Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,301   Posts: 1,536,126   Online: 836
      
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678
Results 71 to 79 of 79
  1. #71

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,381
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    Not long after the Hoya lens range was withdrawn, and replaced by an entirely new range of Tokina lenses (same owners), there was also some criticism of biased testing in some magazines in the UK in favour of their advertisers products, personally I found Camera magazine to have the most objective test reports at the time.

    In the 60's, 70's & 80's there were some awful lenses made for 35mm SLRs by 3rd party manufacturers and we relied on the magazines to help us when we couldn't afford the major camera manufacturers own lenses. Wide angle lenses were the worst usually suffering from flare, or having barrel distortion. Vivitar were the first independent company with their Series One lenses to sell a range that rivalled the major manufacturers in terms of overall performance, Tamron soon followed with their SP range (I have 4 or 5).

    With larger formats there seemed to be fewer issues and even lenses from the 60's onwards are capable of excellent results today. (I've shot MF & LF since the mid 70's).

    Ian
    Yes, the 1860s if you know how to use them.

    That's a big part right there, knowing what the lens does well. I'm lately playing with a couple of J-8s, a screwmount from 1975 and a Contax mount from 1959. As many will know, these are Soviet Sonnars, and both of mine behave very much like coated versions of the prewar collapsible Sonnar I had on a Contax II. If you were to take either of these lenses and compare them with say the 50/2 Nikkor H, the Jupiters wouldn't look very good at f:2. At f: 5.6 or 8, you'd have a deal of trouble telling the difference for most any practical uses. The Nikkor is a double Gauss, the Sonnar is most closely related to the Tessar. The Sonnar's design is also about 30 years older than the Nikkor. For practical use, the Sonnars give delightful results around 2.8, especially existing light with B&W CN400, much more character and smoothness than the Nikkors.
    Last edited by E. von Hoegh; 04-08-2014 at 08:46 AM. Click to view previous post history.

  2. #72
    Kyle M.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Bucyrus Oh
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    133
    All I'll say on this matter is I switched from a Canon AE-1 Program and FD lenses, to a Nikon F2 and Nikkor lenses because I wasn't happy with my results ie. sharpness/contrast. Now I am more than happy, I am even happier yet with my RB67.
    Koni Rapid Omega 200, Super Omegon 90mm F=3.5 (KE-58)

    Nikon F Photomic FTn, Nikkor-S 35mm F=2.8, Nikkor-H.C 50mm F=2

    www.flickr.com/photos/shootfilm08

  3. #73
    irvd2x's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by Trask View Post
    So even though the consensus seems to be that it's the photographer, not the lens, I'll bite -- what lens did you use?
    A 20 f3.5 Nikkor ( 52mm filter ) deemed excellent at its closest focus range ( true ) but so-so at infinity and the corners...abit of barrel distortion as well.Still, I love this lens.There is a saying:"I LIKE because, I LOVE in spite of". True!


    Sent from my LG-P509 using Tapatalk 2

  4. #74
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    I've had quite a few images ruined by poor lenses, to be fair that was a a few years ago. Two brands were the worst Hoya and Sigma, I had a Sigma lense fall apart, the replacement had no Infinity focus, and the next replacement was faulty as well, needless to say I won't touch Sigma. I had Pentax K mount Hoya28mm and a Sigma 24mm lenses useless due to flare,

    If I'd paid less for East Gearman lenses I'd have saved money and had excellent performers but at that time they were only screw mount.

    The major problem is and always was that Lens tests in many magazines can't be trusted.

    Ian
    Third party lenses might be O.K optically and some of them are pretty good but where the majority of them fall down is in the construction materials and engineering quality of the mechanics because they are made for cheapness, for example East German Lenses Praktica/ Zeiss lenses have lens barrels made of aluminium which isn't too bad in itself, but so are the internal focusing helicoids which is why with wear they jam up.
    Ben

  5. #75
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,249
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Third party lenses might be O.K optically and some of them are pretty good but where the majority of them fall down is in the construction materials and engineering quality of the mechanics because they are made for cheapness, for example East German Lenses Praktica/ Zeiss lenses have lens barrels made of aluminium which isn't too bad in itself, but so are the internal focusing helicoids which is why with wear they jam up.
    My experience of East German lenses is otically they are excellent (except the Domiplan), actually the mechanics aren't bad either but there lubricants were awful, Russian lenses are similar. I has an optically superb Pancolor on a Prakticamat (first TTL meter camera on sale in the UK) but the iris diaphragm was inconsistent and n ever stopped down to quite the same aperture as it was set at.

    Aside from the East German Meyer & Zeiss lenses I was thinking of the poor quality of many cheaper Japanese lenses which despite often better build quality were optically way behing the East German lenses.

    You worked in the retail trade and must have had quite a lot of customer feedback over the years, I know that the one dealer I used (my Ilford Professional supplier) was very particular about what lenses they sold, he'd been involved as an importer with a high end camera company. It was and still is a bit hit and miss unless you can road test a lens first. We were constantly loaned MF and sometimes LF equipment to try before we bought, I had an RB67 system to try for a month late 1970's and was allowed to try LF lenses before buying, or they were sold on a sale or return basis if we weren't happy when second-hand.

    Ian

  6. #76
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Grant View Post
    My experience of East German lenses is otically they are excellent (except the Domiplan), actually the mechanics aren't bad either but there lubricants were awful, Russian lenses are similar. I has an optically superb Pancolor on a Prakticamat (first TTL meter camera on sale in the UK) but the iris diaphragm was inconsistent and n ever stopped down to quite the same aperture as it was set at.

    Aside from the East German Meyer & Zeiss lenses I was thinking of the poor quality of many cheaper Japanese lenses which despite often better build quality were optically way behing the East German lenses.

    You worked in the retail trade and must have had quite a lot of customer feedback over the years, I know that the one dealer I used (my Ilford Professional supplier) was very particular about what lenses they sold, he'd been involved as an importer with a high end camera company. It was and still is a bit hit and miss unless you can road test a lens first. We were constantly loaned MF and sometimes LF equipment to try before we bought, I had an RB67 system to try for a month late 1970's and was allowed to try LF lenses before buying, or they were sold on a sale or return basis if we weren't happy when second-hand.

    Ian
    My first S.L.R was a Craptica Super T.L. Ian with a Zeiss Pancolor and the lens after about a year became so stiff it was very difficult to focus, the repair guy said it was because the focusing helicoid was Aluminium and had worn and would only get worse, so I got rid of it and got a Pentax 50mm 1.8 lens.
    I too worked in the photographic retail trade for nearly 25 years, and got far too much customer feedback, however I do remember talking to the Hasselblad rep. at a trade show at Olympia who told me that his company test all the lenses that they get from Zeiss Oberkochen, and have to return around 40% of them because they are below the required performance standard they require.
    Last edited by benjiboy; 04-08-2014 at 03:15 PM. Click to view previous post history.
    Ben

  7. #77

    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    UK
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    Third party lenses might be O.K optically and some of them are pretty good but where the majority of them fall down is in the construction materials and engineering quality of the mechanics because they are made for cheapness, for example East German Lenses Praktica/ Zeiss lenses have lens barrels made of aluminium which isn't too bad in itself, but so are the internal focusing helicoids which is why with wear they jam up.
    Were Jena lenses 3rd party other than for Stuttgart?

    Al on Al needs lube but Id prefer that to poly carbonate on poly carbonate.

    All lenses are made for cheap cept the Leica apo asph 5cm...

  8. #78
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,765
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    Were Jena lenses 3rd party other than for Stuttgart?

    Al on Al needs lube but Id prefer that to poly carbonate on poly carbonate.

    All lenses are made for cheap cept the Leica apo asph 5cm...
    I don't understand what you are trying to say.
    Ben

  9. #79
    Ian Grant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    West Midlands, UK, and Turkey
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    16,249
    Images
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by benjiboy View Post
    I don't understand what you are trying to say.
    Quote Originally Posted by Xmas View Post
    Were Jena lenses 3rd party other than for Stuttgart?
    After WWII Carl Zeiss Jena produced some lenses for Zeiss in West Germany, however they had sometimes had problems getting specialist optical glass and some lenses like Tessars had to have slight design adjustments to suit the glass batches available. Whether these could be called third party I doubt it as until the mid 1950's the two sides of Zeiss in the East & West still hoped to re-unite as a single company

    Rolleiflex had issues with the post WWII CZJ Tessar which led to the switch to Opton Tessars from the West, although some of these may have actually been made by CZJ but passed Zeiss West Germany's much stricter quality controls.

    Ian

Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin