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 super dynarex 350mm.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:16 am    Post subject: Voigtlander super dynarex 350mm. Reply with quote
I bought this very rare lens together with a 35mm and 135mm for Bessamatic camera. Would it be a good choice to buy an adapter for this lens, or will the image quality be so bad that it would be better to sell it and buy another tele in the same range?

I understand that this lens is so rare that it would be a clenodium for collectors. Are there any auction sites on the web where I can obtain a better price for this lens compared to Ebay?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Generally there are no "bad" Voigtlander lenses in existence (besides the cheap Japanese ones from the end of last century which have been produced for "Ringfoto" by different manufacturers).
DKL adapters are cheaply available from China. Give it a try.
This lens doesn't seem to be that rare. It was built from 1965 to 1970.
2 copies have been sold on Ebay for apprx. 200 Euro in the recent past and the more expensive copies haven't been sold at all. Presently there is only 1 offer for apprx. 600 Euro and obviously that will never sell....


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Does the Bessamatic cameras have Retina mounts? Do you think I can use this adapter, and can I control the aperture with it?

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Voigtlander-Retina-DKL-Lens-to-Sony-NEX-NEX3-NEX5-NEX7-NEX6-A6000-A7-A7R-Adapter-/142087482213?hash=item211512eb65:g:UIgAAOSwu1VW58Db


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eriksen wrote:
Does the Bessamatic cameras have Retina mounts? Do you think I can use this adapter, and can I control the aperture with it?


This adapter should allow Voigtlander Bessamatic and Ultramatic, Deckel-Bayonett (DKL), Kodak Retina Rangefinder and Retina Reflex Lenses to fit on a Sony NEX. The aperture is controlled by the adapter for "stop-down mode".


PostPosted: Thu Jan 26, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This was the last lens in my voigtlander collection.

I don't like it, as don't like the 200/4 mm lens.

Both very heavy and the DOF is very very long (the 200 was 8 m, and the 350 I don't remember now)

The distance of the 135/4 was 4 m and there were two little filters (aproximation lenses) to focus from 2 to 4 m .

The jewells there were

40/2 Skopagon. Excellent lens with 9 elements.

50/2 Septon. Very good lens. The same design as the Planar 2,8/80 for the Hassy.

After those,

Skoparex 35/3,4 (any version have the same optic schema)

Dynarex 90/3,4

Both above average.

Average

Skopar 50/2,8

Super Lanthar 50/2,8


I don't like

Zoomar 36/82, F/2,8

Super Dynarex 200/4

Super Dynarex 350/5,6


Good luck. I had only two copies of the 350/5,6

Perhaps yours is better than mine.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The weight of the 350mm is 1.7 kg and nearest focus is 28m. How is the sharpness of the 350mm and 135mm compared to Tair 300mm and Contax Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 (I already have the Contax)?

My 35mm is a Skoparex 3.4. Is the image quality of this lens above or below the Hexanon lenses?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Both very heavy and the DOF is very very long (the 200 was 8 m, and the 350 I don't remember now)

Eriksen wrote:
The weight of the 350mm is 1.7 kg and nearest focus is 28m.


Indeed, Eriksen, I read elsewhere that the minimum focusing distance of the 350mm is 28m! Shocked
I wonder what the Voigtlander designers had in mind when they designed a lens with this specification. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
I wonder what the Voigtlander designers had in mind when they designed a lens with this specification. Rolling Eyes


The most interesting feature is according to technical specification that for focusing purposes it is able to open to F4 and closes down to F5.6 automatically when used on a Bessamatic. So in theory when used with adapter on a digital camera it should be able to take pictures at F4 as well. Would be interested to see some sample shots generally and specifically when used wide open at F4.

However, I can confirm the the focus range is from 28m to infinity according to specs. That can be easily reduced by using extension tubes like this ones for very little money: Click here to see on Ebay.

Bear in mind that the lens was designed for a central shutter camera. That may be an explanation for the rather strange design.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
The most interesting feature is according to technical specification that for focusing purposes it is able to open to F4 and closes down to F5.6 automatically when used on a Bessamatic.


Interesting information, Thomas. Another explanation is that, most likely, the aberrations were satisfactorily corrected only for apertures equal or smaller than F5.6 so that at F4 the residual aberrations are so strong that the lens is only usable for focusing. Incidentally, my Meyer Telemegor 400mm F5.5 has a similar behavior. It only becomes usable for serious photography when the aperture is closed 1/2 or 1 stop.

The problem with the aproach adopted by Voigtlander is that you carry the weight and volume of an F4 lens, but the beast effectively delivers F5.6. It would be much better if it were the other way around!

Last edited by Gerald on Fri Jan 27, 2017 5:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gerald wrote:
It would be much better if it were the other way around!


That goes without saying, Gerald. Wink

However, I would be really curios to see some example pictures from that lens also taken with it's hidden F4 aperture.
I didn't find anything on internet.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eriksen wrote:
The weight of the 350mm is 1.7 kg and nearest focus is 28m. How is the sharpness of the 350mm and 135mm compared to Tair 300mm and Contax Zeiss 135mm f/2.8 (I already have the Contax)?

My 35mm is a Skoparex 3.4. Is the image quality of this lens above or below the Hexanon lenses?



Carl Zeiss C/Y lenses are, by far, better lenses than voigtlander ones.

And the Tair is, again by far, better than my two copies of the 350/5,6.


I had both lenses, the skoparex and the hexanon 35/2,8

I prefer the skoparex, but it´s a taste question. Both good lenses.

The hexanon rendering is OK and very foreseeable. Good sharpness and resolution power.

Medium contrast and low aberrations.

The skoparex has some magic at F/9,5-11.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Carl Zeiss C/Y lenses are, by far, better lenses than voigtlander ones.


Papasito, you have forgotten to mention that this reflects only your personal opinion which may or may not be shared by anybody else as a general statement.

I know of at least one example where the opposite is true certified by an independent test magazine and I am rather sure that there are more. Maybe the old DKL Voigtlander lenses from the 1960's are below of the more modern designs of the Kyocera made Zeiss lenses from the second half of the 1970's and later. Most probably the Voigtlander QBM and M42 lenses from that same period of time will also be better than the old DKL ones. I only have some M42 ones from that period (made by Rollei Singapore) and they are excellent, i.e. hardly to beat.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
papasito wrote:
Carl Zeiss C/Y lenses are, by far, better lenses than voigtlander ones.


Papasito, you have forgotten to mention that this reflects only your personal opinion which may or may not be shared by anybody else as a general statement.

I know of at least one example where the opposite is true certified by an independent test magazine and I am rather sure that there are more. Maybe the old DKL Voigtlander lenses from the 1960's are below of the more modern designs of the Kyocera made Zeiss lenses from the second half of the 1970's and later. Most probably the Voigtlander QBM and M42 lenses from that same period of time will also be better than the old DKL ones. I only have some M42 ones from that period (made by Rollei Singapore) and they are excellent, i.e. hardly to beat.


I have to say you're right at least in one thing: it's my personal opinion. Yes. I forgot that, sorry.

The voigtlander singapur made lenses were not the same made in W. Germany. At least, the coat were newer

design, so not the old rendering.

When Eriksen asked about Voigtlander IQ, did it about the 135 and 350 mm. lenses in old Bessamatic/ultramatic

style, and compared them with the 135 C/Y and the 300 C/Y.

So, no voigtlander rollei were into the question.

With the exception, perhaps, of the skopagon (but CZ C/Y didn't have 40 mm lenses) all the C/Y lenses were better

than any voigtlander made in W. Germany ones.


Do you think :

35/3,4 skoparex is better than 35/2,8 Distagon?

50/2,8 Skopar or super lanthar are better than 45/2,8 Tessar?

90/3,4 Dynarex is better than the Sonnar 85/2,8.

100/4,8 Super dynarex is better than the Planar 100/2?

135/4 Super Dynarex is better than the sonnar 135/2,8?

200/4 Super Dynarex is better than the sonnar 180/2,8?

350/5,6 is better than the Tessar 300/4?

Well. The answer is no.

For me, of course. I tried all those lenses.

And for all the people who did use them anytimes.

Do you agree?


PostPosted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Do you agree?


Thanks for your detailed clarification.

Now I can most probably agree. At least I believe you as I didn't compare those lenses myself. Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1