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

Cunor 35mm f2.8
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:07 pm    Post subject: Cunor 35mm f2.8 Reply with quote
Click here to see on Ebay then click "see original auction"

I bid on this lens earlier today. Didn't win but no tears this time. I just found it an interesting and rather unusual lens. And I liked the lens and its condition a lot.

Conducting the post-mortem just now, I believe I bid too low. But it's such an unusual lens . . . . I didn't know. To be honest, prior to the auction I had never even heard of the Cunor brand!


PostPosted: Fri Apr 04, 2014 10:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Why do you keep bidding on these crappy lenses? There are so many really good lenses out there that are really cheap. If you ask, you could get recommendations on good but not expensive 35mms, there are many.

I think this one is an early Sigma, regardless, it will be, at best, mediocre, more likely, crap.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
And I think you're unlikely to hear of the Cunor brand again, it's almost certainly a lens that is knocked out somewhere at the lowest possible cost and badged to order for some shop or other retail outlet, early mail order catalogues. I had an identical lens to that badged as 'Senon' or something similar, it was horrible. I did the decent thing and killed it. Thankfully it came in a bag of stuff that had some good items, so I wasn't broken hearted.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gosh, guys, a rather respected member of this forum actually had some positive comments, a while back, regarding the Cunor brand:

http://forum.mflenses.com/cunor-old-tokina-2-8-105-t-mount-t22199,highlight,%2Bcunor.html

But it is one of those "long ago" kinds of things. I think the winning bidder here made a smart purchase of a lens which could easily turn out to be a collector's item.

Other Cunor offerings are priced at significant multiples of the final bid on this auction.

The 1960s MF lenses are more of a challenge to evaluate, I concede. But they are nevertheless interesting. And I'm finding preset lenses, in general, are commanding high prices today. People want them.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cunor probably was a short lived US importers brand, and what I have seen over the years leads me to think that like some other brands they were all-tokina.

Old no name wide angles are less likely to be acceptable these days than short teles, but still, there are some decent ones, and more so if you aren't very picky. I confess I'm not picky. If that lens is a Tokina its probably the same as the five element job that they supplied as an auto lens, which is very acceptable IMHO. Zeiss products are wasted on me, so take that opinion for what its worth.

If you really want one of these also look for Lentar, Vemar and Caspeco.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 5:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
I confess I'm not picky. If that lens is a Tokina its probably the same as the five element job that they supplied as an auto lens, which is very acceptable IMHO. Zeiss products are wasted on me, so take that opinion for what its worth.

I think I have the same "problem", maybe my expectations are too low and it doesn't take much to impress me. A Korean made Sears branded 60-300 has become a favorite of mine somehow.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 9:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
That Cunor lens has a serial number with a H prefix - H48157. In the Soligor debate there are five H prefixes, H4 Kawanon, H5 Komine, H6 Komine, H7 Tokina and H37 Kawanon.
I've seen a H prefix on a lot of no name lenses, but I haven't got any so I can't compare them.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Cunor probably was a short lived US importers brand, and what I have seen over the years leads me to think that like some other brands they were all-tokina.

Old no name wide angles are less likely to be acceptable these days than short teles, but still, there are some decent ones, and more so if you aren't very picky. I confess I'm not picky. If that lens is a Tokina its probably the same as the five element job that they supplied as an auto lens, which is very acceptable IMHO. Zeiss products are wasted on me, so take that opinion for what its worth.

If you really want one of these also look for Lentar, Vemar and Caspeco.


Lloydy wrote:
That Cunor lens has a serial number with a H prefix - H48157. In the Soligor debate there are five H prefixes, H4 Kawanon, H5 Komine, H6 Komine, H7 Tokina and H37 Kawanon.
I've seen a H prefix on a lot of no name lenses, but I haven't got any so I can't compare them.


Thank you, luisalegria and Lloydy. My own bidding (and, again, I did not bid sufficiently high actually to win the lens) took into account both luisalegria's earlier remarks from 2009, and the "H" prefix . . . . both of which for me suggested early Tokina provenance.

I thought the lens might be an interesting get on that basis. Right or wrong, though, I think it's unfair to throw it unceremoniously into the "junk" category. Such a categorization merits and deserves at least a small ceremony! Laughing

Seriously, I was perfectly willing to give it a go . . . but only up to a point. Obviously another bidder, who I hope did not have more information or insight than me, was willing to risk more on the lens than myself. Or perhaps he knew there was no risk involved. Wink


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The thing is, you can buy four or five of these probably crap lenses and have spent the same money as a really great lens would have cost.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
elliott wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
I confess I'm not picky. If that lens is a Tokina its probably the same as the five element job that they supplied as an auto lens, which is very acceptable IMHO. Zeiss products are wasted on me, so take that opinion for what its worth.

I think I have the same "problem", maybe my expectations are too low and it doesn't take much to impress me. A Korean made Sears branded 60-300 has become a favorite of mine somehow.


My own take on some of this "lesser" glass is insistent on taking fully into account the inevitable copy-to-copy variation in IQ. My instinct is the variation found in "Lentar class" lenses is greater than that found in "quality" lenses, which are built with more narrow tolerances and with tighter quality control.

It's all probabilistic in my view. With a "Lentar class" lens you are more likely to encounter a dog. But there are still some darn great Lentar class lenses out there.

And at this juncture it appears this Cunar might, indeed, be a Lentar class lens. But I'm not sure. It might be better than that.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I disagree, there are no great lenses in this class, they vary between awful and mediocre. They were built cheaply in an era when most photographers weren't very discerning about quality because they were shooting colour print film of dubious quality and prints were 6x4. They used to make colour print film excessively contrasty and saturated to mask the lack of contrast and saturation found in the cheaper lenses of the day.

Given good light and a skilled shooter like Luis, good results can be eeked out of some of them, but what's the point when you could have just bought a good lens in the first place without spending more money?

Honestly, it's a waste of time and money acquiring lots of these cheap crappy lenses in the vain hopes of finding a great one. I must have bought 50 or 60 and how many good ones did I find? Well, there were 3 or 4 that were acceptably good and nothing that came close to achieving 'great'. Therefore I wasted a lot of time and money sifting through the turds looking for a non-existent diamond.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 12:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The thing is, you can buy four or five of these probably crap lenses and have spent the same money as a really great lens would have cost.


Ian your point is a good one. Your remark is well taken and it merits heed from others.

What some of this comes down to, quite honestly, is goals. And your point goes directly to this matter. The principal goal for many members of this forum is the taking of fine photographs. That's an eminently sensible goal, and it is completely understandable.

For other forum members it is the old MF lenses themselves which primarily spark interest. I enjoy just holding, examining, and manipulating the old lenses, especially those which are plastic free! I also like working on the old MF lenses when they are not glued together. While I believe we are in the minority here, no forum member is entirely in one camp or the other, and I'm certain photography-oriented forum members love the lenses as well.

The old Cunar, for me, was a possible Tokina. It appears plastic-free. It is a preset lens and I place preset lenses above automatic lenses (just personal preference, no more). And I don't already have any Cunar lenses in my collection. So I bid.

I did go back, after I lost the auction, and price other Cunars. As always seems to be the case with any brand lens, auctioned Cunars are much less expensive than those being (in essence) offered for sale. The offering prices on "for sale" Cunars are out of reach for me. In addition, the cumulative impact of this thread IMO contraindicates taking a large monetary risk on any Cunar.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I disagree, there are no great lenses in this class, they vary between awful and mediocre. They were built cheaply in an era when most photographers weren't very discerning about quality because they were shooting colour print film of dubious quality and prints were 6x4. They used to make colour print film excessively contrasty and saturated to mask the lack of contrast and saturation found in the cheaper lenses of the day.

Given good light and a skilled shooter like Luis, good results can be eeked out of some of them, but what's the point when you could have just bought a good lens in the first place without spending more money?

Honestly, it's a waste of time and money acquiring lots of these cheap crappy lenses in the vain hopes of finding a great one. I must have bought 50 or 60 and how many good ones did I find? Well, there were 3 or 4 that were acceptably good and nothing that came close to achieving 'great'. Therefore I wasted a lot of time and money sifting through the turds looking for a non-existent diamond.


Ian you are the consummate lens connoisseur. I think it's wonderful, I always enjoy your posts, and I admire and aspire to your high standards.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Given good light and a skilled shooter like Luis, good results can be eeked out of some of them, but what's the point when you could have just bought a good lens in the first place without spending more money?


Without skill or light even a Zeiss isn't going to do you any favors.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1