Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,695   Posts: 1,549,044   Online: 1010
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 38
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by ArchaeoK View Post
    I am trying to choose between three 200mm M42 lenses and I was wondering if you guys could help. Also, if you know anything about the actual manufacturers of these lenses, I'd be greatly appreciative. The first lens is a Vivitar 200mm F/3.5 Auto Telephoto #28610273. The second is a Soligor TELE-AUTO 200mm, F3.5 #17100327. The last is a lens marked AUTO-ALPA, Multi-Coated, For ALPA Swiss, 1:3.5 200mm. It's #2540049 and is made in Japan as is the other two. I've found a little bit out about the Vivitar, but not the other two. Thanks in advance for any info you can give me.
    You might want to check to see if you find a historical site for Alpa to see if the lens was made to Alpa specs or just rebranded Alpa. Of the other 2, without testing, I would give the nod to the Vivitar, Soligor made some very good lens including rebranded Mirandas, others were real dogs.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    2
    I ran across two screwmount 28mm lenses yesterday at a camera dealer, one 28mm had a 55mm front filter thread I believe (Super Tak f2.8) and the other had the standard 49mm filter thread and was smaller, but I can't remember if it was a 2.8 or the 3.5, but it was a Super Tak as well; No SMC noted on either lens. My question is, is if either lens is worthy to buy. The lens with the larger filter thread was $89 and the other $69. I think on refelction now that they were both 2.8's.
    W.A. Crider

  3. #23
    cao
    cao is offline
    cao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    Something's not right here. I don't think Pentax made any M42 28s faster than f:3.5. The 28/3.5 SMC is not a bad beast if you run across one.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by cao View Post
    Something's not right here. I don't think Pentax made any M42 28s faster than f:3.5. The 28/3.5 SMC is not a bad beast if you run across one.
    Pentax made a 28 2.8, I have the 3.5 which I think is very sharp even wide open. Unless you really need the extra speed I would go with the 3.5 just to keep the filter set at 49mm which will match the 35, 50, and 105. But the 55mm filter will match the 24mm, 85mm, 200 and 300mm lens as well.

  5. #25

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by Marco Gilardetti View Post
    The answer is:

    28mm f:3,5 yes, great lens
    50mm f:1.4 yes, outstanding lens
    85mm f:1.9 yes, superb lens
    Also the late 35 f2 Super Takumar ( not SMC)
    This and the 50 f 1.4 are often yellowed from radioactive elements and almost have built in yellow filters. Superb
    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

  6. #26
    cao
    cao is offline
    cao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    But weren't the 2.8 wides bayonet mount rather than M42?

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by cao View Post
    But weren't the 2.8 wides bayonet mount rather than M42?

    I think both. I had the 2.8 M42 at one time as well as the 3.5, but it turned up missing a few years ago, may have left last time I was in Italy.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Phoeinx Arizona
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,343
    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Howell View Post
    I think both. I had the 2.8 M42 at one time as well as the 3.5, but it turned up missing a few years ago, may have left last time I was in Italy.

    I may be misrembering, I need to check my insurance list, the 28 2.8 may not have been a Pentex, may have been a Yashica.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Floriduh
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    2,272
    Images
    2
    Ok I figured it out. I was wrong; Doh. Both were 3.5's. One with 49mm and the other with 55mm filters. Does anybody know any comparisons or a page that compares them?
    W.A. Crider

  10. #30
    cao
    cao is offline
    cao's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    188
    If they are indeed super Taks with condition equal, I'd go for the later 49mm version.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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