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

Porst weitwinkel 35mm f/2.8 auto
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 3:12 pm    Post subject: Porst weitwinkel 35mm f/2.8 auto Reply with quote
Hi, I've just got this lens and as I haven't found much info about it here, please let me share some details. The main impression is that it is very soft at f/2.8, it's only at f/5.6 when it starts being really sharp. f/11 is still nice and than it's getting worse (due to diffraction probably) and f/22 is soft again. I must say that the inner elements are not entirely clean at the edges (although there are no fungi etc.) and it may contribute to disappointing performance at f/2.8.

The test photos are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/vaclav_pribik/sets/72157629952075360/. I was made using NEX-C3 camera, ISO 200.






PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2012 3:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Porst weitwinkel 35mm f/2.8 auto Reply with quote
vaclav.pribik wrote:
Hi, I've just got this lens and as I haven't found much info about it here, please let me share some details. The main impression is that it is very soft at f/2.8, it's only at f/5.6 when it starts being really sharp. f/11 is still nice and than it's getting worse (due to diffraction probably) and f/22 is soft again. I must say that the inner elements are not entirely clean at the edges (although there are no fungi etc.) and it may contribute to disappointing performance at f/2.8.

The test photos are at http://www.flickr.com/photos/vaclav_pribik/sets/72157629952075360/. I was made using NEX-C3 camera, ISO 200.






quoted to display content
welcome and thanks for sharing


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 12:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ah, it looks just like mine! I have # 795338 and I think I might have used it a few times 3 years ago. Smile In my database I have it tagged as being made by Tokina; I don't remember exactly why. Sorry I can't help more.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Despite the text "Made in Japan" this is most probably part of low quality control Korean lenses. It is possible production stared in Japan and license was later sold to Korea. If Samyang i don't know: http://forum.mflenses.com/lenses-from-korea-t48723.html but surely nothing to do with Tokina. If i remember correctly it is 5 or most 6 elements design.


PostPosted: Sun Jun 03, 2012 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is a Sun made lens. There are also 28mm f2.8, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f3.5 lenses in this line (may be there are other as well) and there are also almost identical Revuenon lenses. The differences are only in apreture ring shape and focus grip texture. And I saw Soligor 28mm f2.8 lens which is a mix of those Porst and Revuenon lenses (aperture ring from Revuenon and focus grip from Porst). This Soligor lens's serial number starts with 28 which is recognized as Sun made lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
dimitrygo wrote:
This is a Sun made lens. There are also 28mm f2.8, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f3.5 lenses in this line (may be there are other as well) and there are also almost identical Revuenon lenses. The differences are only in apreture ring shape and focus grip texture. And I saw Soligor 28mm f2.8 lens which is a mix of those Porst and Revuenon lenses (aperture ring from Revuenon and focus grip from Porst). This Soligor lens's serial number starts with 28 which is recognized as Sun made lens.


Could it be possible we both are correct? This lens showing final decline of Sun company. It was mentioned few times that Sun contracted other manufacturers (Tokina for instance) and sold lenses under Sun brand-name. Is story perhaps similar as with many other companies that could not compete on the market that required reduction of production costs (DDR Pentacon Prakticar lenses got manufactured by Sigma for instance)? We are naming many lenses as being made by Sun on the forum but frankly there is very little left of the quality that Sun once represented. How long in fact did Sun made lenses itself? Some info: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sun


PostPosted: Mon Jun 04, 2012 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
dimitrygo wrote:
This is a Sun made lens. There are also 28mm f2.8, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm f3.5 lenses in this line (may be there are other as well) and there are also almost identical Revuenon lenses. The differences are only in apreture ring shape and focus grip texture. And I saw Soligor 28mm f2.8 lens which is a mix of those Porst and Revuenon lenses (aperture ring from Revuenon and focus grip from Porst). This Soligor lens's serial number starts with 28 which is recognized as Sun made lens.


Could it be possible we both are correct? This lens showing final decline of Sun company. It was mentioned few times that Sun contracted other manufacturers (Tokina for instance) and sold lenses under Sun brand-name. Is story perhaps similar as with many other companies that could not compete on the market that required reduction of production costs (DDR Pentacon Prakticar lenses got manufactured by Sigma for instance)? We are naming many lenses as being made by Sun on the forum but frankly there is very little left of the quality that Sun once represented. How long in fact did Sun made lenses itself? Some info: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Sun

Why do you think these lenses are of low quality? And even if they are this could be just a matter of a demand for low price lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have the Revuenon 35 mm version and am satisfied with it.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IMHO lens lacks each and every attribute that makes lens worth having:

- optical performance
- character
- body build quality
- collectors value / rarity

Eugen Mezei wrote:
I have the Revuenon 35 mm version and am satisfied with it.

That is all that matters of course. Though Revuenon brand name was put on many totally different lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks a lot for the insight. Fortunately the lens was quite cheap and I wasn't expecting much.

Still, I wonder if there is something wrong in this particular piece. When looking at the shapes of (almost) point light sources (reflexes), there is some halo when wide open. Very noticeable at f/2.8, a bit at f/3.5 and it disappears at f/5.6. Do you think it's just a bad design/lack of manufacturing quality or it's a defect that just shouldn't be there?



(hopefully the image will show up this time...)

Thanks for your thoughts!


PostPosted: Tue Jun 05, 2012 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pancolart wrote:
IMHO lens lacks each and every attribute that makes lens worth having:

- optical performance
- character
- body build quality
- collectors value / rarity

Eugen Mezei wrote:
I have the Revuenon 35 mm version and am satisfied with it.

That is all that matters of course. Though Revuenon brand name was put on many totally different lenses.


I don't speak about totally different lenses, I speak about a lens that I'm convinced is the same as the Porst discussed here. Single difference, the front element on the Revuenon is more recessed. Btw, the Revuenon is also reviewed here on the forum in 2 or 3 different threads. Opinion about otpical quality differ in those threads too.
I don't need a lens for having it. I need it to use it, that is worth enough. I can agree with you it has no special character, it just sees like my eye does, not introducing visible aberations. (That is why I don't like e.g. swirly buke. It simply is not what my eye sees.) Also I agree it is not rare. Not very shure if it isn't the time to collect them. They seem to go (extremly) overpriced.

What I don't agree is built quality and optical performance. Mechanical quality is good to very good in my opinion. Optically it is sharp enough and it is contrasty.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1