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: Fri Mar 31, 2023 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Doc Sharptail wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Minolta MD 100mm f/4. Don't know why I ever sold mine in the first place, but I'm glad I found one again.


That could be a physically tiny specimen.
I have the nikon "E" 100mm f2.8 here, and it's not very big.

-D.S.


Sorry, it's the macro.


No problem- it just makes this lens way more interesting!

Looking forward to hearing more on this.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2023 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


I grabbed this Paxette lens from a local auction site, it looks like the front element could use a clean.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 4:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those Telenars are tiny, pretty things that feel very well made. Sadkly my copy just wasn't sharp, maybe I had a lemon?


PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2023 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Those Telenars are tiny, pretty things that feel very well made. Sadkly my copy just wasn't sharp, maybe I had a lemon?


I'll post a couple of pics when it arrives. It'll be my third Roeschlein Kreuznach lens, I have to admit neither of the others were sharpness demons either. The attraction seems mostly to be rarity for some of their lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote


Description:
Quote:
Sigma interchangeable lens
18mmF/3.5
In very good condition, like new


This is getting to be a collection of Sigma's 18mm lenses- I have the original 18mm f3.5, 18mm f2.8 (filtermatic, 1980~), and now this. Just missing the 18mm f2.8 different design made from 1981 and the 18mm f3.2 made after the original. I could go for the non-filtermatic designs if I really wanted to, but I think(?) this covers all the optical versions. However my 18mm f3.5 really does have unusable levels of spherical aberration wide open, I do wonder about it...

I really lack a full frame camera to do tests on, but honestly I have had some decent luck with the speedbooster ultra actually 'improving' the relative performance of these SLR ultrawides. So I think I will do the comparison anyway. As long as this isn't Minolta A mount...









Description:

Quote:
Tokina camera len 25-50mm Cosinon 135mm lens.

Loft find untested so listed as spares or repairs, I have taken photos to best describe as I haven’t a clue about them , they look in good shape with no scratches to lenses and turn smoothly,


Got this for the 25-50mm, thankfully in P/K mount and in good nick. It will be interesting to give it a try. I have a good condition Sirius 18-28mm it could be compared to.

That Cosinon seems a bit 'uncommon' but looks to have been the 135mm lens that was rebranded under Exakta etc. Still.




Rear of the 25-50mm:

Rear of the 135mm:



PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:

This is getting to be a collection of Sigma's 18mm lenses... However my 18mm f3.5 really does have unusable levels of spherical aberration wide open, I do wonder about it...



I remember a Sigma MF 18mm lens I was about to buy on a local flea market, some years ago. The price was decent (maybe CHF 20.-- or so), but it was so bad that still I felt it was kind of "too expensive". I didn't buy. Probably it was a MF 2.8/18mm, but I'm not completely sure after all these years.

S


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
eggplant wrote:

This is getting to be a collection of Sigma's 18mm lenses... However my 18mm f3.5 really does have unusable levels of spherical aberration wide open, I do wonder about it...



I remember a Sigma MF 18mm lens I was about to buy on a local flea market, some years ago. The price was decent (maybe CHF 20.-- or so), but it was so bad that still I felt it was kind of "too expensive". I didn't buy. Probably it was a MF 2.8/18mm, but I'm not completely sure after all these years.

S


ref for sigma 18mm http://forum.mflenses.com/spiratone-18mm-rectilinear-three-versions-t32670.html


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2023 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
eggplant wrote:

This is getting to be a collection of Sigma's 18mm lenses... However my 18mm f3.5 really does have unusable levels of spherical aberration wide open, I do wonder about it...



I remember a Sigma MF 18mm lens I was about to buy on a local flea market, some years ago. The price was decent (maybe CHF 20.-- or so), but it was so bad that still I felt it was kind of "too expensive". I didn't buy. Probably it was a MF 2.8/18mm, but I'm not completely sure after all these years.

S


Did it look anything like this?



If not, it will be the 18mm f2.8 made after 1981~.

But, whilst adopting the Sigma lens appearance style of the time, I'm finding two different fixed hoods - one taller than the other (The XR Rikenon, like many of their lenses at the time, were borrowed from Sigma).


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Contax S + Biotar 2/58



PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eggplant wrote:
stevemark wrote:

I remember a Sigma MF 18mm lens I was about to buy on a local flea market, some years ago. The price was decent (maybe CHF 20.-- or so), but it was so bad that still I felt it was kind of "too expensive". I didn't buy. Probably it was a MF 2.8/18mm, but I'm not completely sure after all these years.

S


Did it look anything like this?



Pretty sure it was that one.

D. P. wrote:
Contax S + Biotar 2/58


That's a nice peace of history! Mine is an early sample of the Contax S series - from the first production run with a different shutter mechanism (unreliable and prone to defects). In addition it has a accessory sgoe which is very well made and almost looks like a factory modification:



S

EDIT: here's a lot of interesting informatioin about the first shutter mechanism of the Contax S, and about the later mechanism for the Contax D: https://zeissikonveb.de/start/geschichte/Contax-S.html

Many Contax S cameras were re-built with the (then new) shutter of the Contax D since the original shutter was that unreliable. Even the CIA noticed that the famous Zeiss engineer Winzenburg had failed when constructing the first Contax S shutter ...

Last edited by stevemark on Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:40 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's not a lot wrong with the Sigma 2.8/18mm, it is what it is - a relatively cheap ultrawide and it does that job pretty well, especially if you apply some PP.




Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:53 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There's not a lot wrong with the Sigma 2.8/18mm, it is what it is - a relatively cheap ultrawide and it does that job pretty well, especially if you apply some PP.


Do you own the lens? Show us some images Wink

S


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There's not a lot wrong with the Sigma 2.8/18mm, it is what it is - a relatively cheap ultrawide and it does that job pretty well, especially if you apply some PP.


Do you own the lens? Show us some images Wink

S


Sigh, I have three copies, one in Sony AF, one in Canon AF and a MF one.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
oops ...

=> Ian, stop cheating us! <=.

You have done this before - remember your "Zeiss Sonnar 3.5/135mm images", which were in fact taken with your Minolta AF 4/70-210mm lens ...?

The first image you have shown above was taken with the Sigma 2.8-4/17-35mm EX Aspherical (2003).
The second was taken with an (unspecified) AF 3.5/18mm lens, probably the Sigma AF 3.5/18mm from 1993.




Both these lenses are 16 and 26 (!!) years newer (and way better, of course) than the Sigma 2.8/18mm (1977) I was talking about. I am pretty sure you know about this.

This forum is meant to share meaningful and true information.
If you repeatedly make misleading statements, you not only undermine your own credibility, but also the credibility of this website.

I very much hope you understand that lying, cheating and swearing is not the way to go.

With respect,
Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PMSL, once again your childish attempts to troll result in you making a complete and utter fool of yourself.

eggplant just bought this lens, which is the same as the Sony and Canon AF ones I have.

My reply about the Sigma 18mm was directed to eggplant, but you stuck your nose in because you sense an opportunity to be a trolling twat once again.

You're a clown of the highest order, a total idiot, and worst of all, your photos are among the most boring and unimaginative drivel I have ever seen.

So go away back to your OCD squinting at the extreme corners of frames and let the adults discuss things in peace.

eggplant wrote:


Description:
Quote:
Sigma interchangeable lens
18mmF/3.5
In very good condition, like new


This is getting to be a collection of Sigma's 18mm lenses- I have the original 18mm f3.5, 18mm f2.8 (filtermatic, 1980~), and now this. Just missing the 18mm f2.8 different design made from 1981 and the 18mm f3.2 made after the original. I could go for the non-filtermatic designs if I really wanted to, but I think(?) this covers all the optical versions. However my 18mm f3.5 really does have unusable levels of spherical aberration wide open, I do wonder about it...

I really lack a full frame camera to do tests on, but honestly I have had some decent luck with the speedbooster ultra actually 'improving' the relative performance of these SLR ultrawides. So I think I will do the comparison anyway. As long as this isn't Minolta A mount...


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 7:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


=> Ian, stop cheating us! <=.

The first image you have shown above was taken with the Sigma 2.8-4/17-35mm EX Aspherical (2003).
The second was taken with an (unspecified) AF 3.5/18mm lens, probably the Sigma AF 3.5/18mm from 1993.


This is hilarious, I don't know what you're upto but it's so pathetic.

I don't own a 17-35 zoom, never have. Closest I have is the Tokina 20-35

The two images were both taken with the Sigma AF 3.5/18 from February 1992:

https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/sigma-18mm-f3-5-launched-february-1992/

They were taken with the same lens on the same day - 18th October 2020. about 15mins and 100 yards apart...

So your software is clearly a load of shite as it can't properly identify the same lens in two different instances.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's the camera that doesn't recognize the lens. Because Sigma reverse engineered the protocol it is giving of fake codes to the camera.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
It's the camera that doesn't recognize the lens. Because Sigma reverse engineered the protocol it is giving of fake codes to the camera.


This is true.

But don't spoil things for Inspector Clouseau over there, left him think he has uncovered some grand conspiracy....



PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So, back to latest lens to the collection.
Well, mine is for a large format camera that I have started making.
It covers 4X5 easily and may well cover 8X10 with very little movement.
Fujinon W 180mm f5.6

#1


PostPosted: Mon Apr 03, 2023 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Ian, keep things straight Wink!

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There's not a lot wrong with the Sigma 2.8/18mm, it is what it is - a relatively cheap ultrawide and it does that job pretty well, especially if you apply some PP.


You clearly were talking about the 2.8/18mm lens (an older design from 1977), while publishing images taken with a much later (and much better) AF 3.5/18mm lens (1992), pretending the 2.8/18mm was a rather good lens. Which it isn't - it's probably the most crappy superwide I've ever been using ...

Sigma indeed was re-using the Minolta Lens ID code for the MinAF 2.8/24mm (ID 25661) for its Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 EX Aspherical lens. It seems they previously have been using the code MinAF 2.8/24mm (ID 25661) also for their earlier Sigma AF 3.5/18mm lens, but I have no confirmation for this.

S


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 12:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aah, so this entire facical humilation of yourself was due to a simple slip of the fingers where I typed 2.8 instead of 3.5.

You really are an utter clown and should apologise to everyone for your latest infantile outburst.

Do you have no shame? You seem more than happy to contunually humiliate yourself.

In short, you're a complete and utter prick.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gentlemen, can we please stop this bickering and name calling.
It is unbecoming, and out of place.
Take your differences off the forum and pursue them via PM's
We are all more than a little tired of them.
Tom


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 1:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

here's a lot of interesting informatioin about the first shutter mechanism of the Contax S, and about the later mechanism for the Contax D: https://zeissikonveb.de/start/geschichte/Contax-S.html
Many Contax S cameras were re-built with the (then new) shutter of the Contax D since the original shutter was that unreliable. Even the CIA noticed that the famous Zeiss engineer Winzenburg had failed when constructing the first Contax S shutter ...


Thanks for the link! Very interesting information.
I have both cameras (S and D), and it seems to me that both of them are not the standard for reliability.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
Gentlemen, can we please stop this bickering and name calling.
It is unbecoming, and out of place.
Take your differences off the forum and pursue them via PM's
We are all more than a little tired of them.
Tom


Not as tired of it as I am, I can assure you.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 04, 2023 3:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
Gentlemen, can we please stop this bickering and name calling.
It is unbecoming, and out of place.
Take your differences off the forum and pursue them via PM's
We are all more than a little tired of them.
Tom


I find it all quite hilarious
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 260, 261, 262 ... 315, 316, 317  Next
Page 261 of 317