens_test/zoomar_36_28.jpg

The borders are worse than I have seen on even the worst super wide angle lens Smile


PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 10:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Huuh not a pitty!


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I put totally the wrong post here before lol

The lens gives a poor performance but it looks awesome! I would love one just for the eye candy.


Last edited by fatdeeman on Fri Sep 24, 2010 10:15 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I held one, it was SOLID. Heavy. Large frontal glass. It was very scratched, but for $80 it was ok, but anyway, i didnt took it. I'm still scratching myself not to take it.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

a20010494 wrote:
I held one, it was SOLID. Heavy. Large frontal glass. It was very scratched, but for $80 it was ok, but anyway, i didnt took it. I'm still scratching myself not to take it.


I guess you made right decision to let it go, if a lens is not a good picture taker and it is abused well that means it has no value. No user nor collector value either.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 24, 2010 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
a20010494 wrote:
I held one, it was SOLID. Heavy. Large frontal glass. It was very scratched, but for $80 it was ok, but anyway, i didnt took it. I'm still scratching myself not to take it.


I guess you made right decision to let it go, if a lens is not a good picture taker and it is abused well that means it has no value. No user nor collector value either.


For my small personal collection... would've been a pretty niche glass. Like that, i missed a Rokkor-X 21mm f2.8 ($60), and a zuiko 16mm f3.5 fisheye Sad ($160).

But heck, i've picked pretty wicked bargains too!