View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:36 pm Post subject: test jupiter-9 against canon 85 1.8 AF |
|
|
poilu wrote:
I made a small compare of 85mm
Jupiter show very good result
canon 40D, liveview focus, white balance daylight , F5.6
contax 80-200, jupiter 9, canon 85 1.8, contax 85 1.4
center
border
extreme border
after I got tired of test and go to take a swim
contax 28-85
_________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yalcinaydin
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 825 Location: Izmir, Turkey
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yalcinaydin wrote:
I was planning to buy a Jupiter-9 but I didn't like the color tones of the lens, is this a general performance or specific to this copy? I know that canon 85 1.8 is optically very good lens but in this samples Contax 85 1.4 is clearly the winner _________________ My name is "Yalcin", and exactly "Yalçın" and here you can find my MF samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/
Right now switching back to AF because of work needs but I still love the MF lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Laurence
Joined: 26 Mar 2007 Posts: 4809 Location: Western Washington State
Expire: 2016-06-19
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Laurence wrote:
yalcinaydin wrote: |
I was planning to buy a Jupiter-9 but I didn't like the color tones of the lens, is this a general performance or specific to this copy? I know that canon 85 1.8 is optically very good lens but in this samples Contax 85 1.4 is clearly the winner |
I have to agree that the Contax certainly looks the best here.
poilu, is this near where you live? Wow, beautiful!
And poilu, see that chick out there with the ping pong paddle? What the heck is she going to DO with that thing out in the water?
Thanks for the nice quick test! _________________
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
Emily Dickinson
Cameras and Lenses in Use:
Yashica Mat 124 w/ Yashinon 80/3.5,
CV Apo-Lanthar 90/3.5SL, (Thank you Klaus),
Pentax 645,
Flek 50,
Pentax-A 150
Pentax-A 120 Macro
Voigtlander Vitomatic I w/Color Skopar 50/2.8
Konica TC and zoom lenses (thanks Carsten)
Contax AX
Yashica ML 50/2
Yashica ML 35/2.8
Carl Zeiss Contax 50/1.4
Tamron Adaptall SP 17/3.5
Tamron Adaptall 28/2.5
Tamron Adaptall SP 300/2.8 LD (IF)
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007 Posts: 17633 Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
Definitely the Contax 1.4/85 wins this lens battle! What a lens!
But I am surprised how good the 80-200 performs. _________________ Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lulalake
Joined: 22 Apr 2007 Posts: 1191 Location: Near Austin Texas
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lulalake wrote:
Very interesting.
I'll do a test also. I don't have a Canon 85 but have several others in similar ranges.
(PS. I'll also test some several Ouzo 1 ltr glasses)
Jules |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
yalcinaydin wrote: |
is this a general performance or specific to this copy? |
I choice daylight to show difference in the lens but in auto wb the color are very nice
Laurence wrote: |
What the heck is she going to DO with that thing out in the water? |
you mean this one
Laurence wrote: |
is this near where you live? |
50km
Carsten wrote: |
I am surprised how good the 80-200 performs |
yes, this is a very good lens
Jules wrote: |
I'll also test some several Ouzo 1 ltr glasses |
great idea _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
What impresses me is how architectonically coherent the landscape has stayed. All the houses under the castle are made in the same typical style and order. Obviously the local politicians are very intelligent and able to make laws to impose respect of architectural traditions - something quite rare unfortunately in the mediterranean beach places, where most often than not, old houses, new houses big hotels etc. are chaotically arranged.
As for the lenses, I have two of them (Jupiter and Contax 1.4/85) and the test is consistent with my own impressions.
- _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yalcinaydin
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 825 Location: Izmir, Turkey
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yalcinaydin wrote:
Orio wrote: |
What impresses me is how architectonically coherent the landscape has stayed. All the houses under the castle are made in the same typical style and order. Obviously the local politicians are very intelligent and able to make laws to impose respect of architectural traditions - something quite rare unfortunately in the mediterranean beach places, where most often than not, old houses, new houses big hotels etc. are chaotically arranged.
As for the lenses, I have two of them (Jupiter and Contax 1.4/85) and the test is consistent with my own impressions.
- |
Yes sadly this is the situation in Turkey
And yes zoom looks better than the Jupiter-9, I'm really disappointed and switched my decision to a Pentax 1.8 or 1.9 (in the AF era I would choice 100/2 cause it has better optical performance, one of the best primes of EF line). _________________ My name is "Yalcin", and exactly "Yalçın" and here you can find my MF samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/
Right now switching back to AF because of work needs but I still love the MF lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Very nice place ! Seems a photographer paradise, many thanks for this valuable samples! _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
Orio wrote: |
Obviously the local politicians are very intelligent and able to make laws to impose respect of architectural traditions |
most of the nice places here are protected by European law and nothing can be modified
yalcinaydin wrote: |
And yes zoom looks better than the Jupiter-9 |
don't forget that this zoom is a Zeiss and more expensive than a Jupiter 9
Laurence wrote: |
What the heck is she going to DO with that thing out in the water? |
sorry, I think you mean this one
_________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
maddog10
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 Posts: 1072 Location: Maryland, USA
Expire: 2015-02-12
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maddog10 wrote:
Looks like we mostly all agree, has that ever happened before!
All lenses do an adequate job. This is how I would place them.
1. Contax 1.4/85
2. Canon 1.8/85
3. Contax Zoom
4. Jupiter 9
Now the important comparison - what are the prices for each lens. _________________ Michael Hill |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Jupiter 9 is around 100 USD others lot more. _________________ -------------------------------
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 |
|
|
maddog10
Joined: 08 Apr 2008 Posts: 1072 Location: Maryland, USA
Expire: 2015-02-12
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
maddog10 wrote:
Color cast can be fixed in PP, somewhat, although it is extra step in work flow. If you are on a budget, the Jupiter 9 would get the job done (going by these examples). _________________ Michael Hill |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yalcinaydin
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 825 Location: Izmir, Turkey
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yalcinaydin wrote:
I'm not experienced in MF lenses yet but I know EF line AF lenses and this Canon EF 85/1.8 is 380-400$, yep a bit pricey, EF AF 100/2 is like 400-420$, Jupiter-9 is still cheaper when compared with them
I realy wonder the price of the Contax _________________ My name is "Yalcin", and exactly "Yalçın" and here you can find my MF samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/
Right now switching back to AF because of work needs but I still love the MF lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Himself
Joined: 01 Mar 2007 Posts: 3242 Location: Montreal
Expire: 2013-05-30
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Himself wrote:
maddog10 wrote: |
All lenses do an adequate job. This is how I would place them.
1. Contax 1.4/85
2. Canon 1.8/85
3. Contax Zoom
4. Jupiter 9
|
This is my opinion too. _________________ Moderator Himself |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
yalcinaydin wrote: |
I would choice 100/2 cause it has better optical performance |
based on photozone test, the 85:1.8 is better than the 100:2
85
100
yalcinaydin wrote: |
I realy wonder the price of the Contax |
I pay 300 euros for the contax 85 1.4 MM
The canon is a superb lens with only positive reviews, the AF is silent, fast and precise. Only negative are some CA wide open also for the Zeiss.
I like the colors and magics of Zeiss, much better lens than the canon from wide open up to 2.8
But if I had only 300 euros I would choice the canon for the magic AF usm _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
esrods
Joined: 23 Sep 2007 Posts: 148 Location: Sydney Australia
|
Posted: Mon May 26, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
esrods wrote:
Very informative test, Poilu. And very nice photos.
The outcome of Jupiter 9 is expected as it is known as a soft lens suitable for portraiture.
Contax 1.4/85 is very impressive. Another one to my list _________________ Edward Hwa Suck Shin
http://www.spankwire.com/Asian-Evelyn-Lin/video165892/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
yalcinaydin
Joined: 20 May 2008 Posts: 825 Location: Izmir, Turkey
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
yalcinaydin wrote:
I'm curious, in this test if there was also a Pentax Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 85mm f1.9, where would it fit? _________________ My name is "Yalcin", and exactly "Yalçın" and here you can find my MF samples:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/yalcinaydin/sets/
Right now switching back to AF because of work needs but I still love the MF lenses |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Very nice pictures. I like the place.
To my eyes, The 1,4/85 is the best.
But I don't think that the canon is better than the jupiter. Between both, I see more a difference in tonal rendition than in sharpness. Look at the extrteme borders and you can see (up in the image) a similar definition of the plants and rocks (may be a very very little diferences in the sharpness for the canon, and this is so minimal than hardly justify the price's difference between both, for me, endeed).
In the center, look at the "individual", or so, leyend and in the detail of the tawer. If you neutralize the yellowish of the jupiter, the image is appropiate and transmit adequately all the elements and details that turn the place in the paradise that we can see. May be the canon is better than the jupiter, but I think that are in the same place. Of course that in F/5,6. In F/2 and 2,8 well.......jupiter is only for softs portraits _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
patrickh
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 Posts: 8551 Location: Oregon
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 5:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
patrickh wrote:
I agree with estudleon in the assessment of the jupiter vs canon - it's a pretty close race. Obviously the Zeiss wins hands down, but then - it is priced well beyond the others. Still it does appear as though there is a price/quality relationship
patrickh _________________ DSLR: Nikon D300 Nikon D200 Nex 5N
MF Zooms: Kiron 28-85/3.5, 28-105/3.2, 75-150/3.5, Nikkor 50-135/3.5 AIS // MF Primes: Nikkor 20/4 AI, 24/2 AI, 28/2 AI, 28/2.8 AIS, 28/3.5 AI, 35/1.4 AIS, 35/2 AIS, 35/2.8 PC, 45/2.8 P, 50/1.4 AIS, 50/1.8 AIS, 50/2 AI, 55/2.8 AIS micro, 55/3.5 AI micro, 85/2 AI, 100/2,8 E, 105/1,8 AIS, 105/2,5 AIS, 135/2 AIS, 135/2.8 AIS, 200/4 AI, 200/4 AIS micro, 300/4.5 AI, 300/4.5 AI ED, Arsat 50/1.4, Kiron 28/2, Vivitar 28/2.5, Panagor 135/2.8, Tamron 28/2.5, Tamron 90/2.5 macro, Vivitar 90/2.5 macro (Tokina) Voigtlander 90/3.5 Vivitar 105/2.5 macro (Kiron) Kaleinar 100/2.8 AI Tamron 135/2.5, Vivitar 135/2.8CF, 200/3.5, Tokina 400/5,6
M42: Vivitar 28/2.5, Tamron 28/2.5, Formula5 28/2.8, Mamiya 28/2.8, Pentacon 29/2.8, Flektogon 35/2.4, Flektogon 35/2.8, Takumar 35/3.5, Curtagon 35/4, Takumar 50/1.4, Volna-6 50/2.8 macro, Mamiya 50/1.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1,8, Oreston 50/1.8, Takumar 50/2, Industar 50/3.5, Sears 55/1.4, Helios 58/2, Jupiter 85/2, Helios 85/1.5, Takumar 105/2.8, Steinheil macro 105/4.5, Tamron 135/2.5, Jupiter 135/4, CZ 135/4, Steinheil Culminar 135/4,5, Jupiter 135/3.5, Takumar 135/3.5, Tair 135/2.8, Pentacon 135/2.8, CZ 135/2.8, Taika 135/3.5, Takumar 150/4, Jupiter 200/4, Takumar 200/4
Exakta: Topcon 100/2.8(M42), 35/2.8, 58/1.8, 135/2.8, 135/2.8 (M42), Kyoei Acall 135/3.5
C/Y: Yashica 28/2.8, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, Zeiss Planar 50/1.4, Distagon 25/2.8
Hexanon: 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 40/1.8, 50/1.7, 52/1.8, 135/3.2, 135/3.5, 35-70/3.5, 200/3.5
P6 : Mir 38 65/3.5, Biometar 80/2.8, Kaleinar 150/2.8, Sonnar 180/2.8
Minolta SR: 28/2.8, 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 45/2, 50/2, 58/1.4, 50/1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5
RF: Industar 53/2.8, Jupiter 8 50/2
Enlarg: Rodagon 50/5,6, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, Vario 44-52/4, 150/5.6 180/5.6 El Nikkor 50/2,8,63/2.8,75/4, 80/5,6, 105/5.6, 135/5.6 Schneider 60/5.6, 80/5.6, 80/4S,100/5.6S,105/5.6,135/5.6, 135/5.6S, 150/5.6S, Leica 95/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wormhandler
Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wormhandler wrote:
Image quality overall, I agree with the list posted above with quality rankings. The canon beats the jupiter center and medium, but I must say that on my screen it looks like the canon is the worst in the extreme borders as seen in the last example. Look at the pile og bricks and the details of the air condition units. It seems like image quality drops heavily at the borders while the jupiter is more even. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10472 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
hi Wormhandler
Maybe my copy of the canon have this problem.
I used this lens for portrait and never remark any anomalies
Based on various test the border should be excellent.
But it is also common to read about copy variation and quality control problem for canon lens _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Wormhandler
Joined: 19 May 2008 Posts: 106 Location: Sweden
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wormhandler wrote:
Hi Poilu,
They are all portait lenses, except the zoom. And as you say, the extreme border is of no concern for portraits. Maybe even a bonus sometimes.
Name a company which hasn't sample variations, except maybe zeiss and cosina-voigtländer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Orio
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 29545 Location: West Emilia
Expire: 2012-12-04
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Orio wrote:
It's true that all lenses have come copy variation, but in the case of Canon and other companies of today, Sigma to just make one name, the amount and seriousness of copy variations is so huge to cause big floods of complaint and a lot of returned exemplars.
Manual Focus lenses are not immune but of course the type of quality control that companies like Zeiss or Leica use at the end of their production lines is totally unknown to today's big mass-production lens companies.
Therefore to invest in an old lens made by those quality companies makes sense still today, because with the same money you literally don't know what you are going to buy from a today's AF mass market company.
For a very good Zeiss lens you spend in average from 150-200 Euros to 400-600 Euros depending on the models.
With the lower end figure you can only buy a kit lens or a 50mm lens from Canon. With the higher figure you can buy a macro lens or a superwide lens like the Sigma 10-20, which is notorious for it's crappy quality variations.
For the same money that I spent for the Sigma (which I have sold last year), I have purchased a Planar 2/100.
Or, if you prefer, a Distagon 4/18 plus a Planar 1.7/50.
In any case, a totally no brainer better purchase.
Then of course with 800 or 1000 or 1500 Euros you can buy some L lenses, that will stand (in most cases, not always) the comparison with used Zeiss and used Leica... but spending 3-4 times as much. _________________ Orio, Administrator
T*
NE CEDE MALIS AUDENTIOR ITO
Ferrania film is reborn! http://www.filmferrania.it/
Support the Ornano film chemicals company and help them survive!
http://forum.mflenses.com/ornano-chemical-products-t55525.html |
|
Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008 Posts: 3754 Location: Argentina
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
Orio, in my country, Argentina, one particular camera seller told my, the last year, that in the 2008 could come in lens with leica name, but with differents problems like Misaligned lens??????.
This is relationed with your commentary. _________________ Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|