| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1275
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2023 8:33 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
kiddo wrote:
| RokkorDoctor wrote: |
| jmkmva wrote: |
Got a surprise this weekend. I was out with my daughter who was looking for some vintage mid century modern chairs. Besides from antique and vintage furniture, the shop had a row of miscellaneous items. In an end display was this Konica FS-1 camera with a Hexagon 57mm f1.4 lens. Interested in the lens, I Picked it up it up for $15. Plus @ bonus exposed roll of film  |
You know there is an unwritten rule that says you now need the spend the rest of your life if necessary, trying to reunite the film with its original owner  |
Besides ,there might be the opportunity to get a much higher reward for those negatives from the siblings etc., |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4088
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 26, 2023 9:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
| Won a Mamiya C 105-210mm f/4.5 ULD for nearly nothing. Hope it’s in reasonable condition. |
Interesting. many years ago I got the non-ULD version (which is much larger, heavier and certainly a different optical computation)for next to nothing as well. Last year I bought a nice looking sample of the ULD which - to my surprise - was cleary worse than the older non-ULD. I don't know whether this is due to the smaller size of the ULD, or whether my sample of the ULD has some problems. I suspect the latter, though. Would be interesting to compare your ULD with a common 70-210 or 80-200 such as the Minolta MD or the Canon FD, and I would do the same.
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3225
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2023 6:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| stevemark wrote: |
| caspert79 wrote: |
| Won a Mamiya C 105-210mm f/4.5 ULD for nearly nothing. Hope it’s in reasonable condition. |
Interesting. many years ago I got the non-ULD version (which is much larger, heavier and certainly a different optical computation)for next to nothing as well. Last year I bought a nice looking sample of the ULD which - to my surprise - was cleary worse than the older non-ULD. I don't know whether this is due to the smaller size of the ULD, or whether my sample of the ULD has some problems. I suspect the latter, though. Would be interesting to compare your ULD with a common 70-210 or 80-200 such as the Minolta MD or the Canon FD, and I would do the same.
S |
Unfortunately I don’t have many zoom lens to compare it to. I only have the Minolta MD 75-150/4, so I could compare half the range.
_________________
For Sale:
Steinheil Auto D Tele Quinar 135mm f/2.8 (Exa)
ISCO Isconar 100mm f/4 (Exa)
Steinheil Cassarit 50mm f/2.8 M39 (Paxette)
I'm always interested in trading lenses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2537
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
 Auto-Takumar 55mm 1:1.8 (Zebra) by The lens profile, on Flickr
 Auto-Takumar 55mm 1:1.8 (Zebra) by The lens profile, on Flickr
Auto-Takumar 55mm 1.8 (The zebra version with cocking lever). Sadly focus is limited to about 1.2 meters (7 feet on the scale but that isn't correct). Won't focus any further. Glass looks fine though and the close ups are good.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11063
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2023 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
| D1N0 wrote: |
| ...Auto-Takumar 55mm 1.8 (The zebra version with cocking lever). Sadly focus is limited to about 1.2 meters (7 feet on the scale but that isn't correct). Won't focus any further. Glass looks fine though and the close ups are good. |
In top photo aperture ring is cock-eyed -- put back together incorrectly...
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2537
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| visualopsins wrote: |
| D1N0 wrote: |
| ...Auto-Takumar 55mm 1.8 (The zebra version with cocking lever). Sadly focus is limited to about 1.2 meters (7 feet on the scale but that isn't correct). Won't focus any further. Glass looks fine though and the close ups are good. |
In top photo aperture ring is cock-eyed -- put back together incorrectly... |
There was a strange looking blocking thing for the aperture lever, I took it out (had to drill out the screws. Glued in a piece of tooth pick to serve as block. That restored infinity on the scale but not on the sensor. I dismantled the helicoid but couldn't see how to get it right. Either too long or to short. Until I threaded it in once again and it was just right. Now it is functioning correctly.
# non standard block
#even less standard hack
#before helicoid rethreading
#2 after helicoid rethreading
Also the f1.8 position didn't entirely engage. The new block solved this too.
I'll also past this in a Lens topic so it is more easily found again.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 4088
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
| stevemark wrote: |
| caspert79 wrote: |
| Won a Mamiya C 105-210mm f/4.5 ULD for nearly nothing. Hope it’s in reasonable condition. |
Interesting. many years ago I got the non-ULD version (which is much larger, heavier and certainly a different optical computation)for next to nothing as well. Last year I bought a nice looking sample of the ULD which - to my surprise - was cleary worse than the older non-ULD. I don't know whether this is due to the smaller size of the ULD, or whether my sample of the ULD has some problems. I suspect the latter, though. Would be interesting to compare your ULD with a common 70-210 or 80-200 such as the Minolta MD or the Canon FD, and I would do the same.
S |
Unfortunately I don’t have many zoom lens to compare it to. I only have the Minolta MD 75-150/4, so I could compare half the range. |
Yes, that would be fine! I'll do a similar thing during the next days. Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm vs Sekor C 4.5/105-210mm ULD vs Minolta MD-III 4/75-150mm @ about 100mm and 150mm; wide open and f8 ...?
S
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
12 years ago to the day I acquired all of these lenses. Today, I still have 5 of them...
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6005
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
12 years ago to the day I acquired all of these lenses. Today, I still have 5 of them...
|
Which five did you keep Ian?
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Hiya Tom, this five:
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6005
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Hiya Tom, this five:
|
I guessed four of the five.
Missed the Prakticar 28mm
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well done!
I bet you picked the Zenzanon 75 - I would still have it but it was absolutely buggered. I have the front & rear lens blocks in a box somewhere.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1275
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
12 years ago to the day I acquired all of these lenses. Today, I still have 5 of them...
|
I've only used mamiya ef 50mm 1.4 (revuenon version) and 70-150mm zoom mamiya , this one I find it very good lens. So I really need to fill the gap for a wide angle ,would you recommend the 28-50 zoom or the prime ? What about that 80-200mm, I don't recall having seen many pics taken with it. Thanks
Speaking of weight, these mamiya ef are so light comparing to other lenses . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Oldhand
Joined: 01 Apr 2013
Posts: 6005
Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
Well done!
I bet you picked the Zenzanon 75 - I would still have it but it was absolutely buggered. I have the front & rear lens blocks in a box somewhere. |
Spot on.
An excellent lens
My son has the EII, mine is the older MC.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2023 10:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
| kiddo wrote: |
I've only used mamiya ef 50mm 1.4 (revuenon version) and 70-150mm zoom mamiya , this one I find it very good lens. So I really need to fill the gap for a wide angle ,would you recommend the 28-50 zoom or the prime ? What about that 80-200mm, I don't recall having seen many pics taken with it. Thanks
Speaking of weight, these mamiya ef are so light comparing to other lenses . |
Sorry, I can't advise as I never got to use those lenses much - 12 years ago adapters weren't available and the Z series Mamiya film cameras are ridiculously hard to find in working condition - early electronics that just don't survive to the present day.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3225
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 5:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| kiddo wrote: |
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
12 years ago to the day I acquired all of these lenses. Today, I still have 5 of them...
|
I've only used mamiya ef 50mm 1.4 (revuenon version) and 70-150mm zoom mamiya , this one I find it very good lens. So I really need to fill the gap for a wide angle ,would you recommend the 28-50 zoom or the prime ? What about that 80-200mm, I don't recall having seen many pics taken with it. Thanks
Speaking of weight, these mamiya ef are so light comparing to other lenses . |
I have the 28/2.8 and it's a pretty good lens. Don't know about the zoom.
_________________
For Sale:
Steinheil Auto D Tele Quinar 135mm f/2.8 (Exa)
ISCO Isconar 100mm f/4 (Exa)
Steinheil Cassarit 50mm f/2.8 M39 (Paxette)
I'm always interested in trading lenses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla
Joined: 30 Nov 2016
Posts: 411
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
| kiddo wrote: |
So I really need to fill the gap for a wide angle ,would you recommend the 28-50 zoom or the prime ? What about that 80-200mm, I don't recall having seen many pics taken with it. Thanks
Speaking of weight, these mamiya ef are so light comparing to other lenses. |
The Mamiya Sekor CS 35mm 2.8 I highly recommend. The E/EF version should be the same optically. Light too.
_________________
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiddo
Joined: 29 Jun 2018
Posts: 1275
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 9:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
kiddo wrote:
In my case ,that focal length 28-50mm would suit me better for a walk around purpose , besides , the 35mm EF is very hard to get, not as much as 28mm 2.8 or 3.5. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 3225
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Here's a comparison I did between the Mamiya E 28/2.8 and the SMC Pentax-K 28mm f/3.5:
http://forum.mflenses.com/mamiya-sekor-e-28-2-8-vs-smc-pentax-28-3-5-t83688.html
I found the Pentax a bit better in some respects but it is 1) slower, 2) heavier, 3) much more expensive. I like the bokeh of the Mamiya better, also at similar apertures. It also seems to have a certain 3D quality (check image of seeding dandelion). In general, close focus shots with this lens look very good.
_________________
For Sale:
Steinheil Auto D Tele Quinar 135mm f/2.8 (Exa)
ISCO Isconar 100mm f/4 (Exa)
Steinheil Cassarit 50mm f/2.8 M39 (Paxette)
I'm always interested in trading lenses! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
starbucklover69
Joined: 27 Nov 2022
Posts: 46
Location: Swiss
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 11:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
starbucklover69 wrote:
Last week: Nikon 55 f1.2 AI, Pentax M 24-50 f4 , 100 f4 macro and 50 f1,7. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2537
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
| kiddo wrote: |
| In my case ,that focal length 28-50mm would suit me better for a walk around purpose , besides , the 35mm EF is very hard to get, not as much as 28mm 2.8 or 3.5. |
I tested a few 28-50mm's a while back: Pentax-M 28-50mm 1:3.5-4.5, Tamron adaptall-2 28-50mm 1:3.5-4.5 CF Macro 07A and Vivitar 28-50mm 1:3.5-4.5 MC Zoom. I found the Pentax the best. Best Build quality and IQ. The Tamron is close behind in IQ, build is a bit wobbly sometimes (got two copies for a reason I can't remember). It is a better lens for close ups than the Pentax. The Vivitar is ok, but a one touch. My copy has a stiff zoom action. IQ is decent but less contrast than either Pentax or Tamron.
http://forum.mflenses.com/28-50mm-zoom-lenses-t83794.html
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eggplant
Joined: 27 May 2020
Posts: 517
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggplant wrote:
I got another one of these slightly different for a tenner, so now even cheaper here.
It came with the CD which had some samples digital images taken, useful for getting an idea of the level of quality marketed with these circa 2004.
The key word is 'marketed' - I don't want to take this as hard fact of how perfect you could get these images. I think they just entrusted a professional photographer and just ok'd good looking results without asking for perfection.
I thought they would be way too low res but once put through the software it's better than I thought it could be. And I need to put myself in the shoes of 2004 digital imaging anyway.
This is all to say - I wanted to square it against my experience where it is hard to get sufficiently deep depth of field in a single image with the mirror filling the frame height, without reaching diffraction territory/image stacking.
I wasn't trying to get 30cm object and infinity in same focus either, just a normal room where the wall and a table closer to me wasn't sufficiently in focus. I remember I needed a 50mm lens on M4/3 to get the mirror filling the frame height, but my other '360 mirror' lens had a longer tube. Maybe this one can do slightly better.
If you look in the metadata of the images you'll find them using a full frame camera, zoom lens @ 105mm, and at f/27! And still running into depth of field issues. So confirming my experience.
What you can also see in the images is the mirror not perfectly aligned, not sure why. Like it was knocked, temporarily skewed or allowed to be loose. I can sort of believe this, because compared to the other one I own, I feel there's more opportunity for it.
There's a sliding 'jacket' with a rubber 'seal' that comes up to cover the mirror held on the stork. It's a nice and welcome idea, but feels like a recipe for making the mirror-on-a-stork loose. And compared to my other one, it is loose/wobbly.
It takes some upwards force to 'seal' it, and you're pressing onto a border very close to the mirror on the top, annotated below (the rubber seal can also touch the mirror). This might not be a problem if the jacket was a precision, sliding component, but it was never going to be (nor needed to be?) - so you can have it at an angle as seen below.
What this means is you can pull the jacket off at an 'angle', and exert some lateral force on the stalk mirror. Same goes for pushing it up too. It's just a stiff motion that implies risk. Maybe it was better new, but it seems like it was meant to be like this to ensure dust doesn't get to it. Maybe I'll find something to tighten the mirror mount up.
Now - "This might not be a problem if the jacket was a precision, sliding component" - it might not have been a problem also if the seal was much closer to the edges of the black mirror mount frame. Maybe that could've also been a problem as being further from the centre would multiply whatever lateral, one-sided force you would exert, but it's more of a problem to me having a stiff rubber seal ram up against the mirror without any easy way to do it gently.
Anyway, here are the sample photos, which all have their metadata untouched (click on them, then 'Download original image' for full res).
               
_________________
UK
Last edited by eggplant on Thu Mar 02, 2023 7:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
Posts: 11063
Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Interesting contraption eggplant!
I have similar https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/spiratone-birds-eye-attachment.html
_________________
☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony ILCE-7RM2, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
Lenses:
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200, Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300, Macro-Takumar 1:4/50, Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm, Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element), Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17, Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500, Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100, Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100, SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
M42 Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 28-70mm F3.5-4.5
Pentax K-mount SMC PENTAX-A ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (151B), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto (Kiron)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eggplant
Joined: 27 May 2020
Posts: 517
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 7:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
eggplant wrote:
Now it is interesting they decided to have an inbuilt (plastic?) protective housing to shoot through, to sort out the dust problem. And I'm curious on durability of the coating, but I have no knowledge to ground this in...
But then you think they probably weren't going to AR coat that whole surface, so does it become a serious problem? From user reviews it doesn't seem mentioned. Too wide of an angle? Too curved of a surface? No idea.
The manual however does mention it:
Perhaps if I had one to hand, I could viably compare it to the ones without a protective plastic tube. Or, I could find a way to 'fashion' one (somehow??)
Those Spiratones seem harder to come across in the UK. Perhaps you could post your experience and a few test shots with which I can compare mine to.
I will mention the stalk on mine is connected to some sort of optical plate but doesn't seem coated...
Also, the rear tube is very shiny plastic, which is not a great idea!
_________________
UK |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RokkorDoctor
Joined: 27 Nov 2021
Posts: 1438
Location: Kent, UK
Expire: 2025-05-01
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 02, 2023 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
RokkorDoctor wrote:
Are these mirrors surface-silvered glass, or polished metal?
If the former, do they have a coating so they can be cleaned safely?
_________________
Mark
SONY A7S, A7RII + dust-sealed modded Novoflex/Fotodiox/Rayqual MD-NEX adapters
Minolta SR-1, SRT-101/303, XD7/XD11, XGM, X700
Bronica SQAi
Ricoh GX100
Minolta majority of all Rokkor SR/AR/MC/MD models made
Sigma 14mm/3.5 for SR mount
Tamron SP 60B 300mm/2.8 (Adaptall)
Samyang T-S 24mm/3.5 (Nikon mount, DIY converted to SR mount)
Schneider-Kreuznach PC-Super-Angulon 28mm/2.8 (SR mount)
Bronica PS 35/40/50/65/80/110/135/150/180/200/250mm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
