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

What is/was/has been your WORST lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got rid of all my crap lenses but I remember a Unitar 3.5/35 that was terribly soft and lacking contrast.

Recently, worst I've had was a Vivitar Series 1 2.3/135 that was bloody awful. unusable above f8, mediocre at f8 and below, had no good points at all apart from good build quality, just dogshit...


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My worst 2 lenses are from the same manufacturer and around the same vintage.

CZJ pancolar 50 1.8 and Flek 35 2.8. Although purchased about 20 years apart they are both identical in that the aperture blades are frozen wide open and the focus rings are so stiff they unscrew the lens from the mount instead of focusing. And although I have routinely cleaned and lubed most of the lenses I've owned I have never been able to get the front ring off of either of these two lumps of very fine glass fitted into some pretty lackluster metal. Which is a shame as I really like the photos other people get with them !


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would say that it would be worth getting those Jena lenses CLA'd.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
IIRC all my worst have been so by damage, not design -- traumatized, or worn out. I like lenses with character, even bad character. Any lens can be turned bad if used viciously enough.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!

Interesting... I love mine, especially for portraits:





PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!

Interesting... I love mine, especially for portraits:

These pics are looking very good to me.
It seems to be not a bad lens at all.

I guess this lens has a very high UV-Transmission which will only produce ugly results when the sensor don't has a good filter. So it might depend only on the body.

(UV light penetrates skin deeper than VIS or IR for example, see http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-50mm-f1-4-potrait-with-digital-redandblue-filters-t45982.html for an example)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
BRunner wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!

Interesting... I love mine, especially for portraits:

These pics are looking very good to me.
It seems to be not a bad lens at all.

I guess this lens has a very high UV-Transmission which will only produce ugly results when the sensor don't has a good filter. So it might depend only on the body.

(UV light penetrates skin deeper than VIS or IR for example, see http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-50mm-f1-4-potrait-with-digital-redandblue-filters-t45982.html for an example)


I was using Kodachrome! The lens was awful!


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!

Interesting... I love mine, especially for portraits:



You will find the 180mm Elmar-R or the second-generation Elmarit-R to be superior.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had a Vivitar 28-80mm, purchased because of my wife hated to see me carry some lenses and have to waite sometimes to let me change lenses. It was cheap, rather plasticky, but did not bad from mechanical view. But the contrast in the images was far to low to give me any pleasure.
I have given the lens away as soon as she had departed.
Now are my worst lenses a Hanimar preset 35mm 3.5 and a Pentacon 29mm 2.8 (I have a very good one of the last too).


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
danfromm wrote:
Fluffy wrote, re the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt R:

Quote:
It's a reconnaissance lens, not a pictorial lens.


Are you sure?


Of course I am sure! I was designed for the US Navy by Leitz Canada. It was part of the "High-Resolution Photographic System". You learn all about it from google. A terrible lens for general use, but good for its intended purpose. It's not a 'bad' lens, just not designed for pictorial photography.


Fluffy, I think you're mistaken.

Erwin Puts (see http://www.furnfeather.net/books/pdf/llcforweb.pdf) makes no such claims.

The wikipedia entry on Walter Mandler (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler) makes no such claim, does mention a 75/2.0 Apochromat, Elcan model C341, "(an apochromatic R lens for a U.S. Navy High Resolution Small Format Camera System. Only two types of glass were employed in this 8 elements, Double-Gauss based design. Only a few units were produced in 1973)".

You may have got your misinformation from this site: http://www.flickr.com/groups/apo-telyt180/

The text that Google displays for the wikipedia entry on Walter Mandler says "Walter Mandler became VP of Elcan from 1974, being an optical advisor for Leica until ... 46) APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4 (from 1975, this lens had extra low dispersion or ... C341 (an apochromatic R lens for a U.S. Navy High Resolution Small Format" A misread of this text may be the source of the error.

Small format cameras weren't used for aerial reconnaissance because they can't capture enough detail. 6x6, although used by many air forces, really isn't big enough either. NASA flew 1.75"/2.8 Elcan lenses (type C88, I have one, ex-Vinten F.95) on U-2c aircraft in 1971-2 "to acquire small scale, low resolution, multispectral photography over selected representative ecosystems to simulate the Return Beam Vidicon (RBV) data system which would be aboard the future Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS; Landsat1)."


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Once upon a time, I bought a "kit" with a Nikon FM-10, a 35-70/4.5-5.6, and a 70-210/4.5-5.6. The camera was fine. It wasn't a Nikon (made by Cosina), but it was well-made and worked well. Despite the fact that it was labeled "Zoom Nikkor", the 70-210/4.5-5.6 was made by Cosina and it was dreadful. I had trouble getting decent focus with it; it seemed soft no matter what distance the subject was, or what zoom or aperture setting I used. "Infinity" focus meant something different with this lens than it did with any other manual focus lens I'd ever had. I took a shot with it of the sun over Yellowstone in winter. My wife took a similar shot with an Olympus point and shoot. Her's came out fine. The flare on mine left it without contrast--except for the ghosts. Those had great contrast, and there must have been 8 or 10 of them, all nice, 6-sided, not-quite-symmetrical in shape. Then, after minor use for a few months, the zoom mechanism jammed in the 210mm position.

It was a piece of crap to use, gave poor images, and broke easily. Doesn't get much worse than that.

Oh, images from the Cosina-made 35-70 weren't any better. It was always soft, and ghosted badly. But at least it didn't break.

I know that Cosina has made decent lenses, but neither of these two qualified.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 7:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
danfromm wrote:
Fluffy wrote, re the 180/3.4 Apo-Telyt R:

Quote:
It's a reconnaissance lens, not a pictorial lens.


Are you sure?


Of course I am sure! I was designed for the US Navy by Leitz Canada. It was part of the "High-Resolution Photographic System". You learn all about it from google. A terrible lens for general use, but good for its intended purpose. It's not a 'bad' lens, just not designed for pictorial photography.


Fluffy, I think you're mistaken.

Erwin Puts (see http://www.furnfeather.net/books/pdf/llcforweb.pdf) makes no such claims.

The wikipedia entry on Walter Mandler (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mandler) makes no such claim, does mention a 75/2.0 Apochromat, Elcan model C341, "(an apochromatic R lens for a U.S. Navy High Resolution Small Format Camera System. Only two types of glass were employed in this 8 elements, Double-Gauss based design. Only a few units were produced in 1973)".

You may have got your misinformation from this site: http://www.flickr.com/groups/apo-telyt180/

The text that Google displays for the wikipedia entry on Walter Mandler says "Walter Mandler became VP of Elcan from 1974, being an optical advisor for Leica until ... 46) APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4 (from 1975, this lens had extra low dispersion or ... C341 (an apochromatic R lens for a U.S. Navy High Resolution Small Format" A misread of this text may be the source of the error.

Small format cameras weren't used for aerial reconnaissance because they can't capture enough detail. 6x6, although used by many air forces, really isn't big enough either. NASA flew 1.75"/2.8 Elcan lenses (type C88, I have one, ex-Vinten F.95) on U-2c aircraft in 1971-2 "to acquire small scale, low resolution, multispectral photography over selected representative ecosystems to simulate the Return Beam Vidicon (RBV) data system which would be aboard the future Earth Resources Technology Satellite (ERTS; Landsat1)."


I was around when the lens was introduced and read all about it. Leitz Canada had developed it for the Navy, in conjunction with the SL/SL2 and another couple of lenses (a 75mm f/2, and an enlarging lens).

There were also M4's made with ELCAN lenses:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/EX-Leica-KE-7A-KE7A-Military-Camera-w-Elcan-50mm-F-2-black-/280745401504?pt=Film_Cameras&hash=item415dbadca0

They were made for the military, and thus they are by definition reconnaissance equipment.

You can read about it here:

http://www.overgaard.dk/leica-history-page-2.html

"ELCAN
[Ernst Leitz Canada, established 1952] ELCAN was and still is the military/industrial branch of the old "Ernst Leitz Canada". In 1998, the ELCAN plant was sold to Raytheon (USA), who bought it from its previous owner, Hughes Aircraft Co.
According to John Francis from the Leica Forum, ELCAN was asked by the US military to develop the U.S. Navy High Resolution Small Format Camera System during the Viet Nam war which is/was composed of the following:
- ELCAN-R 75mm f/2, code C-341
- ELCAN-R 180mm f/3.4, code C-303
- ELCAN-R 450mm f/5.6, code C-329
- There was also a “standard issue” Leitz Summicron-R 35mm f/2
- Leicaflex SL 35mm SLR camera (modified??)
- Leitz Focomat II (modified), code EN-121A
- Vincent electrical shutter (for enlarger)
- ELCAN 52mm enlarger lens (20x-25x enlargements)
- ELCAN 20mm enlarger lens (40x-75x enlargements)
- ELCAN 128mm f/5.6 enlarger lens (prototype, could also fit large format cameras)
- Very high resolution B&W film, and developer

All above lenses are of apochromatic correction [APO] of the very highest degree, and were specifically designed by Walter Mandler of Leitz Canada/ELCAN.
Walter Mandler was, at the time, the Chief Engineer at Leitz Canada and a true legend in his own time. He was responsible for the design of the current Summicron 50mm, both for the Leica M and R system which is considered one of – or the – best 50mm lenses in the world, the Noctilux-M 50mm f/1, the original APO-Telyt-R 180mm f/3.4 and the original Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8, etc... A legend in his own time!"

The 180 APO Telyt-R f/3.4 is a high-resolution lens, but its tonal (and other) qualities are inferior to those of more conventional lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fluffy wrote:

Quote:
They were made for the military, and thus they are by definition reconnaissance equipment.


Really? Do you mean to say that the ex-Admiralty Shackman Automatic Dial Recording Camera from which I extracted a 47/5.6 Super Angulon was reconnaissance equipment? And the 47/5.6 SA too?

That camera, which weighed several tons (I exaggerate), was made to be bolted to a bulkhead two meters from an instrument panel. It recorded dial settings/indications on 220 film (images slightly smaller than nominal 6x6) during gunnery exercises. Your idea that all cameras (and lenses to fit them) bought by the world's armed forces were for aerial reconnaissance is full of eels. You may be confusing surveillance (usually terrestrial, and at short distances) with aerial reconnaissance (even at low altitude, from greater distances than surveillance).

Quote:
I was around when the lens was introduced and read all about it. Leitz Canada had developed it for the Navy, in conjunction with the SL/SL2 and another couple of lenses (a 75mm f/2, and an enlarging lens).


That's interesting. The SL was introduced in 1968, well before the 180/3.4 ApoTelyt's introduction date of 1975. I was around then too and was pushed very hard by a leicanut violinist with whom I played chamber music to buy an SL. The SL seems to have been developed in Wetzlar with no impetus from any military organization. Back then it nearly everyone saw it as an over-priced not very competent anti-Nikon F. Well made, y'understand, and with a good but limited system. In those days the US Army's standard SLR was the Nikon F and the Navy's was the Topcon Super D.

A further point about lenses bought by the world's armed forces. They were often made to a price, not to be the best possible regardless of cost. The four element 50/2 Elcan made for the KE-7 (military M4) is a case in point; less expensive than, not as good as, the civilian 50/2 Summicron.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
Fluffy wrote:

Quote:
They were made for the military, and thus they are by definition reconnaissance equipment.


Really? Do you mean to say that the ex-Admiralty Shackman Automatic Dial Recording Camera from which I extracted a 47/5.6 Super Angulon was reconnaissance equipment? And the 47/5.6 SA too?

That camera, which weighed several tons (I exaggerate), was made to be bolted to a bulkhead two meters from an instrument panel. It recorded dial settings/indications on 220 film (images slightly smaller than nominal 6x6) during gunnery exercises. Your idea that all cameras (and lenses to fit them) bought by the world's armed forces were for aerial reconnaissance is full of eels. You may be confusing surveillance (usually terrestrial, and at short distances) with aerial reconnaissance (even at low altitude, from greater distances than surveillance).

Quote:
I was around when the lens was introduced and read all about it. Leitz Canada had developed it for the Navy, in conjunction with the SL/SL2 and another couple of lenses (a 75mm f/2, and an enlarging lens).


That's interesting. The SL was introduced in 1968, well before the 180/3.4 ApoTelyt's introduction date of 1975. I was around then too and was pushed very hard by a leicanut violinist with whom I played chamber music to buy an SL. The SL seems to have been developed in Wetzlar with no impetus from any military organization. Back then it nearly everyone saw it as an over-priced not very competent anti-Nikon F. Well made, y'understand, and with a good but limited system. In those days the US Army's standard SLR was the Nikon F and the Navy's was the Topcon Super D.

A further point about lenses bought by the world's armed forces. They were often made to a price, not to be the best possible regardless of cost. The four element 50/2 Elcan made for the KE-7 (military M4) is a case in point; less expensive than, not as good as, the civilian 50/2 Summicron.


It was offered with the SL as a military outfit. The SL was not developed for the military.

If you read up on this you will see that 'reconnaissance' is a broad term. It means for observation in a military context.

This lens was developed to have high resolution at infinity, but its is wanting in other, more pictorial qualities. It is a reconnaissance lens, not a pictorial lens. Period.

And you are quite right about the 50mm f/2 ELCAN for the KE-7 (military M4).

Last edited by FluffPuppy on Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:46 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
You will find the 180mm Elmar-R or the second-generation Elmarit-R to be superior.

I have booth and first version of 180mm Elmarit too. APO-TELYT is superior to all of them in my eyes, CA is non-existant and it has most neutral color rendering. Only v2 Elmarit comes close stopped down to f4 and more. But I use them exclusively on digital.
Another important ascpect is coating. My copy of APO-TELYT was made in first half of '90s, I had earlier version from late '70s and this one showed strong greenish cast.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy is right, APO-TELYT was developed on request of US Army (or Navy, don't know yet) and is optimised for infinity wide-open performance. Anyway it's true, that in some situations, it's high level of correction of optical abberations causes slightly harsher bokeh than other Leitz lenses of this era. (in terms of CA, this lens is better corrected than APO-Lanthar 4/180 and on pair with APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/180@f4).


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
You will find the 180mm Elmar-R or the second-generation Elmarit-R to be superior.

I have booth and first version of 180mm Elmarit too. APO-TELYT is superior to all of them in my eyes, CA is non-existant and it has most neutral color rendering. Only v2 Elmarit comes close stopped down to f4 and more. But I use them exclusively on digital.
Another important ascpect is coating. My copy of APO-TELYT was made in first half of '90s, I had earlier version from late '70s and this one showed strong greenish cast.


Yes, that was characteristic of my copy, obtained in 1977. For people it was horrible! I have no idea whether coatings had anything to do with it, as you suggest. It could be that a batch was made for the Navy and some were left over after the Viet Nam war wound down, and they wanted to get rid of them. Or perhaps they had the materials (glass, etc.) left over and they wanted to sell some lenses and make money. Later, they may have changed it, but I never had an opportunity to try a later version. I wanted nothing to do with it.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:18 pm    Post subject: Re: What is/was/has been your WORST lens? Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
We often ask about the best gear we have.
What was the worst lens that you ever had and the worst lens that you still have?

In my case:

- Auto Reflecta 1.7/55 (Poor performance and built like a toy lens.)
- ENNA Ennalyt 1:3.5/28 (But only because of a intense haze inside, I guess. Sold.)
- Auto Exaktar 1:2.8/35 (this lens is not even mediocre in any respect. Sold.)
- Revuenon-Special 2.8/35 (Sold due to it's bad performance. I had two copies, one was a poor the other one an abysmal performer.)
- my first copy of a Helios - 44 1:2/58 (But only because the rear lens was badly scratched and it had some bad haze inside. I gave it away.)

And the worst ever was:
- Tokina AF 1:3.5-5.6/28-80 (I am sorry, Tokina. I am a Tokina fan, but this lens was just "pants". Really bad, I did not get a single good or at least sharp shot from it! Sold for cheap money.)

The worst lenses I still have are
- Tamron Twin-Tele 5.5/225 (Quite nice as a 2.8/135 but a 'special' TC turns it into a 5.5/225 and then it is total crap.)
- Greens London 3.5/135 (Nice performance, but the blades fell apart after some weeks, without me doing anything!)


Thats easy...The Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f2.8...Some of my Vivitar zooms are'nt that good either.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
Yes, that was characteristic of my copy, obtained in 1977. For people it was horrible! I have no idea whether coatings had anything to do with it, as you suggest. It could be that a batch was made for the Navy and some were left over after the Viet Nam war wound down, and they wanted to get rid of them. Or perhaps they had the materials (glass, etc.) left over and they wanted to sell some lenses and make money. Later, they may have changed it, but I never had an opportunity to try a later version.

Actually I had three copies at one time, look at this older post. I think, that earlier coatings was optimised for military use and high resolution BW film. Later versions obtained different coatings with better tonal balance, closer to "civilian" Leica lenses.
One non-scientific proof can be my testing of both lenses at infinity. The earlier version from '70s showed better penetration thru atmospheric mist (same resolution, but contrastier image).


PostPosted: Sat Jan 14, 2012 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
Yes, that was characteristic of my copy, obtained in 1977. For people it was horrible! I have no idea whether coatings had anything to do with it, as you suggest. It could be that a batch was made for the Navy and some were left over after the Viet Nam war wound down, and they wanted to get rid of them. Or perhaps they had the materials (glass, etc.) left over and they wanted to sell some lenses and make money. Later, they may have changed it, but I never had an opportunity to try a later version.

Actually I had three copies at one time, look at this older post. I think, that earlier coatings was optimised for military use and high resolution BW film. Later versions obtained different coatings with better tonal balance, closer to "civilian" Leica lenses.
One non-scientific proof can be my testing of both lenses at infinity. The earlier version from '70s showed better penetration thru atmospheric mist (same resolution, but contrastier image).


That may be the case, but I still don't think it is among the better choices of 180's in the Leica stable. Having owned four different ones, I would say that the 180 Elmar-R f/4 and the 180 Elmarit-R second version are about equal in overall rendition and quality, heads above the first version of the Elmarit (the heavy one) or the APO-Telyt. I am sure the APO-Elmarit beats them all, though. But since it is heavier than the Elmarit-R mark 2, I'm not interested (not to mention the price).


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 3:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I would say that it would be worth getting those Jena lenses CLA'd.


I have to agree. But I hate to admit defeat and have someone else do it. Although I did let someone else CLA a few of my cameras this last year. But grudgingly Smile

Where does someone find a place that works over old lenses ? I don't think any of my local shops have anyone old enough to remember that photography equipment could be maintained instead of sent back to a manufacturer for a refund . Heck since my local shops don't carry Pentax equip I doubt they have handled a metal bodied lens Sad


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
FluffPuppy wrote:
ForenSeil wrote:
BRunner wrote:
FluffPuppy wrote:
180mm f/3.4 Leitz APO-Telyt-R. I hated that lens. It did not have typical Leica color, it did not focus close, and.....well I just hated the images it produced. It was not designed for pictorial use at all.

It's not that it was defective, it's that it was designed for military use, not pictorial use. Portraits looked awful!

Interesting... I love mine, especially for portraits:

These pics are looking very good to me.
It seems to be not a bad lens at all.

I guess this lens has a very high UV-Transmission which will only produce ugly results when the sensor don't has a good filter. So it might depend only on the body.

(UV light penetrates skin deeper than VIS or IR for example, see http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-50mm-f1-4-potrait-with-digital-redandblue-filters-t45982.html for an example)


I was using Kodachrome! The lens was awful!

This discussion becomes offtopic, but Kodachrome is very sensitive to UV-Light like any other analog film

The results on an digital sensor are not looking like a crap lens at all.

Minolfan wrote:
I had a Vivitar 28-80mm, purchased because of my wife hated to see me carry some lenses and have to waite sometimes to let me change lenses. It was cheap, rather plasticky, but did not bad from mechanical view. But the contrast in the images was far to low to give me any pleasure.
I have given the lens away as soon as she had departed.
Now are my worst lenses a Hanimar preset 35mm 3.5 and a Pentacon 29mm 2.8 (I have a very good one of the last too).

Can tell more about your Vivitar? Was it a "macro" lens?


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Fluffy wrote:

Quote:
If you read up on this you will see that 'reconnaissance' is a broad term. It means for observation in a military context.


My dictionary (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate) doesn't agree with you.

Reconnaissance ... a preliminary survey to gain information; esp. : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory

Surveillance ... close watch kept over a person or group (as by a detective); also : SUPERVISION

I'm sorry, but I have the impression I'm talking with Humpty Dumpty.

BRunner wrote:

Quote:
... optimised for infinity wide-open performance.


Interesting. Puts found it best at f/5.6.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 5:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:
Fluffy wrote:

Quote:
If you read up on this you will see that 'reconnaissance' is a broad term. It means for observation in a military context.


My dictionary (Webster's Seventh New Collegiate) doesn't agree with you.




Yes, it does. Could not agree more.

"Reconnaissance ... a preliminary survey to gain information; esp. : an exploratory military survey of enemy territory."

As opposed to 'pictorial'.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 15, 2012 7:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
danfromm wrote:

BRunner wrote:

Quote:
... optimised for infinity wide-open performance.


Interesting. Puts found it best at f/5.6.

Of course, stopping down (as with every lens) helps to improve IQ in corners and makes the details even tighter defined, but we are splitting hairs here. In comparison to other lenses I've tried, this lens wide-open performance is astonishing, at f5.6 it reaches it's best and at f8 you can already see image degradation due to diffraction. Older lenses of comparable focal length can't reach it's wide-open performance, no matter how much you stop them down. Even many modern lenses needs to be stopped down to f5.6 to be comparable with Telyt @f3.4.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3