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: Thu Jan 09, 2025 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Just bought a Vivitar Close Focusing 135mm f/2.8 for a good price.


i have one and i´ve only used it for portraits, mostly wide open , I should try it for landscapes and close shots


I’ve had the lens in the past. If I remember correctly, it had very good resolution centrally wide open, but corners were not as good for example the Nikkor ai-s 135/2.8. But for close ups, very good.
Maybe I’ll put it to the test later.


I guess that´s why i liked it for portraits, but i am afraid that for landscapes it wouldn´t really stand to some other good ones in this regard (there might be some surprise though - to be honest, the zeiss c/y 135mm 2.8 i find to be way to sharp for the portraits i´m doing, but a very capable lens on most other aspects , still didn´t have time to compare it to the 80-200zeiss zoom yet)


PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2025 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just received this Sigma YS 135mm f1.8 this morning. Optics are perfect but the MD SR mount was firmly wedged on and took a jar opener to remove which I think is why the seller was offering it for a ridiculously low price of £44. Either way I got the YS-MD/SR mount off and replaced it with a YS- M42 one I have laying around and it all seems good to go. Gave it a quick test for infinity and aperture function but I need a deep lens hood for it I think.

Hopefully I can get one for tomorrow and get out to give it a real testing.



PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2025 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It will be almost certainly very soft wide open, so a specialty lens.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 18, 2025 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
It will be almost certainly very soft wide open, so a specialty lens.

Yes it is kinda soft wide open but not as bad as I thought it would be and probably salvageable with some PP. I made a thread with some controlled testing here if you're interested.
https://forum.mflenses.com/sigmatel-ys-135mm-f1-8-t85656.html


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A Zebra Pancolar.

I read that serial numbers below 8552600 contain thorium, but the glass of my lens (Serial 852xxxx) doesn't look yellow at all. The person who I bought it from hadn't used the lens in decades, so it's not likely he "de-yellowed" it.

It's too bad the focus ring is incredibly stiff, I can really feel that the grease has been dried up.


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Baekmann wrote:

It's too bad the focus ring is incredibly stiff, I can really feel that the grease has been dried up.


Is that some "Aus Jena" -problem, I have a Tessar with the same problem?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:


Is that some "Aus Jena" -problem, I have a Tessar with the same problem?


Sonnar and Zeiss were trademarks in West Germany, so the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses (from the East) were re-branded Aus Jena for export units. Myth has it that these export versions are of better quality than the local, regular branded ones, since they kept the good ones to compete in western markets.

https://forum.mflenses.com/czy-sonnar-2-8-180-t84856,highlight,%2Bsonnar.html


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Little-known fact: on many of these "Aus Jena" lenses, if you unscrew the name ring from the front, you'll find another name ring with the original "Carl Zeiss Jena" branding sitting right behind it, which the factory didn't even bother to take off. The "export" lenses quite literally -are- "regular branded" ones.

LittleAlex wrote:
kansalliskala wrote:


Is that some "Aus Jena" -problem, I have a Tessar with the same problem?


Sonnar and Zeiss were trademarks in West Germany, so the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses (from the East) were re-branded Aus Jena for export units. Myth has it that these export versions are of better quality than the local, regular branded ones, since they kept the good ones to compete in western markets.

https://forum.mflenses.com/czy-sonnar-2-8-180-t84856,highlight,%2Bsonnar.html


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 6:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
Little-known fact: on many of these "Aus Jena" lenses, if you unscrew the name ring from the front, you'll find another name ring with the original "Carl Zeiss Jena" branding sitting right behind it, which the factory didn't even bother to take off. The "export" lenses quite literally -are- "regular branded" ones.


Quite possible that for export they had been selecting the best samples. By testing the ordinary production. And then simply adding the "export tags" to it.

In the farmer USSR it was common practice.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not exactly "recently" acquired but the following returned home after more than half a year. They returned from a shop which serviced/repair/CLAed them.

All 5 were not usable for different reasons.

Topcor 58 1.4
Topcor 58 1.8
Pancolar 50 1.8
Auto Takumar 55 1.8
Biotar 58 2

All came back in wonderful state. Plenty to shoot with.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 21, 2025 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Baekmann wrote:
I read that serial numbers below 8552600 contain thorium, but the glass of my lens (Serial 852xxxx) doesn't look yellow at all. The person who I bought it from hadn't used the lens in decades, so it's not likely he "de-yellowed" it.




I would guess it's a non-thorium version. How many aperture blades does it have? The thorium version has eight.

Look at the aperture ring. See the plate where the numbers are printed? On the thorium version the first black grooves in the zebra pattern (the ones right next to the plate) are wider than the rest. The grooves in your image are all the same size.

Anyway, if it's not a thorium version, be thankful. I've never been able to completely clear the brown tint from mine. It's the most stubborn discoloration I've ever seen.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
KEO wrote:
Baekmann wrote:
I read that serial numbers below 8552600 contain thorium, but the glass of my lens (Serial 852xxxx) doesn't look yellow at all. The person who I bought it from hadn't used the lens in decades, so it's not likely he "de-yellowed" it.


I would guess it's a non-thorium version. How many aperture blades does it have? The thorium version has eight.

Look at the aperture ring. See the plate where the numbers are printed? On the thorium version the first black grooves in the zebra pattern (the ones right next to the plate) are wider than the rest. The grooves in your image are all the same size.

Anyway, if it's not a thorium version, be thankful. I've never been able to completely clear the brown tint from mine. It's the most stubborn discoloration I've ever seen.


Thanks for your comment, my lens has only 6 aperture blades indeed. I did a quick color test:

Pentacon wide open vs Pancolar wide open with the exact same camera settings:


And I still have a broken Pancolar lying around with a high serial: '874xxxx' which 100% doesn't contain thorium.



The glass of my 'new' Pancolar (serial 852xxxx) looks the same, so I think the serial number on this site: https://camerapedia.fandom.com/wiki/Radioactive_lenses might be wrong.

But the only way to know 100% is to test it of course, but I don't have a geiger counter.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 4:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I just tested my copy, serial number 8548373, it is quite radioactive (15.06uS/hr at the front, 17.41uS/hr at the rear) and very yellowed. My copy does have the depth of focus marking different to yours, another small difference is that the 3 screws that hold the cover adjacent to the M42 mount, are black on my lens and silver on your copy. Perhaps you lens has been reassembled with the name ring off of another earlier pancolar lens.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 7:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
Little-known fact: on many of these "Aus Jena" lenses, if you unscrew the name ring from the front, you'll find another name ring with the original "Carl Zeiss Jena" branding sitting right behind it, which the factory didn't even bother to take off. The "export" lenses quite literally -are- "regular branded" ones.

LittleAlex wrote:
kansalliskala wrote:


Is that some "Aus Jena" -problem, I have a Tessar with the same problem?


Sonnar and Zeiss were trademarks in West Germany, so the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses (from the East) were re-branded Aus Jena for export units. Myth has it that these export versions are of better quality than the local, regular branded ones, since they kept the good ones to compete in western markets.

https://forum.mflenses.com/czy-sonnar-2-8-180-t84856,highlight,%2Bsonnar.html


ok, now I have to try it Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jan 22, 2025 10:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
I just tested my copy, serial number 8548373, it is quite radioactive (15.06uS/hr at the front, 17.41uS/hr at the rear) and very yellowed. My copy does have the depth of focus marking different to yours, another small difference is that the 3 screws that hold the cover adjacent to the M42 mount, are black on my lens and silver on your copy. Perhaps you lens has been reassembled with the name ring off of another earlier pancolar lens.


That reminds me of those Pentax lenses rejected by the Swiss customs ... I still have to get in contact with the responsible person. Since you have a Geiger counter: Could you measure the radiation levels at the following distances and publish the results here?

* on surface / 0 cm
* 10 cm / 4"
* 25 cm / 10"
* 50 cm / 20"
* 1m / 3,3ft
* 2m / 6.5ft
* 4m / 13ft

That would give us some indications about real-world exposure ... Maybe you could post the results in the dedicated thread:
https://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=85290

Thanks a lot!

S


PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 1:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm 0.95 MFT mount. Hope to try and shoot with it later this week/weekend



PostPosted: Thu Jan 23, 2025 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'll be interested to see your findings. Some of the models have the name ring as an integral part of the front barrel assembly, so they have to swap out the whole barrel, but I've encountered this phenomenon several times on various Tessar and Biotar variants, particularly the silver barreled versions.

kansalliskala wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:
Little-known fact: on many of these "Aus Jena" lenses, if you unscrew the name ring from the front, you'll find another name ring with the original "Carl Zeiss Jena" branding sitting right behind it, which the factory didn't even bother to take off. The "export" lenses quite literally -are- "regular branded" ones.

LittleAlex wrote:
kansalliskala wrote:


Is that some "Aus Jena" -problem, I have a Tessar with the same problem?


Sonnar and Zeiss were trademarks in West Germany, so the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses (from the East) were re-branded Aus Jena for export units. Myth has it that these export versions are of better quality than the local, regular branded ones, since they kept the good ones to compete in western markets.

https://forum.mflenses.com/czy-sonnar-2-8-180-t84856,highlight,%2Bsonnar.html


ok, now I have to try it Smile


PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 11:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
I'll be interested to see your findings. Some of the models have the name ring as an integral part of the front barrel assembly, so they have to swap out the whole barrel, but I've encountered this phenomenon several times on various Tessar and Biotar variants, particularly the silver barreled versions.

kansalliskala wrote:
BrianSVP wrote:
Little-known fact: on many of these "Aus Jena" lenses, if you unscrew the name ring from the front, you'll find another name ring with the original "Carl Zeiss Jena" branding sitting right behind it, which the factory didn't even bother to take off. The "export" lenses quite literally -are- "regular branded" ones.

LittleAlex wrote:
kansalliskala wrote:


Is that some "Aus Jena" -problem, I have a Tessar with the same problem?


Sonnar and Zeiss were trademarks in West Germany, so the Carl Zeiss Jena lenses (from the East) were re-branded Aus Jena for export units. Myth has it that these export versions are of better quality than the local, regular branded ones, since they kept the good ones to compete in western markets.

https://forum.mflenses.com/czy-sonnar-2-8-180-t84856,highlight,%2Bsonnar.html


ok, now I have to try it Smile


Just can't get it off. So I put it into digital use. Wink Very Happy


PostPosted: Fri Jan 24, 2025 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Baekmann wrote:
A Zebra Pancolar.

I read that serial numbers below 8552600 contain thorium, but the glass of my lens (Serial 852xxxx) doesn't look yellow at all. The person who I bought it from hadn't used the lens in decades, so it's not likely he "de-yellowed" it.


KEO wrote:

I would guess it's a non-thorium version. How many aperture blades does it have? The thorium version has eight.
Look at the aperture ring. See the plate where the numbers are printed? On the thorium version the first black grooves in the zebra pattern (the ones right next to the plate) are wider than the rest. The grooves in your image are all the same size.


Alun Thomas wrote:
I just tested my copy, serial number 8548373, it is quite radioactive (15.06uS/hr at the front, 17.41uS/hr at the rear) and very yellowed. My copy does have the depth of focus marking different to yours, another small difference is that the 3 screws that hold the cover adjacent to the M42 mount, are black on my lens and silver on your copy. Perhaps you lens has been reassembled with the name ring off of another earlier pancolar lens.


Baekmann wrote:

And I still have a broken Pancolar lying around with a high serial: '874xxxx' which 100% doesn't contain thorium.


Interesting information.

Zeissikonveb.de is listing only three optical computations which are closely related:
1) The first one 1954 with the outer four lenses made from Schott SK21 (nD 1.6583 / v=57.1)
2) The second one 1960 one with the outer four lenses made of SK24 (nD 1.6636 / v=56.4)
3) and the third one 1969 with the two front lenses made from SSK5 (nD 1.6584 / v=50.9)

The two central lenses always were SF5 and F16 glasses.
A quick search didn't result in any information about the chemical composition of these glasses.

My own Pancolars 2/50 have SN 661xxxx and 675xxxx, and no yellowing at all. Probably not radioactive.

S


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 8:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Technically not a MF lens, but very usable as one: Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 aspherical.
Optically not perfect into the far corners, but overall IQ pretty good IMO, and mechanical quality is great (metal built, smooth focus).
You can find them really cheap; I paid 125 € for a near perfect one.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Technically not a MF lens, but very usable as one: Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 aspherical.
Optically not perfect into the far corners, but overall IQ pretty good IMO, and mechanical quality is great (metal built, smooth focus).
You can find them really cheap; I paid 125 € for a near perfect one.


Interesting option for this budget, what mount did you get? Sony A/Nikon/Pentax I am curious about your results, as you already have (tested) the voigtlander ultra wide with very good results


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Technically not a MF lens, but very usable as one: Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 aspherical.
Optically not perfect into the far corners, but overall IQ pretty good IMO, and mechanical quality is great (metal built, smooth focus).
You can find them really cheap; I paid 125 € for a near perfect one.


Interesting option for this budget, what mount did you get? Sony A/Nikon/Pentax I am curious about your results, as you already have (tested) the voigtlander ultra wide with very good results


It’s Nikon mount. Haven’t really tested it properly yet, but i don’t have the Voigtlander anymore because I hardly use ultrawide.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Technically not a MF lens, but very usable as one: Tokina AF 17mm f/3.5 aspherical.
Optically not perfect into the far corners, but overall IQ pretty good IMO, and mechanical quality is great (metal built, smooth focus).
You can find them really cheap; I paid 125 € for a near perfect one.


Interesting option for this budget, what mount did you get? Sony A/Nikon/Pentax I am curious about your results, as you already have (tested) the voigtlander ultra wide with very good results


It’s Nikon mount. Haven’t really tested it properly yet, but i don’t have the Voigtlander anymore because I hardly use ultrawide.


Having tested that Voigtlander still can give us a clue about real difference in performance between both lenses, I'm not a fan of such ultra wide neither, prefer to stay in the 24-28mm range most of the times; I guess , going wider is just a whole different perspective that I'm not familiar with yet


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a Tominon 135mm lens which I found to be rather good.

I recently bought a copy of a book by Enrico Savazzi "Digital Photgraphy for Science", 2011. It is dated in some ways, for example treating SLRs as the main choice of photographers. However, some of the content is not dated.

I found this list useful:

Tominon:

17mm f4 optimised for 10x-34x
35mm f4.5 “ 5x-15x
50mm f3.5 “ 3.5x-10x
75mm f4.5 “ 1.5x-7x
105mm f4.5 “ 1x-5x
135mm f4.5 “ 0.75x-3x

All M40 x 0.75 mounts (Large format). I am aware of the need for a long extension and have, and use, other lenses needing one.

So I did an Ebay search for the 35mm, unsuccessfully.

So I just searched "Tominon". This produced a wooden case containing all but the 135mm at a very acceptable price. It will shortly be on the way to me.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 25, 2025 12:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
I have a Tominon 135mm lens which I found to be rather good.

I recently bought a copy of a book by Enrico Savazzi "Digital Photgraphy for Science", 2011. It is dated in some ways, for example treating SLRs as the main choice of photographers. However, some of the content is not dated.

I found this list useful:

Tominon:

17mm f4 optimised for 10x-34x
35mm f4.5 “ 5x-15x
50mm f3.5 “ 3.5x-10x
75mm f4.5 “ 1.5x-7x
105mm f4.5 “ 1x-5x
135mm f4.5 “ 0.75x-3x

All M40 x 0.75 mounts (Large format). I am aware of the need for a long extension and have, and use, other lenses needing one.

So I did an Ebay search for the 35mm, unsuccessfully.

So I just searched "Tominon". This produced a wooden case containing all but the 135mm at a very acceptable price. It will shortly be on the way to me.


Yeah, they are pretty good lenses - congrats! The 17 mm and 35 mm are the most interesting in my opinion. I‘ve included most of them in my Tomioka article:

https://deltalenses.com/tomioka-industrial-lenses/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 321, 322, 323, 324, 325, 326  Next
Page 322 of 326