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

Which lenses would deserve a remake?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:37 am    Post subject: Which lenses would deserve a remake? Reply with quote
Hi!
Some lenses like the Helios 40-2 85/1.5 and a retrostyle Petzval for DSLR where "restartet" on the market.
Do you know any further lenses (or kind of lenses) which would make you happy to get as a remake?
No matter if AF or MF, old or young etc.

For example I would love to hear that Sony would reboot the really tiny but highly praised Minolta MD 250/5.6 Mirror lens (maybe as AF for E-Mount?)


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 2:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The original Hologon 15mm 3 lens type & Kern Makro Switar Apochromat deserve higly to be rebuild again! Older Summilux 35 aspherical (the original type, not the one with pressed asph.lenses!) too. Zeiss 2/85mm for M-mount. Nikon classics in brass & glass, not the plastic bullshitt from today.
Novoflex makro 35mm Noflexar. ....and some other...


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Simple one- Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Maybe too similar to the Helios, but the 75/1.5 Biotar is IMHO more desirable.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 3:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Funny, I was going to say a triplet, but not the Trioplan 2.8/100, which to me, is an example of a bad triplet. I'd much rather see one of the great ones like the Triotar 4/85 and 4/135. I've yet to find a 2.8 or 2.9 triplet that was any good to be honest, f4 seems to be the maximum for the triplet design without sacrificing too much quality.

I'd also like to see a full range of Sonnars and some dialytes like the Meyer Helioplan and Cooke Aviar.

Just about any of the old classic designs for primes would be infinitely preferable to the modern zoom lenses which are mostly junk.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
With the Trioplan, like the Petzvals, the point is that "its so bad its good".
As for modern lenses, the wide zooms are mostly better than the old primes.
And long tele modern lenses, even the more expensive zooms, are much superior to the old simple ones.
The cheap modern zooms are not better, true, and often worse than the classic primes.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 4:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd love to see the Topcor's updated with newer coatings, better grips, and a better mount than Exakta.
Rokkor 58/1.2 & 28/2.5 with newer coatings.
nFD 50/1.2L, 85/1.2L, & 80-200/4L but in EF mount.
Contax.... Nuff said.
Leica R... Ditto.
A FF digital OM1 with manual and AF lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Embarassed Forgot:

Thambar & Imagon!


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the Thambar, please. And the 73/1.9 Hektor (which I've never actually been able to try) and the 85/1.5 Summarex.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
With the Trioplan, like the Petzvals, the point is that "its so bad its good".
As for modern lenses, the wide zooms are mostly better than the old primes.
And long tele modern lenses, even the more expensive zooms, are much superior to the old simple ones.
The cheap modern zooms are not better, true, and often worse than the classic primes.


When I called them junk I was referring to the excreable almost disposable build quality. Even mega expensive stuff like the Canon L 1.2/50 which is held together with sticky tape.

Honestly, most modern lenses are such nasty cheap plastic trash that even if they were a lot better in IQ than an old lens I still wouldn't want them.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
not one single lens

everything in it´s time, only fashion repeats itself all 20 years


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
We maybe able remake the lens but not the historical value. Wink

P.S. The optical glasses for the old lenses may not available anymore.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5? =)


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 12:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
We all know we're only dreaming . . . but I've got to say I can't really agree with Ian when he says
Honestly, most modern lenses are such nasty cheap plastic trash that even if they were a lot better in IQ than an old lens I still wouldn't want them.

I have some very nice and well regarded (and now costly) older lenses. I also have some dirt-cheap modern cheap plastic ones that are optically undeniably 'better' than some of the Old And Great Ones. My almost-all-plastic AF Pentax 50-200 zoom has a wobbly barrel when set to 200mm and it rattles if I shake it, but the results are simply first class. And - Glory of Glories - it and my similarly plastic AF 35/2.4 (which will give the much vaunted 35 Flektogon a run for its money any time) weigh next to nothing in a bag when I go walking. I'm happy to own such nasty things.

If Ian's taken apart as many old lenses as I reckon he has, he's probably got a good idea of how poorly made many of them actually were Wink


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5? =)



This!

What an incredible lens and I will probably never own one because it fetches up to 3x it's original RRP!

I have a 90mm F/3.5 APO Lanthar and it's a wonderful little lens so I can only imagine what a joy the 125mm is to use!


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd like to have AF Tair-3, in more modern and lighter body.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
We maybe able remake the lens but not the historical value. Wink

P.S. The optical glasses for the old lenses may not available anymore.


This echoes my belief in that the reason the classic lenses look so good is down to the recipe that they used for the glass. German glass from the 50s and 60s is in a world of its own, often made with ingredients such as lead and rare earth elements. Reproducing glass like this would probably not be possible in the modern world because of RoHS directives or some other restriction imposed by a nanny state.

Then again construction quality would be horrendously expensive in the modern age. Take for example the Schneider Xenar for Retina which can be bought quite cheaply but would cost a lot to make today. Here are someones thoughts about the Xenar

"Xenar f2.8 50mm noted 1956 from Schneider. This is a full quality item in a heavy
chromed brass mount and well above the 3 glass lenses in performance- and original price. For most purposes
it matches the Zeiss Tessar as a top grade lens and finding differences would be a laboratory test job."


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Of course the Xenar matches the Tessar - they use the same design! Actually, the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 2.8/50 is better than either the Xenar or Tessar 2.8/50s, probably due to the rare earth glasses it uses. Albrecht Tronnier recalculated the Voigtlander lens designs in the 1948-50 time period to take account of new glass types and for a few years, until Zeiss and Leitz got their act together post-war, Voigtlander were making the best 35mm format lenses in the world.

The point about the banned glass types is valid, additives like Thorium and Lanthanum are banned. Lanthanum glass as used by companies like Zeiss and Voigtlander can only be matched in refractive index today by exotic stuff like fluorite.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fatdeeman wrote:
Arkku wrote:
APO Lanthar 125mm f/2.5? =)



This!

What an incredible lens and I will probably never own one because it fetches up to 3x it's original RRP!

I have a 90mm F/3.5 APO Lanthar and it's a wonderful little lens so I can only imagine what a joy the 125mm is to use!

Add me to the list, I want the 125 quite bad.

Here's a question... Are there any APO wide angle lenses?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The "dream lens", Canon 50mm f/0.95 LTM Wink


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lightshow wrote:

Here's a question... Are there any APO wide angle lenses?


Rodenstock 35mm f/4.5 Apo-Grandagon (up to 6x9 coverage I think, so VERY wide)

But I don't know any serious APOs with <50mm focal length for 35mm

I heard that Leitz is currently developing an Apo-Summicron 35/2


PostPosted: Mon Mar 31, 2014 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Almost all deserve it, even Domiplan LOL


PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 1:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The point about the banned glass types is valid, additives like Thorium and Lanthanum are banned.

Are you sure about Lanthanum being banned ? Lanthanum glasses appear to be available from Schott and the like.

Quote:
Lanthanum glass as used by companies like Zeiss and Voigtlander can only be matched in refractive index today by exotic stuff like fluorite.

Do you mean dispersion (variation in refractive index with wavelength) rather than refractive index (RI) ? Fluorite has a low RI whereas Lanthanum glasses have, typically, high RIs. However both have low dispersion values.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The point about the banned glass types is valid, additives like Thorium and Lanthanum are banned.

Are you sure about Lanthanum being banned ? Lanthanum glasses appear to be available from Schott and the like.


It would also be interesting to see a reference about thorium being banned. I've been trying to find out if it is the case or not, and haven't been able to come up with any info either way. My assumption has been that it's not technically banned but just not commercially viable anymore.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 01, 2014 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
sichko wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The point about the banned glass types is valid, additives like Thorium and Lanthanum are banned.

Are you sure about Lanthanum being banned ? Lanthanum glasses appear to be available from Schott and the like.


It would also be interesting to see a reference about thorium being banned. I've been trying to find out if it is the case or not, and haven't been able to come up with any info either way. My assumption has been that it's not technically banned but just not commercially viable anymore.


I'd be inclined to agree with the last statement. Thorium is still widely used, just not for optics. Combine the relatively low radiation risk, the environmental disposal considerations and then throw in that the characteristic that thorium glass has non-stable optical properties that degrade with time.. and the commercial viability soon looks less promising. Thorium isn't a banned substance as far as I can see.

Lanthanum is still used for optical glass. It's not banned.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1