View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Doc Sharptail
Joined: 23 Nov 2020 Posts: 1228 Location: Winnipeg Canada
|
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Doc Sharptail wrote:
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. _________________
D-810, F2, FTN.
35mm f2 O.C. nikkor
50 f2 H nikkor, 50 f 1.4 AI-s, 135 f3.5 Q,
50 f2 K nikkor 2x, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 35-105 3.5-4.5 A/I-s, 200mm f4 Micro A/I, partial list.
"Ain't no half-way" -S.R.V.
"Oh Yeah... Alright" -Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alun Thomas
Joined: 20 Aug 2018 Posts: 670 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 1:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7602 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 11:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
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 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...
_________________ The best lens is the one you have with you.
https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DrBB
Joined: 26 Mar 2014 Posts: 119 Location: Croatia
|
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DrBB wrote:
KMZ ZK 5cm f2 (Contax/Kiev)
Petri 55mm f1.7 EE (petri) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4101 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Oct 28, 2024 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark 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 |
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Phalbert
Joined: 17 May 2009 Posts: 385 Location: Namibia
|
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phalbert wrote:
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. M42 mount. For about $ 110.
To add to my 500s from crap to good enough...
_________________ 🙋 My wishlist: Titan or Idaho 135/1,8 Nikon Df Nikkor 105/1,8 35/1,4 85/1,4
My dream lenses: Zuiko 180/2 Prototype Zuiko 85/1,4
Zeiss CY: 55/1,2 85/1,2
Astro Berlin 250/2 Canon EF 50/1,0 85/1,2
Nikkor 105/1,4 28/1,4
My stolen stuff: Zuiko 24/2 #106874; Zuiko 35-80/2,8 #102180; Zuiko 35/2 #119168; Zuiko 90/2 macro #102858; Zuiko x1,4 converter #102019; Tamron 17/3,5 #400567; Tamron 400/4 #80407; Soligor 135/2 #17506600 Sigma 28/1,8 #1001124 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
55
Joined: 13 May 2013 Posts: 718 Location: U.S.
Expire: 2022-06-15
|
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4101 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark 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? |
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vintage_Photographer
Joined: 10 Jun 2024 Posts: 84
|
Posted: Tue Oct 29, 2024 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vintage_Photographer 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? |
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. _________________ Current gear list:
Mamiya 645 TL Pro with 80mm and 110mm Sekor C, Rolleiflex SL35 with Rollei HFT 50mm/1.8, Rolleinar 135/2.8, 200/3.5, Pentacon 28/2.8 and Horizont 35/2.8, Minolta SRT100X, Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5, Rokkor 100-300mm f/5.6.
Fuji X-E2 and X-T4 with Fuji 18-55 AF, 18-135 AF, TTArtisans 27/2.8 AF, 7.5/2 Fisheye, 35/1.4, 7Artisans 18/6.3, Samyang 12mm/2 AF, Tamron SP90 (on Nikon adapter), Ilford Sportsman, Zeiss IKon Contina II and Zeiss Ikoflex 1 TLR. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Mir
Joined: 07 Feb 2011 Posts: 984 Location: Montreal, Canada
Expire: 2017-09-30
|
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mir wrote:
LTM 1959 Yashica Yashinon 1.8/5cm
43∅ - 9 blades - MDF 105cm _________________ "Obsta principiis, finem respice"
"There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness"
MISC: Tamron SP 35-80 (01A), Auto Chinon Tomioka 1.4/55, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90, Tamron SP 5,6/300 (54B)
ZEISS: WG Distagon 2.8/25, WG Distagon 2.8/35 HFT, WG Planar HFT 1.4/50, Ultron 1.8/50, WG Sonnar 2.8/85, WG Sonnar HFT 2.8/135
VOIGTLÄNDER : Ultron Aspherical 1.8/21, Ultron 2/28, Nokton Aspherical 1.2/35, Nokton Classic 1.4/40, Nokton 1.2/50, Nokton Aspherical 1.5/50, Color-Heliar 2.5/75
MINOLTA: MD 3.5/35-70 Macro, MD 1.2/50, MC Rokkor-X 1.2/58, MD Macro 3.5/50
LEITZ: SUMMICRON-R 2/35 (II), SUMMICRON-R 2/50 (II), TELE ELMARIT-M 2,8/90 (Thin)
CANON RF: 3.5/25, 2.8/28, 2/35, 1.2/50, 1.4/50, 1.5/50, Serenar 1.8/50, 2/85, 2/100, 3.5/100
LTM : YASHICA YASHINON 1.8/5cm, FUJINON L 2/5cm, CHIYODA KOGAKU SUPER ROKKOR 1.8/5cm, CHIYOKO SUPER ROKKOR C 2/5cm, TOKYO KOGAKU Topcor-S 2/5cm, Nippon Kogaku NIKKOR-H.C 2/5cm, KMZ Jupiter-8 2/5cm
DKL : VOIGTLÄNDER SKOPAREX 3,4/35, SEPTON 2/50, DYNAREX 3,4/90, SUPER-DYNAREX 4/135, Scheiner-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 1,9/50
And a small Minolta AF set: 2.8/20, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 2/100, 4.5/100-200
@we3fotography
@7plus_pictures
@_whats.that.car_ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Phalbert
Joined: 17 May 2009 Posts: 385 Location: Namibia
|
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ 🙋 My wishlist: Titan or Idaho 135/1,8 Nikon Df Nikkor 105/1,8 35/1,4 85/1,4
My dream lenses: Zuiko 180/2 Prototype Zuiko 85/1,4
Zeiss CY: 55/1,2 85/1,2
Astro Berlin 250/2 Canon EF 50/1,0 85/1,2
Nikkor 105/1,4 28/1,4
My stolen stuff: Zuiko 24/2 #106874; Zuiko 35-80/2,8 #102180; Zuiko 35/2 #119168; Zuiko 90/2 macro #102858; Zuiko x1,4 converter #102019; Tamron 17/3,5 #400567; Tamron 400/4 #80407; Soligor 135/2 #17506600 Sigma 28/1,8 #1001124 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
55
Joined: 13 May 2013 Posts: 718 Location: U.S.
Expire: 2022-06-15
|
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
55 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11097 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Wed Oct 30, 2024 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
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! (inquiring minds want to know) _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ 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 |
|
|
Alun Thomas
Joined: 20 Aug 2018 Posts: 670 Location: New Zealand
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alun Thomas wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vintage_Photographer
Joined: 10 Jun 2024 Posts: 84
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
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....... _________________ Current gear list:
Mamiya 645 TL Pro with 80mm and 110mm Sekor C, Rolleiflex SL35 with Rollei HFT 50mm/1.8, Rolleinar 135/2.8, 200/3.5, Pentacon 28/2.8 and Horizont 35/2.8, Minolta SRT100X, Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5, Rokkor 100-300mm f/5.6.
Fuji X-E2 and X-T4 with Fuji 18-55 AF, 18-135 AF, TTArtisans 27/2.8 AF, 7.5/2 Fisheye, 35/1.4, 7Artisans 18/6.3, Samyang 12mm/2 AF, Tamron SP90 (on Nikon adapter), Ilford Sportsman, Zeiss IKon Contina II and Zeiss Ikoflex 1 TLR. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kasperbergholt
Joined: 05 Jun 2023 Posts: 38 Location: Copenhagen, Denmark
Expire: 2024-03-20
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
kasperbergholt wrote:
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.
_________________ -- Kasper Bergholt
Zeiss Milvus 55mm 2.0; Nikon D3; Nikkor AF 2.8 55mm. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Phalbert
Joined: 17 May 2009 Posts: 385 Location: Namibia
|
Posted: Thu Oct 31, 2024 1:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Phalbert wrote:
Please share! (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. _________________ 🙋 My wishlist: Titan or Idaho 135/1,8 Nikon Df Nikkor 105/1,8 35/1,4 85/1,4
My dream lenses: Zuiko 180/2 Prototype Zuiko 85/1,4
Zeiss CY: 55/1,2 85/1,2
Astro Berlin 250/2 Canon EF 50/1,0 85/1,2
Nikkor 105/1,4 28/1,4
My stolen stuff: Zuiko 24/2 #106874; Zuiko 35-80/2,8 #102180; Zuiko 35/2 #119168; Zuiko 90/2 macro #102858; Zuiko x1,4 converter #102019; Tamron 17/3,5 #400567; Tamron 400/4 #80407; Soligor 135/2 #17506600 Sigma 28/1,8 #1001124 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3247 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sat Nov 02, 2024 7:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
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. _________________ 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 |
|
|
Mir
Joined: 07 Feb 2011 Posts: 984 Location: Montreal, Canada
Expire: 2017-09-30
|
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mir wrote:
Voigtländer Nokton 1.2/50 VM _________________ "Obsta principiis, finem respice"
"There is a fine line between hobby and mental illness"
MISC: Tamron SP 35-80 (01A), Auto Chinon Tomioka 1.4/55, Tokina AT-X 2.5/90, Tamron SP 5,6/300 (54B)
ZEISS: WG Distagon 2.8/25, WG Distagon 2.8/35 HFT, WG Planar HFT 1.4/50, Ultron 1.8/50, WG Sonnar 2.8/85, WG Sonnar HFT 2.8/135
VOIGTLÄNDER : Ultron Aspherical 1.8/21, Ultron 2/28, Nokton Aspherical 1.2/35, Nokton Classic 1.4/40, Nokton 1.2/50, Nokton Aspherical 1.5/50, Color-Heliar 2.5/75
MINOLTA: MD 3.5/35-70 Macro, MD 1.2/50, MC Rokkor-X 1.2/58, MD Macro 3.5/50
LEITZ: SUMMICRON-R 2/35 (II), SUMMICRON-R 2/50 (II), TELE ELMARIT-M 2,8/90 (Thin)
CANON RF: 3.5/25, 2.8/28, 2/35, 1.2/50, 1.4/50, 1.5/50, Serenar 1.8/50, 2/85, 2/100, 3.5/100
LTM : YASHICA YASHINON 1.8/5cm, FUJINON L 2/5cm, CHIYODA KOGAKU SUPER ROKKOR 1.8/5cm, CHIYOKO SUPER ROKKOR C 2/5cm, TOKYO KOGAKU Topcor-S 2/5cm, Nippon Kogaku NIKKOR-H.C 2/5cm, KMZ Jupiter-8 2/5cm
DKL : VOIGTLÄNDER SKOPAREX 3,4/35, SEPTON 2/50, DYNAREX 3,4/90, SUPER-DYNAREX 4/135, Scheiner-Kreuznach Retina-Xenon 1,9/50
And a small Minolta AF set: 2.8/20, 1.4/35, 1.4/50, 2/100, 4.5/100-200
@we3fotography
@7plus_pictures
@_whats.that.car_ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 11097 Location: California
Expire: 2025-04-11
|
Posted: Sun Nov 03, 2024 11:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
visualopsins wrote:
Phalbert wrote: |
Please share! (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 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 |
|
|
LittleAlex
Joined: 27 Nov 2008 Posts: 1769 Location: L'vov (Western Ukraine)
|
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 2:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
LittleAlex wrote:
Phalbert wrote: |
MOG 500MM F 5,6 Good condition. |
At the politically incorrect 60-x it had been called "girls-watching lens" _________________ "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept" - © H. Cartier Bresson |
|
Back to top |
|
|
mouks
Joined: 22 Jun 2024 Posts: 35 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
mouks wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4101 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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 . 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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Vintage_Photographer
Joined: 10 Jun 2024 Posts: 84
|
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Vintage_Photographer wrote:
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?. _________________ Current gear list:
Mamiya 645 TL Pro with 80mm and 110mm Sekor C, Rolleiflex SL35 with Rollei HFT 50mm/1.8, Rolleinar 135/2.8, 200/3.5, Pentacon 28/2.8 and Horizont 35/2.8, Minolta SRT100X, Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5, Rokkor 100-300mm f/5.6.
Fuji X-E2 and X-T4 with Fuji 18-55 AF, 18-135 AF, TTArtisans 27/2.8 AF, 7.5/2 Fisheye, 35/1.4, 7Artisans 18/6.3, Samyang 12mm/2 AF, Tamron SP90 (on Nikon adapter), Ilford Sportsman, Zeiss IKon Contina II and Zeiss Ikoflex 1 TLR. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4101 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 04, 2024 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|