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's the latest lens you added to your collection?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mike Deep wrote:
On the way:
Nikkor-P 105mm f2.5 (Turbo fungus)


Decent lens, especially for the close focus stuff. I've had 2 of them.
Very good portrait lens if you can get it clean enough.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:


I thought I had that lens, but I haven't - ithe lens I have is a Haiou 64 50 / 2 which is a Chinese lens made by Seagull that was either a copy of the Minolta or made under licence from Minolta, so now I'm wondering if the Haiou is a copy of the Minolta - or - a copy of the Russian Helios 44M, which is what I suspected?

Can you post pictures of the lens please, I'm intrigued Question Here's the Haiou, a solid lump of glass and brass.


The Seagull lens is more likely copied directly from the original Biotar. By the mid to late 60s when they released it, China and the USSR were in the middle of a wee diplomatic disagreement, and much of the industrial co-operation seen prior to that was discontinued. This can be seen in the design of the Seagull SLR camera, based more on Japanese tech than Soviet, although there are many signs also pointing away from the idea of mere slavish copying popular in the western imagination.

I have seen information on a Chinese website (which I can't locate now) indicating that one of the elements for the Haiou lens used 'special' glass which was obtained from Germany. In the same post it went on to say that the similar lens for the Pearl River SLR had two elements using 'special' glass from the same source country, indicating the presence of at least two different Chinese re-calculations of the same base scheme.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
Lloydy wrote:


I thought I had that lens, but I haven't - ithe lens I have is a Haiou 64 50 / 2 which is a Chinese lens made by Seagull that was either a copy of the Minolta or made under licence from Minolta, so now I'm wondering if the Haiou is a copy of the Minolta - or - a copy of the Russian Helios 44M, which is what I suspected?

Can you post pictures of the lens please, I'm intrigued Question Here's the Haiou, a solid lump of glass and brass.


The Seagull lens is more likely copied directly from the original Biotar. By the mid to late 60s when they released it, China and the USSR were in the middle of a wee diplomatic disagreement, and much of the industrial co-operation seen prior to that was discontinued. This can be seen in the design of the Seagull SLR camera, based more on Japanese tech than Soviet, although there are many signs also pointing away from the idea of mere slavish copying popular in the western imagination.

I have seen information on a Chinese website (which I can't locate now) indicating that one of the elements for the Haiou lens used 'special' glass which was obtained from Germany. In the same post it went on to say that the similar lens for the Pearl River SLR had two elements using 'special' glass from the same source country, indicating the presence of at least two different Chinese re-calculations of the same base scheme.

Here are the glasses found on reference books for the Chinese 58/2.0s. I am not sure if the info is 100% correct but it is a good starting point to know more...


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
KMZ ZK 5cm f2 (Contax/Kiev)
Petri 55mm f1.7 EE (petri)


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:

I thought I had that lens, but I haven't - ithe lens I have is a Haiou 64 50 / 2 which is a Chinese lens made by Seagull that was either a copy of the Minolta or made under licence from Minolta, so now I'm wondering if the Haiou is a copy of the Minolta - or - a copy of the Russian Helios 44M, which is what I suspected?

Can you post pictures of the lens please, I'm intrigued Question


The Minolta acquired by pepperberry is the Minolta MC 1:1.2 f=58mm:
http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/236-minolta-58mm-f12

It's much (much!) faster than your Chinese 58mm which is 1:2 only, and therefore a completely different lens.

The 2/58mm Haido may or may not be a copy of the Biotar 2/58 mm - I simply don't know ...

S


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...



PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...


I'm always interested in good value 500s which are also good performers.
Which of your lenses was the best value, in terms of image quality?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
55 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...


I'm always interested in good value 500s which are also good performers.
Which of your lenses was the best value, in terms of image quality?



If we're talking about vintage manual focus lenses, it certainly would be the Canon nFD 4.5/500mm L.
One fluorite and one ULD lens, and impeccable performance.

S


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
55 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...


I'm always interested in good value 500s which are also good performers.
Which of your lenses was the best value, in terms of image quality?


Mine wasn't a 500 it was a 1000mm Nikon f11 mirror.
Remarkable image quality. Definitely not one to cart about all day though.

Here's an example from Silverstone shot from the back of the stands.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LTM 1959 Yashica Yashinon 1.8/5cm

43∅ - 9 blades - MDF 105cm


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
55 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...


I'm always interested in good value 500s which are also good performers.
Which of your lenses was the best value, in terms of image quality?


Hi 55. I'll PM you.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

If we're talking about vintage manual focus lenses, it certainly would be the Canon nFD 4.5/500mm L.
. . . . .

Thanks for the tip. I'll keep the Canon in mind.


Vintage_Photographer wrote:

Mine wasn't a 500 it was a 1000mm Nikon f11 mirror.
Remarkable image quality. Definitely not one to cart about all day though.

Here's an example from Silverstone shot from the back of the stands.
, , , , ,

Great reach, great shot! Thanks for the suggestion.


Phalbert wrote:


Hi 55. I'll PM you.

Thanks, Phalbert.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
55 wrote:
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...


I'm always interested in good value 500s which are also good performers.
Which of your lenses was the best value, in terms of image quality?


Hi 55. I'll PM you.


Please share! Smile (inquiring minds want to know)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:

Here are the glasses found on reference books for the Chinese 58/2.0s. I am not sure if the info is 100% correct but it is a good starting point to know more...


I misremembered where I saw it, the source was somewhat closer to home: https://forum.mflenses.com/haiou-64-chinese-biotar-t30635,highlight,%2Bbiotar.html

According to the poster there, the Pearl River and Peafowl/Panda lenses used West German glass in two elements, for the Haiou 64 it was more. Because I am not knowledgeable about glass types I can't extrapolate from there to decide which ones might have been imported.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just added a Minolta 75-200 f4.5 to the collection. Wasn't going to bother but for £20 and apparently in good condition with clean optics it would have been churlish to refuse.......


PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 11:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Latest addition is a Pentax SMC-A 50mm 1.2 I got after shooting with a vintage Pentax K10D for a couple of weeks, during which I witnessed what close to magic stuff vintage equipment can do (perhaps because of its limitations).

Here's one of the first photos taken with it.

Three layers of glass, rain & neon logos from central Copenhagen at night.




PostPosted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Please share! Smile (inquiring minds want to know)[/quote]

Here you go:

Hi 55. I have a number of 500 indeed but I never did any serious comparison. Just use them for "playing" around. You surely know that the best 500s come at a price, so there is the question of your budget. Then of course weight and size.
Here is my list. I'm using APS-C, so almost no vignetting with these lenses.
500 Mirror lenses: Nikon C; Nikon N; Tamron 55BB; Old 1971 Soligor (the one with the touret style ND filters) ; Yashica (non ML); Celestron; Tokina RMC
Non mirror: Sigma 500/4,5 APO (first version 1988?); Danubia 500/8 (Tokina made "wondertute") Tokina ATX 150-500/5,6; Super Cosina 100-500/5,6-8; MOG 500/5,6
Still here my remarks.
The mirror lenses is one's taste matter, but you know that. As for me, I like them. In fact the lens I've been using most is the Tamron 500/8. Not big, not heavy, plenty sharp for my use (I don't do enlargements) Both Nikon's C and N are in the same league. All good and difficult to tell apart. The Tokina is good too. Very close to the trio and even smaller and lighter.
Yashica is soft, but weirdly gets sharp as you focus close. (never as sharp as the others, but good for flowers... ) . This lens is not to be confused with the ML version which has a very good reputation, but I don't have it.
Celestron is bad, but the Soligor is the worst. (this one: https://lens-db.com/lentar-500mm-f8-mirror/)
Still I like the Soligor for its "National geographic of the 70s" style rendition. ?
Best of all is the Sigma f4,5 but in fact I've almost never used it because of size and weight. At f5,6 it beats all others. Honestly I haven't paid attention to the CA question because I don't care. Being APO, it's supposed to be better than most non mirrors, but yes, most photographers do care, so I should check that sometime.
The Tokina ATX is excellent even WO, but unused because of size and weight.
The Cosina is a late addition. I haven't used it at all yet. It's supposed to be better than general expectations.
The Danubia is one of many versions of the old Tokina made still available today. (this one:
https://opteka.com/products/op500mmp) I haven't used it in ages. Must check, but it's not bad if I remember well, and very light.
MOG 500/5,6. Not used yet. But I already almost regret the purchase. It's really heavy and I already know that I'm probably not going to use it beyond testing/playing. But man, I couldn't let it pass for the $ 110...
I also have 3 different versions of the Sigma 600, but none comes close to the 4 tops I mentionned. If you search about them you'll realize there are some good ones around but the QC variations seem to be very important.
Please feel free to ask any questions about any of these and I' ll gladly chat with you.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I really liked the images Mazgier posted that he made with the 8 el. Soligor 50mm f/1.4, so I was on the lookout for one. And found one! Hope to share some images soon.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Voigtländer Nokton 1.2/50 VM


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
Please share! Smile (inquiring minds want to know)


Here you go:

Hi 55. I have a number of 500 indeed but I never did any serious comparison. Just use them for "playing" around. You surely know that the best 500s come at a price, so there is the question of your budget. Then of course weight and size.
Here is my list. I'm using APS-C, so almost no vignetting with these lenses.
500 Mirror lenses: Nikon C; Nikon N; Tamron 55BB; Old 1971 Soligor (the one with the touret style ND filters) ; Yashica (non ML); Celestron; Tokina RMC
Non mirror: Sigma 500/4,5 APO (first version 1988?); Danubia 500/8 (Tokina made "wondertute") Tokina ATX 150-500/5,6; Super Cosina 100-500/5,6-8; MOG 500/5,6
Still here my remarks.
The mirror lenses is one's taste matter, but you know that. As for me, I like them. In fact the lens I've been using most is the Tamron 500/8. Not big, not heavy, plenty sharp for my use (I don't do enlargements) Both Nikon's C and N are in the same league. All good and difficult to tell apart. The Tokina is good too. Very close to the trio and even smaller and lighter.
Yashica is soft, but weirdly gets sharp as you focus close. (never as sharp as the others, but good for flowers... ) . This lens is not to be confused with the ML version which has a very good reputation, but I don't have it.
Celestron is bad, but the Soligor is the worst. (this one: https://lens-db.com/lentar-500mm-f8-mirror/)
Still I like the Soligor for its "National geographic of the 70s" style rendition. ?
Best of all is the Sigma f4,5 but in fact I've almost never used it because of size and weight. At f5,6 it beats all others. Honestly I haven't paid attention to the CA question because I don't care. Being APO, it's supposed to be better than most non mirrors, but yes, most photographers do care, so I should check that sometime.
The Tokina ATX is excellent even WO, but unused because of size and weight.
The Cosina is a late addition. I haven't used it at all yet. It's supposed to be better than general expectations.
The Danubia is one of many versions of the old Tokina made still available today. (this one:
https://opteka.com/products/op500mmp) I haven't used it in ages. Must check, but it's not bad if I remember well, and very light.
MOG 500/5,6. Not used yet. But I already almost regret the purchase. It's really heavy and I already know that I'm probably not going to use it beyond testing/playing. But man, I couldn't let it pass for the $ 110...
I also have 3 different versions of the Sigma 600, but none comes close to the 4 tops I mentionned. If you search about them you'll realize there are some good ones around but the QC variations seem to be very important.
Please feel free to ask any questions about any of these and I' ll gladly chat with you.[/quote]
Like 1 Like 1 Thank you!


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition.


At the politically incorrect 60-x it had been called "girls-watching lens"


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MC Zoom Rokkor 40-80mm f/2.8. I've been curious about this thing since I learned about its existence a few months ago. At 170 CHF in very good condition, I had to get it. I didn't have much time to play with it yet but it sure looks cool!





Shot with my trustworthy MC 35/1.8 & Sony A9


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
mouks wrote:
MC Zoom Rokkor 40-80mm f/2.8.
...
At 170 CHF in very good condition, I had to get it.


On eof the few Minolta lenses for the SR bayonet I don't own Wink. I had the opportunity to play with one, a few years ago, and I was pretty surprised about its performance - given that it's a mid-range f2.8 zoom from the mid 1970s!

Certainly a good price, and a nice "new" tool ... !

S


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 8:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vintage_Photographer wrote:
Just added a Minolta 75-200 f4.5 to the collection. Wasn't going to bother but for £20 and apparently in good condition with clean optics it would have been churlish to refuse.......


And today it arrived.
Very clean, great condition and initial tests show it to be very good wide open.

A couple of things surprised me.
1. The zoom action on this one is very light. I can see it going off to get the action firmed up a little if that's possible.
2. It's huge. Especially compared to the Tokina 70-210 it's replacing. The Tokina is very compact - not far off the size of the MD III 35-70 whereas the 75-200 Minolta is near double the length.
3. The focusing ring completes nearly a full turn from minimum focus to infinity.

One thing I'm puzzled by though. I keep seeing references to the Minolta 'Beer Can' sometimes referring to the 75-200 f4.5, sometimes to the 70-200 f4 and sometimes to the AF version of the 70-200 f4. Which one is it?.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vintage_Photographer wrote:
Just added a Minolta 75-200 f4.5 to the collection.
...
2. It's huge. Especially compared to the Tokina 70-210 it's replacing. The Tokina is very compact - not far off the size of the MD III 35-70 whereas the 75-200 Minolta is near double the length.

Wait until you get the Minolta MD 8/100-500mm!




Vintage_Photographer wrote:

One thing I'm puzzled by though. I keep seeing references to the Minolta 'Beer Can' sometimes referring to the 75-200 f4.5, sometimes to the 70-200 f4 and sometimes to the AF version of the 70-200 f4. Which one is it?.


The term "beercan" was applied to the Minolta AF 4/70-210mm around 2004 when the first real digital SLR from Minolta hit the market and everyone was struggling to get old MinAF glass. Not much later the term "big beercan" was created for the first-gen MinAF 4.5-5.6/75-300mm (a very good zoom for its time, and very expensive when new).

That said, the Minolta MD 4/70-210mm shares the same [12/9] optical construction with the MinAF 4/70-210. The (earlier) MD 4.5/75-200 has a more complicated - but not better! - [15/11] construction.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 314, 315, 316, 317  Next
Page 315 of 317