Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,208   Posts: 1,531,931   Online: 1115
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 12 of 12
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hertfordshire
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    82
    [QUOTE= df cardwell---Thirty years later, if used much at all, it will be worn out. If it wasn't used, the lubricants will be dried up and will wear out when you begin using it. The lubricants are critical in these designs. Guess why they were less expensive than Nikon ? Not because Nikon was out to overcharge you, but because they built lenses to a higher mechanical standard. Kino, and all, relied on lower expectations of service life and lots of grease instead of brass, steel, and ball bearings.

    Hi DF. Nail on the head time I think. Both my 135 and 24-48 needed a strip as the aperture blades seized due to one hell of a sticky mess! Common fault? My 85/f2 AI must be late sixty's early seventy's and it's a gem. Still crystal clear and running smoooooooooooth. Wonder how it compares to the ASI version?

    Hi Mark. Question. Do you find that the mount on the 24-48 is a tight fit as in, over tight? All my other lenses (Nikon 18/3.5 35/f2 85/f2 mount with ease but the 24-48 needs a real twist which puts me off using it on my FM3a. Don't have another body yet to try it on at the moment (Mick I sympathize! Lost my 2x F2's and FM2 the same way) as I traded in my well worn FA.

    Thanks for the interesting info Wayne; really enjoyed the read and the pic is real nice. What's he looking at, a $20 bill? Got that--I wish look in his eyes. Nice.

    Thanks to all those that recommended Old timers: Funny: I live around the corner from them but just never seem to remember them. Advertising at its best; obviously!

    Dave. An English eye. That is one stunning picture. A pleasure to view your gallery . Thanks.

    elekm. Very kind of you. Email on way over.

    Thanks one and all.

    Take care.

    B.
    Last edited by shadesofgrey; 01-23-2006 at 01:29 PM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: I'm thick!

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Nova Scotia
    Posts
    923
    Quote Originally Posted by df cardwell
    I'm pretty easy going about a lot of things, but the Vivitar stuff was good and bad, depending how you measured it.

    Good, very good, compared to the other off brand stuff.

    Nowhere in the park if you compare it to Nikon, Minolta, etc.

    Thirty years later, if used much at all, it will be worn out. If it wasn't used, the lubricants will be dried up and will wear out when you begin using it. The lubricants are critical in these designs. Guess why they were less expensive than Nikon ? Not because Nikon was out to overcharge you, but because they built lenses to a higher mechanical standard. Kino, and all, relied on lower expectations of service life and lots of grease instead of brass, steel, and ball bearings.

    Just one guy's opinion, of course
    Valid comment on mechanics but optically they work-at least the Series 1 lenses. I never was attracted to the others
    Mark
    Mark Layne
    Nova Scotia
    and Barbados

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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