We have collected a number of postings related to third party lenses, their use and usability,
in the material below. Use your browser search capability to locate topics of interest...
[TIP: use browser "FIND"(Ctrl-f on PCs, or CMD-f on Macs) to find keywords like brand names below]
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Congrejo1)
[1] Re: OSAWA Lenses
Date: Fri Oct 23 1998
I have owned and used an Osawa 70-150 zoom for 15 years. I consider it to
be an
above average lens, but not by much. The optics are good, minimal flare, but
the construction is not particulary sturdy.
I remember reading lens test reports in Modern Photography back when these
lenses were new. Optically they compared favorably to most lenses in their
class. To generalize, Osawa lenses are probably a good deal for the
money. Mine
is. But if you intend to do a lot of critical work and big enlargments,
buy the
manufacturer's lens.
Bill W.
>Hi, > >Does anyone have any idea about the quality of OSAWA (Japan) lenses?
rec.photo.misc
From: "Jerry Gitomer" [email protected]
[1] Re: Independent Lens Manufacturers
Date: Fri Oct 23 1998
Slhavens wrote
>I'm in the market for a 70-210mm lens for my Nikon N70. In comparing the >prices in B&H, I'm seeing some significant savings in the off brand lenses. >And even after viewing the four "independent" brands, I see that even their >prices are very different. Can someone tell me what the differences might be, >and if it's worth it to go for Nikon, or try to save some money? Any advice or >opinions will be greatly appreciated. > >Sherry
Hi Sherry,
My personal preference is to go with Nikon for the lenses I will use all
of the time and go with the independents for lenses that I will not use very
often. This is based on economics -- I simply can't justify the price
differential for a lens that I will only use once a quarter or once a year.
Are the Nikon lenses really better? From what I have been told -- it
depends. Apparently many, if not all, of the independent lens makers make
more than one quality level. I have been told that their top quality lenses
compare favorably to Nikon and based on my personal experience I think this
is so. No, I haven't run any rigorous scientific tests, but I have
projected slides including close up shots of detailed artwork and
haven't seen significant differences between the sharpness and color
when working
with a top quality Tamron and a standard Nikon lens.
On the other hand slides taken with my 55mm micro-nikkor f/3.5 are
visibly sharper than I have been able to realize with any other lens.
(Shooting 1"x2" detail at 1:1 and then seeing your work projected to
2'x4' -- the detail is awesome!)
If you are buying new and buying locally your local camera store will
probably be willing to let you shoot a roll using two or three different
lenses so that you can make a decision based on your needs. (I am
constantly reminded of someone who commented that he saw no difference in
the sharpness of the pictures he took with his $29.95 point and shoot and
the quality his brother-in-law realized with an F5. He then went on to say
that both of them had their color prints developed at the local one hour lab
and that they got the big 4"x6" prints.)
regards
Jerry
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Zeiss
John Kufrovich wrote:
> Is there any reference material that describes the various zeiss >camera lenses.
Yes, but your query should be more specific. For instance, Zeiss publishes
each year a nice flier showing all lenses in production for that year.
Kyocera put out a rather detailed book some years back for the Contax SLR
line, while Kuc's two AUF DEN SPUREN DER CONTAX cover the 35mm Zeiss Ikon
cameras. Prochnow, in his Rollei Reports, covers the Zeiss and HFT Rollei
lense. And so forth.
There is no SINGLE reference.
Marc
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (Henchris)
[1] Re: Best piece of glass you've ever had?
Date: Sat Oct 24 1998
Vivitar Series I VMC variable focus 35-85mm F 2.8 one touch zoom, Nikon
mount,
circa 1980s, 72mm diam. Excellent. Heavy, steady, stiff, and SHARP.
Nikon 55mm micro with extender ring. Crisp, superb, even in a used lens.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (LEDMRVM)
[1] Re: Kiron lenses
Date: Sat Oct 24 1998
In reference to your question about the 105/2.8 Kiron Macro lens:
-manufactured by Kiron during the early to mid-80's along with the rest
of a
line including several zooms.
-the 105/2.8 was produced in several popular mounts.
-good quality but never extremely popular. I have a 105 in Pentax
K-mount; it
produces excellent quality images when I do my part.
-Kiron has manufactured - still does - for other marketing names, but at this
time does not export under its own name to the USA.
Regards, Ed
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Jason Cheng [email protected]
[1] Re: Kiron lenses
Date: Sat Oct 24 1998
Hi! I own the Kiron 105/2.8 macro in a Yashica/Contax mount. It is a
very good lens. The build quality is very good, much better than with
many third party lenses. At one point I owned a Kiron 28-85 lenses which
got good reviews but I was never very happy with the optical quality
which was good but not really great. The 105/2.8 on the other hand is
very sharp indeed.
Jason
From: [email protected] (Wai Lun Alan Chan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which Wide Angle Zoom -- Tokina vs ?
Date: 21 Oct 1998
[email protected] writes:
>Because the Nikon 20-35/2.8 is prohibitively expensive, I just bought a new >widely touted Tokina ATX Pro 20-35/2.8 . I have since burned up about 6 >rolls running tests at different distances, focal lengths and apertures. To >my chagrin I have discovered that my carbonate bodied $160 variable aperture >wide angle zoom optically (resolution and distortion) equals or exceeds the >$700 Tokina at virtually every focal length/fstop/distance combination -- >particularly at the edges/corners. Additionally, the cheap zoom actually has >a few mm of additional wide angle coverage. >The Tokina is truly of professional caliber in terms of construction, but >does not quite live up to this standard or its price optically. The question >is whether I should keep the Tokina with its better construction and near one >stop faster speed, although this 2.8 comes at a cost of marginally >[un]acceptable edges/corners, or send the Tokina back and stick with the >cheap one, or, given the possibility that this particular Tokina sample is >defective, exchange the Tokina for another one and test that one. >In typical field test slides, it is unlikely the Tokina would look bad. >However, for $700 I guess I believe I am entitled to better than that. >Since I have to return the lens immediately, if I am going to, your timely >thoughts and input would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance for any >comments and thoughts.
=== regards, http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~wlac/ ===
=== Alan Chan [email protected] ===
[Ed. note: this post is interesting for showing you never know who really
made those German lenses ;-)]
Date: Fri, 23 Oct 1998
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Oriental QBM and Voigtlander Lenses
I finally ran down a copy of Prochnow's fourth ROLLEI REPORT. He includes
a comprehensive discussion of the lenses available for the Rollei SL35
series, clear unto the 3003.
Yes, there WERE Japanese lenses, though Prochnow states most were actually
manufactured on Taiwan. Yes, most of these were Mamiya, though Tokina,
Sigma and Kiron were included, and a firm with which I am not familiar,
Yabe, is listed as the producer of a 2X Tele-Converter available from '84
to '94. A couple of the Mamiya lenses lasted to the end of regular
production in '96, though a couple seem to have been real bombs -- the
1.4/55, for instance, lasted less than 5 years, and the 2/50 for slightly
more than a year, precisely as did the Tokina 4/28-85 Zoom.
And, yes, some of these Japanese lenses WERE produced bearing the
Voigtlander name.
It would seem that Rollei had originally intended to market Zeiss lenses as
the quality option, with Schneider lenses being slightly less expensive.
Procurement of Schneider lenses ceased in December, 1976, and that of
Mamiya lenses began in January, 1977. Generally, the Mamiya lenses were
around 15% less than the JSK lenses, which were around 10% less than the
Singapore-HFT Zeiss lenses and 40% less than the Oberkochen lenses. So,
all in all, the adoption of the Mamiya lenses made perfect sense by adding
a line of capable lenses at a decent price as an alternative to the rather
expensive Zeiss lenses. The 3.5/14 Mamiya fisheye, for instance, cost
about half of what was charged for the 2.8/16 F-Distagon. And, with some
lenses, the difference was even more startling: The Tokina 8/500 cat lens
was around 1/30 (!) the price of the 4.5/500 Zeiss Mirotar.
Some interesting trivia: although a number of the Zeiss lenses were
produced in Voigtlander weeds, and although all but one of these
"Voigtlander" lenses was made in M42 as well as QBM, none of the Japanese
"Voigtlander" lenses appeared in M42. And no Schneider lens ever bore the
Voigtlander imprint. Finally, Schneider reappeared in the Rollei line in
1982 when the 4/35 PC-Curtagon was introduced in QBM, to be followed by the
2.8/28 PC-Super-Angulon in '89. Both of these lenses remained in the
line-up until the system was terminated.
I am not certain which of these lenses are still produced for the technical
3003 which is still in production, but I would suspect Zeiss specialty
lenses alone survive.
Marc
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998
From: David Johnson [email protected]
Subject: Re: Third party lenses
[email protected] wrote:
>I recently bought my first Nikon, a Pronea 6i, and am enjoying it very much. >It certainly knows a lot more about photography than I do! At this point in >time, I cannot afford Nikon lenses, although I'm saving up to get some in the >future. Therefore, I am regrettably going to have to purchase a few lenses >from third party companies. Of the big three, Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina, >which would you folks choose until you could buy Nikon?
Have you considered buying used lenses? I have dealt with KEH and have
been dealt with fairly. Nearly all postings about them on Usenet have
been favorable. It is said they tend to underrate the condition of the
equipment they sell relative to other dealers (i.e. the condition of the
equipment is better than you expect from their condition rating if you are
used to other dealers ratings.).
Some people like to say that all manufacturers' lenses are good. That may
be, but that doesn't mean they are all equal. I have used Leitz (which is
quite good), Yashica, Minolta, Olympus, Vivitar, and Nikkor. I can say
without hesitation that my Nikkors have noticeably better sharpness and in
particular contrast and color are superior to the Minolta, Yashica, and
Vivitar lenses I have used.
My suggestion is that if you can't afford new Nikkors, buy good condition
used ones. If those are still not within your budget then buy third party
lenses. IMO, it is better to have a lens you can use than have no lens
and not be able to shoot. My brother-in-law has a Tokina which seemed not
terrible optical and mechanically. I do not know how Sigma and Tamron
compare. I will say that I haven't been impressed by Vivitar, but I would
rather have a Vivitar than not lens at all to use.
David Johnson
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998
From: Bret Harris [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,la.forsale,ca.forsale
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm zoom
I second that motion. I can't get rid of mine because I know I won't be
able to get comperable optics for anywhere near the $100 I paid for it
(same condition, Nikon mount). I will probably get a lighter AF 70-210
f4-5.6 lens eventually for family snaps, etc., but the Vivitar will come
out whenever I am serious about what I am shooting.
Bret Harris
Washington, DC
John Stewart wrote:
> > Just in case no one knows, this was a SUPERB lens from the 70's that had > nothing to do with the standard Vivitar line. It was about $300 in 1977 > money! I have screw mount version and paid more than $100 for it. > > A bit large by today's standards, but that 3.5 is constant across the zoom > range. Don't pass it up. > > John > > Tom Tcimpidis wrote > >Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm F3.5 telephoto zoom lens with skylight filter - > >Olympus mount. $100 OBO > > > >Prices is plus shipping. > > > >Lense is in superb like-new condition. I'll give a 30 day warranty on it.
From: [email protected] (Andrsnsm)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon lenses are supposed to be rugged?
Date: 16 Oct 1998
Nikon AF lenses are much lighter than the old MF lenses and feel cheaper
because they are polycarbonate (plastic). But what do you expect? AF
lenses have to be much lighter and looser so the AF can work at peak
performance! Are the Nikon MF lenses more rugged? ABSOLUTELY! Are the
Nikon AF lenses built as good or better than ANY cometitior's AF lenses?
ABSOLUTELY.
I have tinkered with lots of lenses and Nikons lenses, AF or
MF, feel much better than the competition. When you get into the IF
lenses or the metal body AF lenses, they feel much better. But they are
still AF and required the construction they have. I do agree that the
35-80 entry level zoom feels like crap! I would NEVER buy a lens with a
plastic mount. They wear badly and basically suck mechanically. You
gotta give up that "can use it as a hammer" feel if you are going to go
AF.
Good luck. You will get over that crappy feel (I did)
Sam A.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (MikeFocus)
[1] Re: Vivitar 70-210mm f2.8-4.0 (series 1)
Date: Mon Oct 26 1998
I own one in the manual version.
Great lens,good contrast and for the money a great buy. I have mine for 2
yrs.
any questions, email me
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (MikeFocus)
[1] Re: Critique of SIGMA, TAMRON lenses for Nikon camera wanted
Date: Mon Oct 26 1998
Jude
Cheap lenses are cheap because they suck.
But, some amazing
aftermarket lenses are made by Tamron. THey are specifically the SP
lenses. The are cheaper in price than the Nikon lenses but not by that
much. Believe me that I think this line of lenses is sharper than the
Nikons in the same class. email me with questions.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] BK2057205
[1] Re: Kiron lenses
Date: Tue Oct 27 1998
Davide, I shoot a Kiron 28-70. I've never had a complain about the lens
except it is a little slow but that was my problem tradeing off
cost for fstops.
rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected] (DRBEIN)
[1] Nikon 75-300,35-135, Nik mount 35-105,105Macro, 500
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998
...
Kiron 105 F2.8 macro , manual focus - this lens was used for dental macro
purposes, is tack sharp, multi coated $200, sold by the Lester Dine Company
for medical purposes. Essentially the same quality as Nikor lenses
I still have the Lester Dine combo ring/point light (uses 120vac for
studio/medical macro uses) there are some extras which will be included, but
not inventoried. I will sell this for $100 withf the macro lens
Please email directly or call 310-838-2346
Thanks,
Steve
rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected] (Citizenv75)
[1] FS: Tamron SP 70-210mm f/3.5, Zoom Macro, Adaptall II, Nikon
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998
Very unique lens, focus to 1:2 at 200mm, change ratio by zooming, SP 1st rate
optics, perfectly optically, mechanically and cosmetically, Nikon
Adaptall AI
mount. Model # 52A, Tamron's USA patent #3500736(for detailed design,
check US
Patent Office Using this #), This is a discontinued model with all metal
construction, two ring yet light-weight.
$250, Save $800 over Nikon's newly released zoom macro while getting same
quality of image. Tamron was the first making this kind of lens, not Nikon.
rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: "Dave Pearman" [email protected]
[1] Re: Is Chinon Still In Business?
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998
> Does Chinon still exist?
Yes - it's owned by Kodak, and produces digital cameras,
among other things. You still also see Chinon compact
cameras in some stores (Dixons in the UK), though not SLRs
any more.
> I was recently given a Chinon CP-9AF camera > body. If someone could steer me toward an auto > focus lens for this camera, I would appreciate it.
Good luck! There were only ever three AF lenses made for
this camera, to my knowledge. A 28-70mm came with the
camera. The 35-135mm is *extremely* rare - I once owned one,
but it was never imported into the UK officially. The
tele-zoom was a 70-210mm, and you *very* occasionally see
these at used camera fairs or in dealer ads.
No other AF lenses work - the Chinon's lenses had motors in
each lens, like a Canon EOS, but a Pentax K mount. You can
use Pentax K, KA or KA-F lenses and focus them manually,
though.
Hope this helps!
Dave Pearman
Editor, PC Plus
http://www.pcplus.co.uk
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "W Scott Elliot" [email protected]
[1] Re: 105 macro, Sigma or Nikon?
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998
I don't know about the Nikon, the magazine reports I have seen don't rate it
as highly as the Sigma 105 or Tamron 90 macro lenses.
I have the Sigma 105 mm f/2.8 macro lens. It is very solid and well made.
I have not used it for quite a year yet, so I can't comment on long term
durability. (The lens hasn't been produced that long.) It is part of the
EX series which Sigma builds to a higher standard than many of their lower
market lenses.
Optical quality is exceptionally good. Images are extremely sharp if you
use good film, mount on a tripod and use a remote release.
Scott
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "John R. Kopecky" [email protected]
[1] Re: Tamron MF 2.5 24 mm Need report about quality
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998
I have this lens. It is of excellent quality. I have other Tamron
lenses and they have
never disappointed me. In my opinion they match the Canon and Nikon
lenses I have.
John Kopecky
rec.photo.misc
From: "Charles Sleicher" [email protected]
[1] Re: Independent Lens Manufacturers
Date: Thu Oct 29 1998
A few years ago I used a resolution chart to test resolving power of some
lenses that included two in the range of your interest. One lens that stood
out for sharpness and contrast was the Sigma 70-210 f2.8. Optically it was
if anything slightly better that the equivalent Nikon; both were excellent.
The Nikon, however, is much more ruggedly made. I am still using the Sigma
and have made excellent photographs with it. I also have several excellent
Nikon lenses. Because I once purchased two lenses that I was not satisfied
with, I now usually test a lens before buying it. It has saved me much
grief. An aricle on resolution charts will appear in the December issue of
Popular Photography or email me for info.
[Ed. note: some nice photos from an older Asahi 500mm f/5 screwmount
lens!]
rec.photo.equipment.misc
From: [email protected] (Diablo Cat)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
[1] Re: Screw Mount Camera
Date: Fri Oct 30 1998
I currently have a Chinon CS camera, screw mount, built sometime in
the 1975 era. I bought it new and have used it ever since. My wife
picked up a Asahi lens for me used, 500 mm f.5. It works quite well.
On my photo page, you can see some of the photos taken with it,
http://alar.scruz.predictive.com/photo
Also, apparently Tamron and other manufacturers of lenses which use
adapters to plug a lens onto a camera also sell screw mount adapters,
so you can get a new lens for your old camera.
brian
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael A. Covington" [email protected]
[1] Re: Have Spiraltone Plura-coat Sharpshooter 400mm lens, need info on
it
Date: Fri Oct 30 1998
Spiratone, not Spiraltone...
It's an imported lens, probably the same or almost the same as lenses
imported under other names. The maker may be Tamron and it may be anywhere
up to 30 years old. Its value is probably under $50, but you can take
interesting pictures with it.
I assume you're talking about a T-mount, preset-aperture lens, right?
--
Michael A. Covington / AI Center / The University of Georgia
http://www.ai.uga.edu/~mc http://www.mindspring.com/~covington
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "L" [email protected]
[1] Re: How do you rate ARSAT 300/2.8?
Date: Fri Oct 30 1998
Tadek wrote
>Do you know anything about Arsat 300mm 2.8 ( Ukranian) ?
I remember seeing a Pop Photo comparison of this lens and the Nikon 300 2.8
some years ago.
It seemed like a great review (since this Ukranian company doesn't advertise
in Pop Photo). The comparison compared the exterior construction and the
glass, it actually had examples of side by side comparison of images from
both lenses. A Nikon lens this wasn't, but I think the review was
favorable. I would be curious to see other off-brand comparisons to
Nikon/Canon lenses, but since they are 99% about advertising, I guess it
won't happen.
[Ed. note: this post helps explain why some diaphragm aperture and lens
filter sizes aren't always close ;-)]
rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: [email protected] (lemonade)
[2] Re: Why are MF lenses poor
Date: Sat Oct 31 1998
...
There is no doubt that the aperture of a lens is equal to the focal length divided by the diameter. However, that does not mean that the size of the elements must be the same... only the size of the diaphragm opening. As an illustration of the difference, let me use an extreme example provided by a well-known lens, the Nikkor 6mm f2.8 fisheye. The maximum aperture diameter of this lens is 6mm/2.8 = 2.14mm = teency-weency; however the size of the front element is humungous. And voila, look what happens when you compare e.g. a Pentax 6x7 105mm f2.4 lens, whose maximum aperture diameter is 105mm/2.4 = 44mm, but which requires 67mm diameter filters and has a front element nearly that wide, with a Pentax-M 35mm format 120mm f2.8, which has a maximum aperture diameter of 120mm/2.8 = 43mm, but requires only 49mm diameter filters. You can choose various other focal lengths and apertures which are closer in comparison, if you like.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Greg Au [email protected]
[1] Re: advice on lenses
Date: Sat Oct 31 1998
I have Tamron 28-200 on Pentax Z body. I find it a good lens, easily adequate
for family photos, holiday snaps etc. Easily performs point and shoot. I get
acceptable enlargements up to 8 by 12 inches. This lens performs best at wide
angles up to about 135mm. Beyond that the image is soft (but acceptable for
small prints).
Good lens, good price, good quality.
Greg
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: [email protected] (Terry Danks)
[1] Re: Nature photography with Telephoto lens
Date: Sat Oct 31 1998
[email protected] wrote:
>I have a Tamron 200-400 lens with an aperture of 4.5-5.6. I find it a bit >slow. > >What kindda lens(telephoto) is good for Birds photography? But does not cost >a bomb. Is the new Canon 100-400 usm lens is good??
I also have the Tamron 200-400mm F/5.6 and use it on birds.
If you want a faster lens in this focal length I don't think there is
any alternative that "does not cost a bomb".
Also, if bird photography is the primary use for the lens, I would
suggest FL's less than 200mm or so are all but useless . . . forget
zooms and go for fixed FL lenses. They tend to be lighter, have
better performance and cost less too.
Terry Danks
Nova Scotia
CANADA
http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/danksta/home.htm
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (DChambe796)
[1] Re: how about the lenses of promaster?
Date: Sun Nov 01 1998
I have two of them 28-80 and a100-300
They both work fine, and for the price
you can't beat them
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Tommy Trojan [email protected]
[1] Sigma Lens
Date: Tue Nov 03 1998
I happen to look at the Pop Photography and found that in their early
issues ( 95 or 93?) there's a lens test of 80-200f/2.8. The old Sigma
2.8 APO outperform those from Nikon and Tamron at the 200mm end! And in
the short end, it also quite comparable to Nikon. So does this mean that
the current APO HSM lens from Sigma is quite good at optical quality?
From: [email protected] (Sergey Zhupanov)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998
>I am thinking about getting a wide angle zoom lense. Probably one from 20mm >or so to about 30 or so. My question is, do I really need a fast lense if >all I will really be using this lense for is landscapes? >Fred Kessler
Fred,
I have pondered the same exact issue lately. I don't know if you ever
looked through a 3.5 or higher aperture lens, especially right
after looking through a lens with 1.8 aperture, but the difference in
the brightness level of the picture is huge. I think by the time you
get to about f/5.6-f/8, the lens really only becomes usable in
bright light, and is a pain to use even then.
I would not be able to enjoy photography much if I would have to
shoot using lenses with 5.6 or larger max apertures, but that could
be just a matter of taste. BTW, this is obvious, but just in case --
if your camera has depth of field preview button, you can see the
effect of lowering the max apperture simply by decreasing the
apperture on the lens, and then using DOF to check out the
(dark) view.
sergey
From: David Hay Jones [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Nature photography with Telephoto lens
Date: 2 Nov 98
[email protected] (David Salmansohn) wrote:
> $3000 is a lot of money to most of us. The 300/2,8s that you describe > are also a lot of money to most of us. The rule seems to be fast, > cheap, long: pick any two. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > [email protected]
David,
$3000 is a lot of money for me too but I see it as a case of priorities.
Also, I have found that it is easier to take pictures that sell with
these lenses rather than second and third best. For example, a 400/5.6
is a good compromise for bird photography and I used one for a long time.
Then I bought a 400/2.8 and a 500/4.5 and my sales increased quite
quickly. The 400/2.8 paid for itself quicker than the 400/5.6. I don't
want to create the impression there's a watertight relation between
amount spent on gear and pictures sold, but if you're a serious and
driven photographer you'll find you outgrow secondrate gear very quickly.
It doesn't allow you to do what you want to do. That said, I've taken and
sold bird photographs with wide angles, short zooms and so on.
DHJ
[Ed. Taisei=Tamron making Rokunar zooms in T-mount..]
rec.photo.marketplace
From: [email protected]
[1] FS: 200-400mm f/6.3 Taisei-Rokunar zoom lens
Date: Wed Nov 04 1998
200-400mm f/6.3 Taisei-Rokunar zoom lens, uses t-mounts (not included)
which can fit most cameras, preset aperture, clean - about exc. Constant
f/6.3 aperture. Has similar sharpness to generic 400's like the Spiratone,
which is pretty good. Unusual lens - an oldie. $175.00, which includes
shipping.
Linwood
[email protected]
Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998
From: Bret Harris [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace,la.forsale,ca.forsale
Subject: Re: Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm zoom
John Stewart wrote:
> Just in case no one knows, this was a SUPERB lens from the 70's that had > nothing to do with the standard Vivitar line. It was about $300 in 1977 > money! I have screw mount version and paid more than $100 for it. > > A bit large by today's standards, but that 3.5 is constant across the zoom > range. Don't pass it up. > > John
I second that motion. I can't get rid of mine because I know I won't be
able to get comperable optics for anywhere near the $100 I paid for it
(same condition, Nikon mount). I will probably get a lighter AF 70-210
f4-5.6 lens eventually for family snaps, etc., but the Vivitar will come
out whenever I am serious about what I am shooting.
From: Bjxrn Rxrslett [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How to determine sharpest aperture value?
Date: Thu, 29 Oct 1998
MikeFocus wrote:
> From what I know f/8 & f/11 are usually the sharpest on ever lens
Simply not true. many lenses perform at their best nearly wide open.
examples are fast teles such as nikkor 200/2 (best at f/2-f/2.8),
300/2.8ed mf (best at f/2.8-f/4), 500/4 AI-P (best at f/4), 600/4 ED IF
(best at f/4), and shorter highspeed lenses, eg. noct-nikkor 58 f/1.2
(best at f/2-f/2.8), nikkor 28 f/2 (best at f/4), 85/1.4 AFD (best at
f/2.8-f/4 but extremely good wide open) etc. All these lenses mentioned
so far suffer from significant sharpness loss at f/8 and f/11, so your
statement is not generally applicable.
you need to test each lens at all apertures to find their optimum
performance range.
regards
Bjorn Rorslett
From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Have Spiraltone Plura-coat Sharpshooter 400mm lens, need
info on it
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998
>I have a 400mm >Spiratone Plura-coat Sharpshooter 1:6.3, 72, Lens. >I would like some info on it. > Who is the manufacture and address or email? > Are there spare parts for it? > How old is it? > What is its value? >Things like that.
I just had one (again - I had a similar one I bought
new when I was just starting out in photography...).
It is so sturdy and simple mechanically and optically
that, unless damaged, it is unlikely ever to need
parts. I don't know the mfgr., but Tamron is a good
guess... As such things go, it's o l d . . . ;-)
$50-100, and a bargain at that - it is only slightly
slower than a $2000 Nikkor 400mm f5.6, surprisingly
sharp (not up to the Nikkor, but a lot sharper than
cheap mirrors, and probably a bit sharper than even
expensive off-brand zooms that include 400mm) and
even in performance from center-to-corners, and the
preset diaphragm isn't really a problem since it is
easy and fast to operate, and the lens would generally
be used (when hand-held) only at the widest two stops...
Have fun with it!
David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: 2 Nov 1998
>I am thinking about getting a wide angle zoom lense. Probably one from 20mm >or so to about 30 or so. My question is, do I really need a fast lense if >all I will really be using this lense for is landscapes?
For landscape work, a fast wide angle is most useful if you want
to minimize depth of field, say to keep foreground weeds from
grabbing too much attention. There are times when the greater
depth of field (from a given vantage point) of wide angle lenses
is a disadvantage, and faster lenses minimize this.
If you have the time and equimpent to get a vantage point where
that annoying foreground isn't visible, the faster lens isn't
needed. That's why the roof of my van has scuff marks from
tripod and ladder feet.
--
[email protected] is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA
98013
From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998
...
Ummm, one problem is that landscape work requires sharp images.
Fast non-zooms are rarely very good at wide stops, and fast
wide zooms and sharpness are mutually exclusive concepts at wide
stops... F2.8 on a wide zoom is even less useable than it is
on the best non-zoom WA, if optimal sharpness is desired
(especially at the edges and corners).
The wide stop is handy for focus and viewing, but pretty useless
for all but tiny prints, I think...
David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (BHilton665)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: 2 Nov 1998
>From: "Fred Kessler" [email protected] > >I am thinking about getting a wide angle zoom lense. Probably one from 20mm >or so to about 30 or so. My question is, do I really need a fast lense if >all I will really be using this lense for is landscapes?
Probably not, the speed helps with snap shooting on the street or things like
that, but except for a brighter viewfinder doesn't buy you much when you're
always at f/11 - f/22.
On the other hand the faster quality zooms (from Canon at least, 17-35
f/2.8 L
vs 20-35 f/3.5-4.5)) apparently have a lot less flare and according to some
tests I saw are as sharp as the prime 20/24/28/35 mm lenses (which are all
f/2.8 except the 35 in the Canon line).
Make sure you invest in a good lens hood for it.
From: "Sherwood Veith" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998
...
Having purchased a Tokina 20-35mm 3.5/4.5 for my EOS system, I can say that
the extra half-stop at 20mm does not affect my landscapes in any way. At
20mm f/5.6-8 depth of field is tremendous. I'm very happy with it.
However, the faster lenses are usually pro-caliber. Besides being faster,
they're probably more durable, and always heavier.
Be advised that the filter sizes of these lenses are 72mm and up, which
means expensive filters. I'm considering a 24mm as my next lens for this
reason.
From: [email protected] (Deltapuppy)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: 2 Nov 1998
A fast WA zoom is a journalist's lens...in some ways a really essential
tool. Despite whatever problems of softness might exist in the corners at
some apertures and at some enlargements, the flexibility of the range lets
you carry one body, avoid chaning lenses or positions under complex and
often adversarial field conditons, and exploit a range of films to suit
various editoral preferences. When I have to compete for space with other
journalists at an important "perp walk" I don't want to have to move or
wrestle with extra bodies around my neck, and when a client says "well,
shoot some chromes too" and I have to use 100 speed or slower in open
shade, that extra stop is the difference.
Best
the pup
From: [email protected] (Robert Ribnitz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why would I need an f/2.8 wide angle zoom?
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998
I say get a fast (2.8) prime 20mm. Its a great lens, and on my trip to
ireland it almost became my std. focal length. Of course, before
having a prime, I had a somewhat slower 3.3-4.5 wideangle zoom, which
I soon trashed for vignetting, and bulk. Also, my 20mm prime has a
filter size of 62mm compared to the 77mm of the zoom..
If you want to get a few filters, price will soon show you that the
prime is actually better..
RObert
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why the huge price difference?
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 1998
I've read reviews comparing the Tokina and Canon (sorry can't recall where).
The differences were very minor, autofocus was a bit faster with the Canon
(but who usually needs to focus fast with a wide angle anyway?) and I believe
the Tokina was a very tiny bit softer than the Canon. The Canon 'won' but
nothing to justify the difference in prices. I believe it was in a British
publication, but not certain.
Cheers,
Doug
> I am in the market for a wide-angle zoom lense. I just don't know what to > make of the large price differences for comparable lenses from different > companies. For example: > > Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $429 > Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $280 > Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $190 > Sigma 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $420 > > Now, these are all comparable lenses, and all are all in my price range. I > would like to have the Canon, simply because I have a Canon body too, but is > it really really 50% better of a lense than, say, the Tokina, as the price > indicates? > > I get especially confused when I see the survey at Photozone. The Tokina > does better than the Canon in every Category. So why is Canon so much more? > > If anybody out there has any experience with any of these lenses, please let > me know what you think. > > -- > Fred Kessler > [email protected]
From: [email protected] (FOR7)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why the huge price difference?
Date: 4 Nov 1998
>In a nutshell...as with most merchandise, you get what you pay for. With few >exceptions, something costing under $200 does not compare with something >costing over $400. While Tokina, Vivitar and Sigma manufacture good lenses, >most often they do not compare (for several reasons) to a good Canon (which >the 20-35 is). > >Jay
In response to the above. Sorry but the Tokina 20-35mm 3.5-4.5 has always
rated better than the Canon 20-35mm 3.5-4.5! I know from experience that
is so and magazines have tested it as such. Popular Photography rated the
Tokina by the numbers considerably higher in overall quality. If you
really believe the myth that you cannot often find a just as good quality
lens or even better than a Canon for less money then you are definitely
missing out on some especially great lenses with great value.
If you want
to talk about Canons advantage of having USM and fulltime manual focusing
with the right lens then in that case they do offer an advantage. Thing is
not everyone needs a silent autofocus or fulltime manual focus.
Like I've
said before I'll compare my $ 280 Tokina 28-70 2.8 ATX that I use with my
Canon Elan IIe with any other lens in Canons price range and there is no
comaprison in image quality or build quality. Other examples of excellent
lenses are Tokinas 20-35 as mentioned ,the 17mm Tokina ATX, the Tokina
20-35 2.8, the Tokina 24-40 2.8, the Tokina 100-300 f4 ATX , the Tokina
80-200 2.8 ATX and other longer lenses that always rate very high. As for
build quality of the Tokina lenses I will again say like I've always said
Tokina has the best build quality for the price of any lenses made today.
As for Sigma they have always produced lenses that can match and sometimes
exceed the camera manufacturers lenses for less money though that
reputation seems marred somewhat by questionable build quality or
reliability though that may not cureently be the case. As for the Vivitar
the 19-35 it is likely the best value out there in this range when mainly
considering price and I challenge anyone to consistently see the
difference in pictures when using the Canon 20-35 3.5-4.5 as a comparison.
By the way he only mentioned one lens below that was under the $200 range.
...
>> >>Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $429 >>Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $280 >>Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $190 >>Sigma 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $420 >>
From: "Sherwood Veith" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why the huge price difference?
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 1998
The UK's Practical Photography reviewed the Canon 17-35L and Tokina's 20-35
f/2.8. Canon's performance was only marginally better, and Tokina won the
$$/performance competition.
I purchased the Tokina 20-35 3.5/4.5II this summer ($279 B&H) and have been
completely satisfied with its performance. Pop Photo rated this lens
(actually it's predecessor - I purchased the new version) very high, and I
found that it met all my expectactions.
The Vivitar is not nearly as well-thought-of as the other lenses you
mentioned (but their 100mm macro is truly outstanding). The Sigma has the
advantage of being one of the first WA zooms, so there are more in use.
However, my experience with Sigma lenses has been mixed. My 24-70mm Sigma
lens was awful at 50mm and longer, but my 70-210mm APO macro is quite good.
The Canon lens being much more expensive than the Tokina was ruled out on
that basis alone.
So, I purchased the Tokina and haven't looked back. Watch out for those
huge filter sizes (77mm on the Tokina). They'll break your wallet even if
the lens doesn't.
>I am in the market for a wide-angle zoom lense. I just don't know what to >make of the large price differences for comparable lenses from different >companies. For example: > >Canon 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 USM $429 >Tokina 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $280 >Vivitar Series 1 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $190 >Sigma 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 $420
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (David Rozen)
[1] Re: 19 - 35 mm
Date: Sat Nov 14 1998
M Lebbe ([email protected]) wrote:
: experience with Cosina manual focus 19-35? : What are your impressions?
Name brands can be tricky to trace.
I have a 19-35 that is sold as a
Vivitar as well as Promaster, thus
it may very well be the Cosina. It
exhibits every flaw you can imagine
but none of them is overwhelming so
one may charitably call it a very
well-balanced design. It makes as
good an image a any lens at f:11.
Wide open it makes excellent 8x10s,
even 11x14s depending upon the type
of subject and lighting.
Physically, it's bulky but light
weight, controls feel awful, and I
don't plan to treat it harshly. At
the price, I can't complain.
Regards, - dr
From: "W Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: any comment on tamron 28.200 mm aspheric lense
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1998
My only comment is that I am an amateur and I love this lense.
I am also an amateur, but I find that compared to a prime lens, fairly big
enlargements made from photos taken by this lens are disappointing. For 4x6
inch travel album pictures, it is great. The problem is that if one looks
really good and you make a 16x20 inch enlargement, you wish you had used
your prime lens. The lens is capable of 8x10 inch enlargements which are
acceptable, but slightly soft.
Scott
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (WKato)
[1] Re: vivitar 400mm 5.6 lens for nikon
Date: Sun Nov 15 1998
Just buy it before is too late.
I had one for Olympus; verdict: very soft wide open. OK stopped down to
f 11.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Ake Vinberg" [email protected]
[1] Re: Nikon 20mm f2.8 or Tokina ATX 20-35 f2.8
Date: Mon Nov 16 1998
Ronald Tan wrote
>I am considering either a Nikon AF-D 20mm f2.8 or the Tokina ATX 20-35mm >f2.8. Both lens cost about the same price. Any advice? > >TIA
Both lenses are excellent.
If you go with the Tokina you are making the following tradeoffs:
The Tokina, being a zoom, has some problems with flare if you put the sun in
the picture.
77mm filters ain't cheap.
The Tokina has a slight distortion.
It is heavy (very solidly built).
I would say that the Tokina has a better manual focusing feel, and it
focuses faster (with the F5) than the 20/2.8D. Time from near limit to
infinity is about 0.1 second.
If you are going with the 20mm Nikkor you are making the following
tradeoffs:
Fixed focal length means less convenience (but it also lets you learn to see
with a certain angle of view).
The 20/2.8 is almost impossible with polarizers, almost all polarizer
filters except those with thin mounts vignet.
For a fair comparison, to the price of the 20/2.8D should be added the price
of the dedicated bayonet hood, and a soft stuff sack, both of which are
included with the Tokina.
The 20/2.8D has a plastic barrel.
Owning both lenses, I would say that the product quality is equal, both are
optically and mechanically excellent, choice should be based on how you
intend to use the lens. If you don't own any 77mm filters then the Tokina
might turn out to be expensive. If your style of photography is
journalistic - people, indoors, quickly changing subjects - then the zoom
might be a better choice. IF you are only shooting landscape, or if you are
concerned with weight for that El Capitan climb, then the 20/2.8D might be
a better choice.
Ake
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (AACProfTed)
[1] Re: Third-party lenses for Contax SLRs
Date: Thu Nov 19 1998
You can find it listed on B&H website for I
believe $479. Used examples however would be a better buy.
Actually, it is my understanding that there is quite a difference in the
formulation of the new v. the old 85 2.8. The MTF curves for the older, now
discontinued model were superior to those of the 85 1.4. You will find these
selling on the used market for almost as much as the new version sells
for new.
Ted Harris
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Neuman-Ruether)
[1] Re: Lens Test Problems
Date: Tue Nov 17 1998
ed romney [email protected] wrote:
>There is a new lens test chart advertised where you test the lens at >about 3 1/2 feet. That is a good way of testing enlarger lenses or macro >lenses but faulted for testing camera lenses. Many of them don't reach >top sharpness until 8 or 10 feet. The old 1951 NBS and Air Force test >chart was intended to be used at 26x the focal length. That was fine for >a 5 inch lens on the older 4 x 5 cameras of the time. The chart would >then be placed 130 inches away, you see. But with a 50mm lens the chart >would be only 52 inches away. That is too close. So for my repair >book I enlarged the NBS chart 2x for modern 35mm cameras. You need to >observe this precaution too. Particularly note that lenses with >floating elements such as the 24mm F2 Nikon will do extra well at 26x >FL whereas lenses like the Nikkon 50mm F1.4 will not test as well as >this excellent lens should at 26x FL..Best wishes..Ed Romney >http://www.edromney.com
Good point about lens testing - I've been pratting on about this
for years now on the NG's...! (But does anyone listen? No! ;-)
Many excellent speed, short tele, and zoom lenses are quite
distance-sensitive for optical performance quality, and can
look bad if tested at too close a focus distance - yet these
lenses can perform superbly in "normal" use...
David Ruether
[email protected]
[email protected]
http://www.fcinet.com/ruether
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: HELP Looking for oddball lens
Date: Sat Nov 21 1998
[email protected] wrote:
> Some years ago Vivitar (I think) made an auto focus lens for non auto > focus cameras. This lens had the auto focus built in. As I remember > it came in a short zoom about 35-70. If anybody remembers this lens > and can tell me what name Vivitar marketed it under and how I can find > one in Olympus mount I would be forever in thier debt. > > Thanx in advance. > > R. Kelly > [email protected]
There were two of these lenses. One was a 28-70 or 35-70, I forget which,
and the other was something like a 70-200. Tamron also made one which was
something like an 80-200 which worked with their adaptall mounts to fit most
any camera.
The two lenses sold by Vivitar were built by Cosina, and are remarkably good
optically. I think they were marketed as part of Vivitar's Series 1 program.
I got a set for my dad to use on his Nikons, and he is still using them.
The lenses from Vivitar and Tamron were not sales successes, though, and
vanished from the market relatively quickly. I have not seen them on the
used
market.
Your best bet for this sort of thing is photo swap meets and some of the
dealers like Brooklyn Camera Exchange and KEH who specialize in used
equipment.
If you need more information, contact me by private e-mail and I will try to
dig it up for you.
Bob S
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (RWatson767)
[1] Re: HELP Looking for oddball lens
Date: Sat Nov 21 1998
R Kelly
HELP Looking for oddball lens
These were great lenses except on the 2 I have the motor is jumpy. Porter
Camera in the Mid-West sold all of them. The 2 that I have are 200mm
f3.5. Use
them several times a year.
Bob AZ
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Kirbyko3)
[1] Re: Vivitar lenses
Date: Wed Nov 25 1998
The June POP PHOTO gave a stellar review to the 100mm/macro Vivitar lens;
apparently it's really good quality at an unbeatlable price.
I use the Vivitar 24mm lens for my Pentax K1000 and I LOVE it. Wonderful
pictures, very sharp (I've blown them up as far as 8x10), very clear, and for
$79.95 you just can't go wrong. It's a solid lens.
Kerry
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Michael A. Covington" [email protected]
[1] Re: General lens sharpness quesitons
Date: Fri Dec 04 1998
Richard l. Hoenes wrote in message
>I've read that faster lens tend to be better/sharper.
No... They're harder to make and tend to be *less* sharp than an equally
well-made slower lens. For example, the Olympus 50-mm f/1.4 is *definitely*
inferior to their 50-mm f/1.8 (I have both).
However, slower lenses often use simpler designs to save money. So an f/4
or f/5.6 zoom lens will often be an "economy model" built to sell at a low
price.
>Let's say you have >a general 35/2 and a 35/3.5 of comprable quality. Is it generally true >that the 35/2 lens is going to be sharper when both lenses are at f5.6?
If so, it's not because of the f-ratio. It's because the 35/2 will be a
much more expensive lens with a more elaborate design.
>What about a comprable 28-70/3.5-4.5 at 35mm and f5.6? >Generally, how noticable is this difference if you don't enlarge the >prints beyond 8x10 and are using 100 or 200 speed film?
Not very!
From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Nikon vs Non-Brand Name Lens
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998
I feel that there are a few camera maker lenses out there that are
pretty low quality. The new 35-80 from Nikon (the Thailand built lens)
isn't particularily rugged, thats true. A few of the newer low cost
Nikkors really seem built to compete with the low cost third party
alternatives. I have this opinion about the Nikkor 80-200 f/4.5-5.6 D -
perhaps unjustly.
My solution was to buy a used Nikkor 70-210 lens wich has a reputation
for being heavy and having slow AF, but sharp and with low distortion.
We'll see about that...
Quite frankly, and with respect for Sigma/Tamron et al, I feel that
this move puts me in a better position if I want to upgrade, as most of
the depriciation of that lens is taken by the first owner, and the
second hand value is more stable for Nikkors than for TP lenses.
Also, be aware that Sigma have different models, and that there are
quality differences within each makers range, too. I would be
pleasantly surprised if there is a real price/performance difference
larger than 20% between decent to good lenses, no matter the make.
--
Anders Svensson
Date: Tue, 01 Dec 1998
From: [email protected] (Bill Baker)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Nikon vs Non-Brand Name Lens
[email protected] (Stevekent1) wrote:
> I have a Nikon 70 with a Nikon 28-80MM lens. > I am looking to get another lens for xmas. My question is this... > > Is there a big drop off in performance between say Nikon lens vs Sigma/Tameron > (given same/similar F and same MM)? > > Is the money difference worth it?
In resale value it is. I have an N70 too and have been shopping carefully
to build my lens arsenal. After sifting the used market carefully, it's
clear to me that, in the long run, you get your money's worth by buying
Nikon simply on their ability to hold their value.
The other issue is availability. Tamron, Sigma, et al. offer mostly slow
zoom lenses that generally tend to be softer than the equivalent Nikon zoom
wide open. What that means, basically, is you're stuck using fast film in
all but the brightest of conditions, or using a lot of flash. Fast film
limits how much you can enlarge a picture, so ultimately slow zooms aren't
much good except for shooting snapshots. With my Tamron 28-80 zoom I've
shot a ton of snaps that look fine at 4X6 but would look unacceptably fuzzy
at 8X10. Then I rented a Nikon 85mm f1.8 AF and Nikon 105mm f2.5 AI and
shot 4-5 rolls of my daughter, ending up with at least a dozen gorgeous
portrait-style shots sharp enough to enlarge to poster size. I simply
couldn't have gotten those shots with a slow zoom, and only Nikon makes
those lenses. Would you rather be limited to shooting snaps for Grandma or
laying out a few hundred bucks more for the ability to shoot pro-quality
pics you'll treasure the rest of your life?
I'm carping on the same theme the real pros in this 'group always
stress--buy one good, fast prime and learn to zoom with your feet--but from
the angle that you pretty much have to buy Nikon to get that lens 'cause
the aftermarket fabs don't make 'em. (Tamron or Sigma makes a 105 macro
that is supposed to be pretty good, but it isn't much cheaper than the
Nikon 105mm macro.)
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (DWA652)
[1] Re: I need help buying lenses...
Date: Wed Dec 16 1998
I own both Sigma and Nikkor lenses. In my opinion the Sigma's are 99%
optically as good as the Nikkors for most focal lengths. In some cases,
where Sigma has just introduced a new model, they may even be a bit
better. However, mechanically many of the cheaper Sigma lenses are not
nearly as sound.
I owned a Sigma 28-70 f2.8 and it was outstanding optically (as good as
the Nikkor both in my experience and in tests), but after about 3 years it
began to have mechanical problems. Note that I did use this lens a lot,
and all of my other Sigma lenses are fine.
The key for me in making a purchase decision between a Nikkor and a Sigma
is primarily economics. I balance the money saved now versus the resale
value of the lens. For example, if the Sigma was $300 and the Nikkor was
$1000 I think the Sigma is a no brainer. The interest alone on the money
you save after a few years more than compensates for the resale value.
A closer call, one that I am wrestling with right now, is the 105 f2.8
macros. The Sigma is $359 and the Nikkor is $499 grey. The Sigma is a
brand new model and has the latest multicoating technology but the Nikkor
aint shabby, since they just redid this lens to make it a D lens not too
long ago. But with the $140 saved, if I keep the lens about 5-7 years, I
would probably be a bit better financially with the Sigma, even though the
Nikkor will have a better resale value. In 5-7 years, the Nikkor will
have a resale value of about $400 (in todays dollars), so that together
with the lost interest in the $140, I am out about $200 relative to the
Sigma. This means the Sigma has to resale for at least $159 for me to be
ahead buying the Sigma. A close call. (The Sigma will probably be worth
a little more than that).
So that is a "close call" example. Others opinions may differ. Note
that, for some lenses, namely the slower zoom lenses, fast long lenses,
etc., the Nikkors are optically superior, and you have to factor that in
as well.
Hope this helps. BTW, view my web page and see if you can tell me which
close up images (flowers and butterflies) were taken with a Nikkor and
which with a Sigma!
Don Allen
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
[email protected] wrote:
>I have a question about nikon lenses. I'm looking at prices for the >equivalent >sigma lenses, and they're so much cheaper. Are nikon lenses THAT much >better? >I'm looking at the 28-70, and the new sigma, with internal focusing is $312 >at >B&H. My guess is that when the nikon comes out with their 28-70 in a month >or >so, it's gonna be close to a grand. Can someone please help me understand >the >difference between the two? On one hand I think the nikons MUST be that much >better because they're so expensive and it seems all the pros use nikon or >canon lenses. On the other hand I wonder if it's the same deal where you go >to >the grocery store and see Ny-Quil for 8 bucks, and right next to it a generic >"Ni-Calm" which has, letter for letter, the same ingredients. And it costs >$2.50. Am I the only one wondering this? Any help is greatly appreciated. > >Thanks.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "D. Shultz" [email protected]
[1] Re: next best thing to Nikkors??
Date: Sun Dec 27 1998
I think the Vivitar Series One lenses in NAI mount are worth considering -
solid construction and respectable optical performance based on my
experience and the few reviews I've seen on them. One that I know of, the
28-90/2.8 even focuses the "right" way, unlike most 3rd party lenses that
focus opposite of Nikkors.
From: Bob Sull [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Subject: Re: Macro Lenses?
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1998
Roach wrote:
> Can someone please explain to me what macro lenses are? And why are > some so-called "macro-zooms" not true macro? How do you tell if a lens > is true macro?
A true macro lens is a flat field lens. That is, it can put an image of a
flat subject like a stamp on the film and not have any loss of sharpness
at the edges.
A "macro zoom" will not generally be a flat field lens. A long time ago,
Vivitar tried the phrase, "not to distant" to describe the focus ability
of their lenses. This was a good definition, IMHO, since you were able to
get close to not flat things, bugs, flowers, etc. and get good quality
shots.
Bob
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Jackson Loi" [email protected]
[1] Lens Comparison Websites
Date: Wed Jan 13 1999
I always like to look at lens comparison before I make purchase. Such as
SQF of Popular Photography; something with numbers to compare...
I know that whether I like the lens will not depend on these comparisons, I
will know if I like it after using for one week or so... But somehow it is
necessary to look at these tests, because they provide reference with their
own standard.
Two websites for lens comparison:
http://photo.net , of coz..., duh...and
http://www.photodo.com , this one not so obvious, but it's quite good too.
Are there any others??? Please post. Thanks.
From: [email protected] (liam darkfaer d'tristesse)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: contax and third party lenses
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1998
"nick ure" [email protected] wrote:
> Do the the third party lens makers (Tamron, Sigma etc) make lenses to fit > Contax cameras ?. I know that some might say it is blasphemy to do such a > thing, but contax lenses are so expensive.
Tamron makes the Adaptall-II manual mount, for which they have a
Yashica/Contax MM mount.
The Tamron 300/2.8 can be found for the adaptall mount at about $2000
used, which is a much better price than the $13,000 for Contax. Also I
understand it will take several months for the Contax German factory to
make one for you.
Tokina and Sigma both make lenses to mount on yashica/contax, but it is
far and few between. Most lenses are not made for manual, and fewer are
for yashica/contax.
The advantage is the $500 Tamron 90/2.8 II vs the $1300 Contax 100/2.8 or
the aforementioned 300/2.8 glass.
Also are the 70-200/2.8 calibre lenses of which Contax no longer makes
(you can find a used 70-210/3.5 which is like 5 pounds and $1500 used), or
fisheyes, which is $600 from sigma and $5000 from Contax.
That is why we buy 3rd party. I have all contax lenses so far, but they
are the cheap ones. When I plan to expand into 300/2.8 I refuse to pay
$13k for Contax "Zeiss".
Cheaper even to buy a Canon 300/2.8 USM L and a EOS-3 body.
-jon
jrl at blast dot princeton dot edu
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (GBanzhoff)
[1] Re: Lenses, Pro or Con?
Date: Sat Jan 16 1999
Scotty: The Pentax 1000 is a very good camera, and there are many
aftermarket lenses for it that are top quality. Tamron, Sigma, Tokina are
all excellent lensmakers with a AAA rating and background. Since you have
a knowledge of photography already, I would not go for the "Pro" lenses,
as you are paying for 1 or 2 stops faster--plus it is heavier and from
experience, there is not that much difference, depending on what your
criteria is. Check out old issues of Pop Photography or the old Modern
photography for lens tests. Do not go by the optical crap they put on the
page, as it does not mean anything to you and me. If the picture is
sharp, doesn't matter how they rate it. Whatever you decide to buy,
remember that the optimum f-stop is 2 stops down from maximum aperture.
Buy the best you can afford----after you have 1st hand info. from someone
who has used it in the field. I run my own photography business out of my
home, and have for years (19). I would not try to lead you astray. Sorry
for the long winded reply, but photography is my love--and I enjoy helping
others NOT make the mistakes that I have made in the past. Good luck!
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Richard Saylor)
[1] Re: Lenses, Pro or Con?
Date: Sat Jan 16 1999
http://www.photodo.com/ has lots of lens tests.
I stuck a SMC Pentax 50mm/1.7 on a K1000, mounted it on a tripod, and
photographed a very ornate, antique clock, not because I wanted a
picture of the clock, but to see how well the lens was doing. The
16x20 enlargement was terrific! I used Fuji Superia 400 and an
aperture of f/2.8.
Many of the consumer grade Pentax primes are excellent. This is true
of the other major brands as well. For most people the small
improvement gained by using pro lenses would be a needless
extravagance.
I would like to get rid of my two cheap zooms, but my wife enjoys
using them for b&w photography. You know... grainy, artsy stuff using
Tri-X. Who cares if they're a bit fuzzy? :-)
Richard
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (PuckFinn)
[1] Re: Lenses, Pro or Con?
Date: Sat Jan 16 1999
BrightFace wrote:
>With good lenses and some attention, your Pentax should have produced >some pretty good results.
That's what I think too. There's not much about a mechanical camera body that
can affect sharpness. The key elements are the lens and the photographer.
I think one or more of the following is the case:
1. His lenses may be crap.
2. He may not be focussing carefully enough.
3. He may be getting too much camera shake.
4. Maybe he expects to get medium format results with 35mm. If that's the
case, he should use MF equipment.
If I were he, I would get a good Pentax prime and a tripod and veeeery
carefully shoot some test pictures. Send them to a good lab, and evaluate the
results.
Puck
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Frederick Wong [email protected]
[1] Re: Lenses, Pro or Con?
Date: Mon Jan 18 1999
Scotty Moore wrote:
> I've been away from photography for a few years, and I'm now > thinking of taking it up again. > My old camera (Pentax K1000) always yielded a disappointing lack of > sharpness no matter what film or lab I used. This is something I want to > avoid this time around. My thoughts are leaning towards buying top > quality lenses, but a body that might not have all the latest bells and > whistles. Any suggestions? Are the pro quality lenses really that much > better than the so called consumer grades? I don't mind saving up my > magic beans and going for the good lenses, but not if I'm not going to > see a difference in an 8 x 10 or 11 x 14. Can anyone recommend a site > that shows good comparisons of lenses? > > Thanks, > Scotty Moore
Hi Scotty,
Even though the Pentax K1000 is regarded as a student camera, it
shouldn't give you unsharp pictures. I have seen a quite a few award
wining photos taken with the K100. So before you spend a little
fortunate on the latest photo gear, would you pleae check the following:
1. Are the photos unsharp in huge blow-ups (larger than 8x10) or unsharp
even in 4x6 ?
2. What lens do you use? If it is a Pentax, even if it is a cheap
consumer zoom, it should be fine, at least in 4x16. If it is a prime
lens like 50mm (f1.4, 1.7 or f2), they are all VERY good. You won't
be disappointed even at 8x10.
3. Are there fungi in the lens? This will soften the picture.
4. Do you focus correctly?
5. Do you keep the shutter speed above 1/60 sec? If your lens is a
telephoto, the speed required should be even faster. Too long a shutter
speed will blur you pictures.
If points (4) and (5) sound insulting, I apologize. I do not know
you standard of photography.
There are a couple of further suggestions. Ask the lab what they think
the problem is. Secondly, ask an advanced amateur to take a few shots
or a whole roll and see what he/she gets. If you can find a Pentax
user, the better, since he/she can try his/her lens on you K100 and your
lens on his/her Pentax bodies.
I hope you will solve your problem soon, and keep us posted.
Regards,
Frederick Wong
P.S. You can send an email to Pentax discussion group. Those guys
there are friendly and very helpful, except one person. You have to
subscribe to the forum, however. But you may unsubscribe later on. The
official web site is www.pentax.com.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (FOR7)
[1] Re: Are Sigma lenses any good?
Date: Mon Jan 18 1999
>imho...NO sigma lenses are not very good at all. >i bought a new 70-210,2 years ago ..shot several rolls of film ...not happy >at >all. >i never use it . and i would never recomend sigma lenses to anyone. >Harry
You are basing your opinion on just one sample lens?! Not a very fair
conclusion.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
[1] Re: Are Sigma lenses any good?
Date: Tue Jan 19 1999
I think you are on the right rack here...
Geting the "easy to make" lenses from 3:rd party manufacturers is
fairly safe, and as with other tools, you may have to consider if the
extra longevity and solidness is worth the extra cost. Actual optical
performance can be judged quickly by a test roll or two, but not long
term quality.
For a macro lens, that isn't going to be banged about and is used on
tripod most of the time, extra mechanical quality perhaps isn't making
much difference. Most "amateurs" do take good care of their stuff.
The issue with Sigma's is often reported as lack of mechanical quality,
not optical. Some Sigmas have got good reports on mechanical quality
too - I have seen two German magazine reviews that were (very)
favourable.
But I got a used Nikkor 70-210 instead, for less than the cost of a new
Sigma. So far, it seems like a good decision. Most people never will
KNOW - few people set these lenses side by side.
--
Anders Svensson
----------------------------------------
DWA652 [email protected] wrote:
> I challenge anyone to do a side by side comparison with the new Sigma 105mm > f2.8 EX macro and a Nikkor 105mm f2.8 AF macro and actually prove a significant > difference in optical quality. While it is true that not all Sigmas are as > good as Nikkors (some are as good, some are not even close), the 105mm focal > length macro lenses are pretty easy to make, which is why the $100 Vivitar is > even decent!. > > The advantage of the Nikkor primes over the Sigma primes (or f2.8 zooms) is > typically mechanical (and the corresponding resale value), not optical. > > Sometime in the near future I intend to perform some lens tests with my 90mm > f2.8 Sigma macro against my Nikkor 200mm f4 macro. I doubt I will see much > difference! > > God Bless, > > Don Allen > http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto > large set of photography links including my recommended photo book list! > remove no spam from email address when responding!
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Vicente Jimenez)
[1] Re: third party lens for EOS
Date: Wed Jan 20 1999
[email protected]
wrote:
> as long as the lens is designated as EOS EF mount, it'll work. USM is > the type of motor. nothing to do with lens compatibility. Canon makes > non USM lenses as well and they work perfectly fine. so there's nothing > to worry about using Sigma lenses on you Canon. just make sure it says > EOS EF mount.
In theory, any EOS-MOUNT lens will work with an EOS system. In practice,
some old third party lenses (some sigmas included) don't work with new
bodies. Moreover, you don't know if your new Sigma lens will work on a
future EOS camera.
Some manufacturers re-chip it's problematic lenses at no cost when a new
EOS camera hits the market. Sigma is known of not re-chiping some of its
lenses. I think Tokina is better re-chiping their ones.
I've been told that Tamron lenses always work on new cameras. Perhaps they
use Canon chips.
Hope it helps
Vicente
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999
From: shepherdjo [email protected]
Subject: Re:Telephoto Lens [v04.n203/11] [v04.n209/19] [v04.n211/9]
Hello Bruce, Bill,
I have the Tokina AT-X 400mm f5.6 lens. It is very good in bright light,
fair on cloudy days, absolutely must be shot with tripod, useless in dim
light, sunrises, sunsets. Enlargements over 8x10 are never sharp. It is
well made and light, and I backpack it everywhere. TTFN, John ;~)
> There's also the Tokina 400/5.6 which is reported to be good, and is > astonishingly inexpensive. Tokina seems to enjoy a good reputation. I've > been personally very pleased with their value in the past. > > I have a question here. If we ignore weight and bulk, and if we assume that > we'd shoot far more at about 400 mm, as Bill wishes to, which would yield > superior results: Nikkor 300/4 + TC-14B, or Tokina 400/5.6 ATX-APO?
From: [email protected] (JDA4408)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 3rd Party Lenses - Are they any good?
Date: 19 Dec 1998
I work for a camera store. We recommend staying with the manufacture lenses.
i.e. canon lenses on canon cameras and so on.
We had an incident with a customer who bought his outfit from some where
in NY.
And they sold Sigma lenses with the camera. (we talked about this before
I told his too let them talk him into Sigma lenses.)
He came into the store with his camera, with the sigma lens on you could
take about 6 pictures then the camera would lock up. This happened quite
ofter. I put a canon lens on and fired off the equal of 4 roll of 36 - No
problem. Put his lens back on and The camera locked up.
The one who I would trust the most is Tamron
If a camera manufacture changes camera models they make old lenses work
with now cameras. Some 3rd party manufactures don't.
The one who I
would trust the most is Tamron. They buy rights to produce lenses for
camera companies.
From: [email protected] (Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Third Party Lenses
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998
I think that third party lenses are getting a bad press in
this newsgroup, with people putting forward a lot of false
information.
Firstly any comparison in quality is usually made between a
cheap third party zoom and a pro-grade original manufacturer prime -
certainly not a fair match. Both original equipment and third party
manufacturers produce cheap, low grade lenses and also more expensive
pro-grade glass. Compare like with like, eg Nikkor ED glass with
Tamron SP glass.
The second point often quoted is better resale value for
original manufacturer lenses. Take macro lenses around 100mm FL as an
example - the Nikkor 105mm costs around $600, assume that its resale
value is say 50%, then on resale, you will be about $300 out of pocket
- if you bought a thrid party lens eg sigma 105 ($360), you would
only need to resell for $60 ( approx. 16% of original value) to loose
the same amount of money.
I think all the false opinions are put about by some arrogant
people who have an "Mines better than yours" attitude. Would they all
turn down third party lenses so quickly if they were Zeiss or
Angenuix. And perhaps there understanding of economics is lacking??? I
will admit that I didn't include factors such as inflation or market
changes in my example above - but then I don't buy a lens purely to
speculate on its future value. In fact I think current AF lens
technology will not have a significant future value in the same way
that MF lenses have now. With the new ultrasonic motors on lenses (USM
or AF-S), in a few years, camera bodies will loose the mechanical AF
drive to save weight and space and the current AF will be delegateed
to being no better than MF - worse in fact, as they generally have a
shorter focus rotation and are therefore harder to focus accurately
manually.
The presence of third party lenses helps the market
significantly - manufacturers have to make lenses that consumers want.
If original equipment manufacturers had a monopoly, there would be no
market pressures for them to respond to and they would force users to
buy the lenses they wanted to make at whatever price. I've seen
several posts on this newsgroup criticing Nikon for failing to respond
to market trends such as the introduction of AF-S zooms, etc, but now
they are bowing to market pressures.
OK, enough of that - in future will you give people a fair
response when they answer about third party lenses - a major factor
many people ask for is value for money and third party lenses can
often provide this. Don't make people feel cheap for using third party
lenses - I have used several third party lenses and am happy using
them. I'm sure if many people out there got a fair opinion or looked
beyond their short-sighted arrogant views, they could be more happy
too.
From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses (long)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998
Comments below:
Chris [email protected] wrote...
> I think that third party lenses are getting a bad press in > this newsgroup, with people putting forward a lot of false > information. > > Firstly any comparison in quality is usually made between a > cheap third party zoom and a pro-grade original manufacturer prime - > certainly not a fair match. Both original equipment and third party > manufacturers produce cheap, low grade lenses and also more expensive > pro-grade glass. Compare like with like, eg Nikkor ED glass with > Tamron SP glass.
To be fair, the notable reactions here usually come when somebody comes
with a (clueless?) question or statement like "Can you really see the
difference between SiToRon 24-300 and the much more expensive, half
zoom range lens from MinTax or NiCan ?"
One of the problems of comparing performance is that the idea with TP
lenses is to differentiate in *price* - not features - from CM (Camera
Manufacturer). That low cost TP lenses are put up against high cost CM
lenses is the choice of the TP manufacturer - and also part of his
business plan, IMHO.
He does it partly by giving the camera store the same absolute profit
on the sale of one of his lenses, compared to the profit they make on
selling a CM lens, partly by using the law of diminishing return on
production costs (price/performance) to his (and to a large degree the
customers) benefit.
> The second point often quoted is better resale value for > original manufacturer lenses. Take macro lenses around 100mm FL as an > example - the Nikkor 105mm costs around $600, assume that its resale > value is say 50%, then on resale, you will be about $300 out of pocket > - if you bought a thrid party lens eg sigma 105 ($360), you would > only need to resell for $60 ( approx. 16% of original value) to loose > the same amount of money.
This is quite correct and sensible. Loosing percentages cannot hurt
you, only loosing dollars. I would suggest, however, that the
Sigma/Nikkor comparison also is a comparison of getting 80% of the
performance for 65% of the price, often seen as a sensible suggestion.
I just want to add, that if you buy the *used* Nikkor, that could be
the even better deal in this case. If you follow my reasoning, but use
your data, you will get 100% of the performance for 50 % of the
price...
> I think all the false opinions are put about by some arrogant > people who have an "Mines better than yours" attitude. Would they all > turn down third party lenses so quickly if they were Zeiss or > Angenuix.
Hasselblad is using third party lenses from Zeiss. I also know that
Angeneuix was making state-of-the-art zoom lenses for a number of the
best 16 mm film cameras of the 60's and 70's. These companys are/were
leading-edge lens makers of considerable fame.
Also, not all bad things that is said about TP lenses is false because
of (technically) Zeiss being a third party lensmaker.
> And perhaps there understanding of economics is lacking??? I > will admit that I didn't include factors such as inflation or market > changes in my example above - but then I don't buy a lens purely to > speculate on its future value. In fact I think current AF lens > technology will not have a significant future value in the same way > that MF lenses have now. With the new ultrasonic motors on lenses (USM > or AF-S), in a few years, camera bodies will loose the mechanical AF > drive to save weight and space and the current AF will be delegateed > to being no better than MF - worse in fact, as they generally have a > shorter focus rotation and are therefore harder to focus accurately > manually.
I agree completely. I am a owner of some 35-25 year old mechanical
cameras - wich still are completely ueseful, and IMHO we will not see
todays cameras reach that age intact because of repair and maintenance
problems.
> The presence of third party lenses helps the market > significantly - manufacturers have to make lenses that consumers want. > If original equipment manufacturers had a monopoly, there would be no > market pressures for them to respond to and they would force users to > buy the lenses they wanted to make at whatever price. I've seen > several posts on this newsgroup criticing Nikon for failing to respond > to market trends such as the introduction of AF-S zooms, etc, but now > they are bowing to market pressures.
Returning to your "mine-is-better-than-yours" thought above, isnt the
pressure on Nikon put upon them by Canon, rather than Tamron ? The
whole idea with TP lenses is to present "adaptive technology" - not
lead the way...
As a side remark, and nothing to do with TP lenses, those ridiculing
(you aren't!) Nikons lack of USM lenses also seem to forget that it is
just recently the USM technology have been giving any significant
performance edge to AF systems and that Nikon made a different (and
IMHO commendable) business decision by keeping their lens mount intact.
Canons better AF speed in recent times wasn't from where the motor was
situated, but from doing more research and going all out on AF
technology when Nikon didn't.
Nikon was/is more conservative but suggestions from recent tests
indicate that the AF speed is very similar and that in-lens or
in-camera lens drive both can match the performance delivered by the AF
mechanisms in the camera. The battle today *is* between Nikon and
Canon, they have both surpassed all other competition in the AF field.
> OK, enough of that - in future will you give people a fair > response when they answer about third party lenses - a major factor > many people ask for is value for money and third party lenses can > often provide this. Don't make people feel cheap for using third party > lenses - I have used several third party lenses and am happy using > them. I'm sure if many people out there got a fair opinion or looked > beyond their short-sighted arrogant views, they could be more happy > too.
I feel that the general reason for a lot of persons/posters to
recommend any CM lens is to be on the safe side. There are comparably
fewer lemons out there with the CM (replace with any favourite
manufacturer) name on them. It is without question that there are good
TP lenses, the problem is simply to know wich are good value, wich are
good in absolute sense and wich are "no good" at all.
I also feel that there must be few people out there having any
significant knowledge about more than, say, 5 individual lenses. They
tend to endorse what they know of, and frankly, I feel that most lenses
work pretty well these days.
Besides, a random recommendation from just about anyone here can range
from "completely unusable" (to take award winning, completely sharp
pictures, enlarged to 2x3 foot size or to be used as cover material for
National Geographic) to "very good"(for my vacation shots of my kids,
taken in broad sunlight, for prints and usually in sizes handy for a
pocket flip book).
Personally, I feel that most "holier-than-thou" posts about lens
quality, camera features, usability and general performance is
misleading and is pased on peer pressure, wanting to win pissing
matches and insecurity. Some of the master photographers of the 30's,
40's and 50's would have been extremely happy to get their hands on
some of the equipment that is regulairly ridiculed on this list...
--
Anders Svensson
From: "W Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses (long)
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998
Anders Svensson wrote
>> The second point often quoted is better resale value for >> original manufacturer lenses. Take macro lenses around 100mm FL as an >> example - the Nikkor 105mm costs around $600, assume that its resale >> value is say 50%, then on resale, you will be about $300 out of >pocket >> - if you bought a thrid party lens eg sigma 105 ($360), you would >> only need to resell for $60 ( approx. 16% of original value) to loose >> the same amount of money. > >This is quite correct and sensible. Loosing percentages cannot hurt >you, only loosing dollars. I would suggest, however, that the >Sigma/Nikkor comparison also is a comparison of getting 80% of the >performance for 65% of the price, often seen as a sensible suggestion.
This may be valid for some lenses, but does not appear to hold true for this
example. The Sigma and Tamron 90 or 105 macro lenses are as good or better
than the 105 Nikon in most tests that I've seen.
The price difference between the Canon or Nikon vs Tamron or Sigma 90 -105
macro lenses is more of an example of the third party manufacturers forcing
the manufacturers to keep developing products and keeping prices under
control. Tamron and Sigma have developed equivalent lenses using modern
design and manufacturing techniques. Now its Canon and Nikon's turn to do
some product development and compete with either better quality or an
equivalent price.
In any case, I don't find the resale value that important. If I buy a lens,
its because I want to use it, not because I want to re-sell it.
Occasionally I do get the wrong lens and deal it, but this usually occurs so
shortly after the purchase that the retailer will give me full value when I
trade up to a higher quality lens. If I keep a lens for 20 years, the
discounted present value of any differences in re-sale value is so minimal
that it shouldn't have any bearing on my current purchase decision. Also,
if I'm going to keep a lens that long, it is usually worth spending a few
more dollars to get the best quality I can. That's where the OEM lens often
wins.
Scott
From: James Greenland [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998
Chris wrote:
(snipped to save bandwidth)
> OK, enough of that - in future will you give people a fair > response when they answer about third party lenses - a major factor > many people ask for is value for money and third party lenses can > often provide this. Don't make people feel cheap for using third party > lenses - I have used several third party lenses and am happy using > them. I'm sure if many people out there got a fair opinion or looked > beyond their short-sighted arrogant views, they could be more happy > too.
Right on!
More sharpness is lost to camera shake than to all the 3rd party lenses
ever made. Among the Nikon lenses, I have a Vititar Series 1 105 and a
Tokina AT-X 17 that limit me not at all. At 16X20 a tripod and the film
used has a much geater effect on image quality than any of my lenses.
Good Shooting
Jim Greenland
Gold Canyon AZ
From: [email protected] (JDA4408)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses
Date: 19 Dec 1998
So far every on is on a kick about the quality of glass. But is it worth
buying a lens that is the best optics but poor mechanical design.
I work for a store that used to sell sigma autofocus lenses, about 10 years
ago. You know something changed in quality when sigma went from a 7 year
manufacture warranty down to a 1 yer warranty.
I'm not saying that the manufactures are any better, but if you start looking
into repairs on third party verses manufacturer lenses I would guess that 3rd
party will be higher.
Again is it worth buying a $190.00 lens because its cheaper than a
manufacture 275.00. Yes you might end up with spending less money, but
most repair bills on AF lenses run at the least 100.00.
Buy the way for example over the last year we have had 15 sigma lenses we
sent in for repair for people because they just fell apart. In canon we
had 2 that quite working.
The sigma lenes that were brought in were mainly sold through mail order
because they can make more money on those than OEM lenses.
From: "Wai Chan" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses
Date: 20 Dec 1998
> I think that third party lenses are getting a bad press in > this newsgroup, with people putting forward a lot of false > information. > > Firstly any comparison in quality is usually made between a > cheap third party zoom and a pro-grade original manufacturer prime - > certainly not a fair match. Both original equipment and third party > manufacturers produce cheap, low grade lenses and also more expensive > pro-grade glass. Compare like with like, eg Nikkor ED glass with > Tamron SP glass.
I think today's Tamron SP lenses were not built as good as they used to be.
For instances, the SP 200-400mm f5.6 LD IF is a famous poor lens. I had
the SP 35-105mm f2.8 ASL which was expensive but poor both optically and
mechanically (my biggest mistake on lens purchase, not even my previous
Sigma lenses gave me so much trouble).
> The second point often quoted is better resale value for > original manufacturer lenses. Take macro lenses around 100mm FL as an > example - the Nikkor 105mm costs around $600, assume that its resale > value is say 50%, then on resale, you will be about $300 out of pocket > - if you bought a thrid party lens eg sigma 105 ($360), you would > only need to resell for $60 ( approx. 16% of original value) to loose > the same amount of money.
I believe the 105mm Nikkor you mentioned holds more than 50% on used market
(depends on the condition of course). Besides, you are comparing a $600
Nikkor to a $360 Sigma. The fair comparsion would be a $600 Nikkor vs a
$600 Sigma, or a $360 Nikkor vs a $360 Sigma. Also worth to mention is
that, based on my experience, Sigma lenses degrade phyically pretty fast
over the years, and this is not the case with Nikkors (or my Pentaxes).
And about the resale value, you will see the difference as soon as you want
to trade your Nikkor/Sigma to the dealers.
> I think all the false opinions are put about by some arrogant > people who have an "Mines better than yours" attitude. Would they all > turn down third party lenses so quickly if they were Zeiss or > Angenuix. And perhaps there understanding of economics is lacking??? I > will admit that I didn't include factors such as inflation or market > changes in my example above - but then I don't buy a lens purely to
The resale value is one consideration, but not only. What you said
"purely" maybe a bit extreme. As a Pentax user, there are many Pentax
lenses I would not choose too due to their worse quality (optically,
mechanically, or both). The resale value has never been an issue to me
when I choose Pentax lenses.
> speculate on its future value. In fact I think current AF lens > technology will not have a significant future value in the same way > that MF lenses have now. With the new ultrasonic motors on lenses (USM > or AF-S), in a few years, camera bodies will loose the mechanical AF > drive to save weight and space and the current AF will be delegateed > to being no better than MF - worse in fact, as they generally have a > shorter focus rotation and are therefore harder to focus accurately > manually.
How good AF lenses hold their value remains to be seen, but surely at the
moment, AF lenses hold their value very well. Most people don't seem to
care how they feel manually (all they want is AF).
> The presence of third party lenses helps the market > significantly - manufacturers have to make lenses that consumers want. > If original equipment manufacturers had a monopoly, there would be no > market pressures for them to respond to and they would force users to > buy the lenses they wanted to make at whatever price. I've seen > several posts on this newsgroup criticing Nikon for failing to respond > to market trends such as the introduction of AF-S zooms, etc, but now > they are bowing to market pressures.
IMO, Nikon has a long history of being arrogant and not listening to their
customers. But I think the history has finally changed.
> OK, enough of that - in future will you give people a fair > response when they answer about third party lenses - a major factor > many people ask for is value for money and third party lenses can > often provide this. Don't make people feel cheap for using third party > lenses - I have used several third party lenses and am happy using > them. I'm sure if many people out there got a fair opinion or looked > beyond their short-sighted arrogant views, they could be more happy > too.
Personally, I have never found the term "value-for-money" makes any sense
in practice, unless those items being compared carry similar price tags.
For instances, a lens like 80-200mm f2.8 ED zoom would never make sense
when compared to a Sigma 70-210mm f4-5.6. When people asked, "which is the
best value tele-zoom?" The question is actually, "which is the cheapest
tele-zoom (within the budget))?" However, I am not suggesting budget
lenses are ashame to use. Most of my lenses are 2ndhand Pentax which are
hardly expensive. But there is no free lunch, be prepare to pay when
excellent quality is required (but 2ndhand lenses can cut down the price
dramatically, especially with old brand-name manual focus primes (many are
still excellent)).
=== regards, http://yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au/~wlac/ ===
=== Alan Chan [email protected] ===
From: [email protected] (Chris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998
"Wai Chan" [email protected] wrote:
>I think today's Tamron SP lenses were not built as good as they used to be. > For instances, the SP 200-400mm f5.6 LD IF is a famous poor lens. I had >the SP 35-105mm f2.8 ASL which was expensive but poor both optically and >mechanically (my biggest mistake on lens purchase, not even my previous >Sigma lenses gave me so much trouble).
TAMRON 200-400 isn't an SP lens - so it might well fall into
the poor quality class.
I think you got the wrong end of the stick with this - the whole point
is that you can compare a $360 Sigma with a $600 Nikkor in this case
and get comparable results. However, you shouldn't take the view point
that a $100 Sigma zoom will compare with a $1000 Nikkor prime, which
is generally what people quaote when they say that third party lenses
aren't good.
>How good AF lenses hold their value remains to be seen, but surely at the >moment, AF lenses hold their value very well. Most people don't seem to >care how they feel manually (all they want is AF).
You missed the point again - current AF will be good until the
mechanical AF link dissapears from bodies and then they will be worse
than an even older manual lens. Canon and Minolta have already lost
their apperture rings!! I'm sure Canon will drop the old mechanical AF
sometime in the next 5 years as everyone shifts to USM lenses.
>Personally, I have never found the term "value-for-money" makes any sense >in practice, unless those items being compared carry similar price tags. >For instances, a lens like 80-200mm f2.8 ED zoom would never make sense >when compared to a Sigma 70-210mm f4-5.6.
That is what I said at the beginning!!! However, you could reasonably
compare the Nikkor you mentioned with a f2.8 APO Sigma of similar
focal length even if there is a significant differrence in price.
Interestingly, I've seen the Tamron SP AF 70-210 f2.8 going for more
than the Nikkor 80-200 f2.8 ED!!!!!!!
> However, I am not suggesting budget >lenses are ashame to use. Most of my lenses are 2ndhand Pentax which are >hardly expensive. But there is no free lunch, be prepare to pay when >excellent quality is required (but 2ndhand lenses can cut down the price >dramatically, especially with old brand-name manual focus primes (many are >still excellent)).
But an inexperienced amateur will be taking much more risk in buying a
second hand manufacturer brand lens than a brand new third party lens
- in terms of warrenty, etc.
From: Adam Griffith [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 1998
> > The second point often quoted is better resale value for > > original manufacturer lenses. Take macro lenses around 100mm FL as an > > example - the Nikkor 105mm costs around $600, assume that its resale > > value is say 50%, then on resale, you will be about $300 out of pocket > > - if you bought a thrid party lens eg sigma 105 ($360), you would > > only need to resell for $60 ( approx. 16% of original value) to loose > > the same amount of money. > > I believe the 105mm Nikkor you mentioned holds more than 50% on used market > (depends on the condition of course). Besides, you are comparing a $600 > Nikkor to a $360 Sigma. The fair comparsion would be a $600 Nikkor vs a > $600 Sigma, or a $360 Nikkor vs a $360 Sigma. Also worth to mention is > that, based on my experience, Sigma lenses degrade phyically pretty fast > over the years, and this is not the case with Nikkors (or my Pentaxes). > And about the resale value, you will see the difference as soon as you want > to trade your Nikkor/Sigma to the dealers.
I think that you are missing his point. What he is saying is that even
if Nikon lenses hold a higher percentage of their value, because they
are more expensive than Sigma lenses you may well lose more money buying
and selling them anyway. You don't generally find yourself in a
situation where you are trying to choose between $360 lenses, you
usually are trying to pick between similar focal length lenses from
different manufacterers. Saying, as some people do, that you should go
with Nikon (or whatever name brand) over third party lenses because they
hold their value better is not necessarily a good arguement, for the
reasons stated above.
Adam
From: "B. Buckles" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: SIGMA 400 f5.6
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1998
Carlton, I have the Sigma APO Marco and am really happy with the lens. I
find the macro feature useful because many times, when I go out with
this lens, I don't carry much gear with me. Then, if I happen to come
across smaller subject, I can at least get a 1/3 size image from five
feet. I shoot with a friend that has the manual focus Sigma 400 f/5.6
and he is very satisfied with the results with that lens. Both work well
with extenders. If you would like to see some scans taken with my 400 mm
lens, drop me an e-mail.
Good luck,
bob
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: SIGMA 400 f5.6
From: [email protected] (Don Baccus)
Date: 26 Dec 1998
Carlton Chong [email protected] wrote:
>Anyone here used this lens to provide some insight? It's the older lens, not >the HSM model. I don't know it it's an APO. I'm gearing towards a Tokina but >the pricetag I saw on the Sigma is very tempting. I heard that the Sigma is >poorly constructed, dunno if that's the newer models or not but this one looks >pretty solid. Any info will be greatly appreciated! > >The Sigma is listed at $499. used with a 10% discount on top of that...
There are actually two older models, the Sigma 400/5.6 APO, and the
newer yet non-HSM Sigma 400/5.6 APO Macro.
The first lens is decent value but with a reputation for having
the tripod collar foot break, though I never had any trouble with
mine. The price you state would be too high for this lens.
The second lens is sharper and focuses considerably closer, and
was priced somewhat higher than the lens it replaced. It, too,
is good value for the money, and since it costs more money that
good value comes with slightly better performance, too :) It's
somewhat better contructed, too. When introduced, this lens was
priced at about $700 so the price you mention (sounds like $450 in
the end) seems reasonable for one in very good condition.
Sigma has had some compatibility problems with the EOS mount.
You don't mention which camera system you own. I don't know
if the 400/5.6 lenses are part of the set of Sigma lenses with
such problems, or not.
--
- Don Baccus, Portland OR [email protected]
Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
From: [email protected] (DWA652)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: SIGMA 400 f5.6
Date: 26 Dec 1998
...
There are actually 3 older versions. Other than that I generally agree with
what Mr. Baccus has said. The oldest version is not worth having (it is non
APO I believe). I have the APO version and it is worth about $300-$350 used.
The non-HSM Sigma 400/f5.6 APO macro is worth about $400-$500 used, depending
upon condition. Both of the APO Sigmas are excellent lenses and values.
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
remove no spam from email address when responding!
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Kirbyko3)
[1] Re: Vivitar 100mm f/3.5 Macro
Date: Mon Feb 08 1999
Last June Pop Photo did a review of this lens, and they admitted that they
were almost embarrassed to give such an excellent review to such an
inexpensive lens. I tried one out on my Pentax K1000 (MF) and loved it --
great pictures. The macro extension is just a screw-on lens but it does a
great job.
Don't let the low price impact you negatively - it's a good lens. I've had
the same excellent luck with my Vivitar 24mm lens, which only cost about
$80!
Kerry
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Boon-Li Ong [email protected]
[1] Re: Are Sigma lenses any good?
Date: Fri Feb 12 1999
if you had read a previous posting from Ross Bench, you will see that he
is speaking from experience. the subject of the posting was "Tamron... A
Horror Story .... Garbage is assembled with tape !!!!!!!", dated 11 Feb.
i quote the relevant paragraphs from his posting:
"Recently I have had a very unpleasant experience with the much touted
Tamron company.
[...]
"I noticed that the first Tamron lens that I purchased, less than six
months ago, had what I thought were bubbles in the glass of the front
element.
"Upon closer examination it looked like the bubbles were actually
particles inside the lens..
"I called tamron and they said that even though the lens is of current
production that they would not service it under warranty as I had no
paperwork...
"A little weak, but I could understand this position and I had hoped
that they would service the lens for a minimum charge.
"But that was not to be the case either. They told me that I would have
to pay approx $102.00 to service the lens.
"Ridiculous, I can buy a similar Nikkor NEW from B&H for the price of
this garbage from Tamron...
"Here's where it gets scary folks:
"I decided to disassemble the lens (experienced) and see if I could take
care of the problem...
"I rolled down the rubber grip to discover that this lens is HELD
TOGETHER WITH TAPE !!!!!!"
insofar as Tamron lenses goes, Ross was speaking from experience and
therefore what he said is factually correct. as for Sigma lenses, it's
hearsay. however, there was a recent posting where a user decided to
repair his lens and discovered that the elements were held together by
tape.
so before you condemn someone for "spreading malicious gossip", perhaps
it would have helped if you followed the newsgroup closely. otherwise,
you should give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
bl
W Scott Elliot wrote:
> Ross Bench wrote > >................ > >I absolutely refuse to purchase a new Sigma lens after hearing > >horror stories regarding the fact that the front elements of these > >plastic lenses are actually held together with Tape... > > > >Must be a pretty horrible feeling to have your front element > >literally fall off because the tape has dried out. > > > >I recently found out that Tamron also uses tape to hold some > >of their lenses together..........................
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (DWA652)
[1] Re: Are Sigma lenses any good?
Date: Sat Feb 13 1999
Easy guys, easy. Don't get personal.
I have owned or used Sigmas, Tamrons, and Nikkors, as well as numerous
medium format lenses and large format lenses. Look at my web page, and see
which of the close-ups were taken with a Sigma and which with a Nikkor.
Ditto with the other nature and butterfly categories.
Granted, it is hard to tell the difference on a web page, but I bet you could
not tell looking at the actual slides either. The best Sigmas and the best
Nikkors are almost indistinguishable optically.
With the Nikkor you typically get slightly better mechanical construction
and better resale value, but you pay more when you buy the lens. You
choose what is most important for you, based upon how much you use the
lens, how you treat it, how long you plan to keep it, etc. But I find it
funny how many people debate these issues on this newsgroup that have
never actually done comparisons. Get out and shoot!
God Bless,
Don Allen
http://members.xoom.com/donallenfoto
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Richard Oedel [email protected]
[1] Re: Lenses, Vivitar Series 1
Date: Sat Feb 13 1999
With regard to Vivitar Series One lenses:
I have used a 28-105 f2.8 for the past 8 years, traveling thru
some remote parts of the world. It is solid, I have never had
any problems with it, and the image quality is very good for the
price. I am looking right now at a Nikon 70-300 f4 with ED glass
and it is retailing at B&H for about $300, so I am seriously
looking at it.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
[1] Re: 135mm lenses Not popular?
Date: Thu Feb 18 1999
It's just a guess, but in the pre-zoom days, the typical lens setup for a
35mm camera was 28 or 35, 50 and 135mm. The 135 was the "do-it-all"
telephoto. Zooms became the "do-it-all" telephoto for most people and those
buying primes then usually opted for a broader selection of two or more long
lenses. It's true of me too since I use primes instead of zooms and I don't
have a 135 either but instead have an 85 on the short side and a 180 on the
long side of it. Even my longer macro lens is a 105. Nevertheless, the 135
is still a "do-it-all" focal length and a good one for more purposes than
probably any other long focal length. Actually, it's close enough to the
105 in focal length that you could consider the two interchangeable. There
is little wonder it was so popular in days gone by. The Nikkor 135 f2.8 is
a great lens optically and very useful. It's a bargain, not because of
performance, but because of supply and demand. Everyone had one once and
today the focal length is not as popular. That makes for a great buy.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
http://www.maplewoodphoto.com
>Why is it people don't seem to think much of 135mm lenses, or that focal >length? I'm thinking of getting a Nikkor 135 F2.8, compact version. Is it >because >it's longer than an ideal portrait lens and "too short for real telephoto >applications. >Any care to clear this up for me. I personally don't mind since lack of demand >keeps prices down. :) If anybody wants to sell a nice specimen (Nikkor 135mm >f2.8 compact version let me know.
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 1999
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses, Pro or Con?
First, make sure it really is your lenses and not your camera focusing
system being mis-aligned or eyesight problems. For tips on testing lenses
and cameras, see my camera and lens testing pages at
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/broncameratest.html
check the film - not a print - many photofinishers deliberately defocus
and reduce sharpness of image to mask poor process control, scratches on
film and other defects - you may have to shop around to find a mini-lab
that doesn't do this - or use a pro lab or mail order processor as I do ;-)
That's one reason I still prefer to shoot mostly slide film (lower $$ too ;-)
I have both pentax K series system (with mix of pentax and third party
lenses) and nikon F/F2/FE.. and nikkor and third party lenses. I can't
tell the pentax prime from the nikkor prime shots, frankly, on my slides.
Even worse, I doubt I could reliably tell the third party lens shots from
the nikkor shots, unless I am enlarging beyond 8x10, and often not then! ;-)
While OEM prime lenses (nikkors, pentax) are often generally held to be
sharper than third party lenses, the differences are often not dramatic,
and many third party lenses are as sharp or sharper than some OEM primes.
If you aren't doing a lot of enlargements beyond 8x10, you may find many
third party or consumer lenses to be quite acceptable. For examples, see
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/quality.html - How much quality do you
need pages
my general experience has been - that absent a defective or abused lens -
the quality of most modern 35mm prime lenses is very good, and recent
zoom lenses can also be surprisingly good optically - even for the
moderate cost consumer grade lenses. You pay a whole lot more oftentimes
for a modest improvement in sharpness (lpmm) or contrast, often only seen
in the corners of a wide open lens, relative to a much lower cost third
party lens or pro model.
If you really want to have fun, shoot two identical focal length lenses -
one a prime OEM (nikkor) and the other a third party (e.g., osawa) - on the
same slide film, on the same camera/tripod/light/scene - just switch the
lenses and take a shot on each, for various subjects/distances/settings.
relabel the slides with random numbers, taking notes so you know which
slide was made by which lens (white-out any imprinted numbers). Now try to
sort out slides into two piles - prime OEM and prime third party lens
shots - using a loupe. Compare the numbers on your slide piles to your
list of random numbers and actual lens values.
In such a blind test, you may be surprised to find how many third party
lens shots ended up in your OEM pile, and vice versa.
Now if you really want to have fun, have some of your amateur
photographer friends try this blind sorting test. It is truly amazing how
many of the folks who say all third party lenses are junk can't tell them
apart from the "real thing" ;-) Even worse, let them try again - best 2
out of 3 - gets even funnier.
in short, don't expect huge and obvious mega-improvements from higher
priced lenses - a 15% improvement for a 60% increase in price is typical
(on lpmm) - and most of us don't notice that small an improvement except
in our wallets...
if you are going to be doing a lot of 11x14 and above, consider medium format
see my medium format on a budget pages at:
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/budget.html
regards bobm
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Douglas K. Fejer" [email protected]
[1] Re: Tokina 400 f5.6 experiences / history?
Date: Mon Mar 15 1999
I bought a used version of this lens (used) for $150 from the Wolf Camera
Clearance Center. I use it primarily for outdoor sports, particularly
soccer. This is by far the best lens for the buck that I have. (I also use
a Nikon 300 2.8 and 200 f2.0)
Most of the photos on this webpage were taken using that lens and a Nikon F3
http://www.dougfejer.com/soccer/storm/
Doug Fejer
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Kirbyko3)
[1] Re: 100mm f/3.5 macro Cosina/Vivitar/Tokina
Date: Tue Mar 16 1999
I just bought the Vivitar 100mm lens a few weeks ago because I needed
something for portrait shots. For the price, you really can't go wrong.
i've enlarged some of the pics already to 11x14 and they look great --
very sharp. Pop Photo reviewed it last summer (6/98 issue) and gave it a
stellar review -- they actually admitted that they felt a little
embarrassed giving such a good review to such an inexpensive (and Vivitar)
lens!
I also have the Vivitar 24mm lens, and I have to admit -- it's really
good. I don't have a fortune to spend on lenses, so these have worked out
well for me.
Kerry
rec.photo.technique.nature
From: "Gary Davis" [email protected]
[1] Re: Sigma 170-500 - Opinions?
Date: Wed Mar 17 1999
If you're on a budget, go for it!!!
I got mine last summer after having the same concerns of slow, etc. if you
want to track birds in flight and running cheetahs, it isn't going to work
for you. If instead you want to get close ups (or closer) to relatively
still animals, it works great. In most cases, I can fill enough of the frame
with my subject to totally eliminate any problems in the background. (i.e.
when shooting at a zoo)
So far I've shot probably about 40 or 50 rolls with this lens and have not
regretted my purchase at all. I don't have the $$$ to buy a 400 or 500 f2.8
or f4 either, but I did scrape up enough for this lens and I've been
satisfied with it ever since.
-G
<>P
Randy wrote
>Andy, > >I just got this lens and I`m fairly happy with it. The first try out >with it I took photos of a "white"american robin from about 60-70 >foot away. The slides on the 200 speed film showed still just a small >bird on them. I scanned them with my slide scanner and enlarged them >to see reasonable results for such a distance. Check out the "white" >robin photos at my page at http://www.naturevision.com there`s a few >with a 2x doubler as well. > >Randy Emmitt > >Andy Rubaszek [email protected] >wrote: > >>Greetings. I'd like to get some feedback from users of this lens. I >>realize it's slow, so I'm more interested in its sharpness and >>mechanical quality. I suspect it is not as "good" as, say, a 600mm >>Nikkor, but will I be able to see the difference? I'll be shooting >>slides, then making prints (Ilfochrome) from the keepers. Will the >>Sigma produce images sharp enough to do this? I welcome your >>suggestions and comments. >
From: "Paolo" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Sigma Lenses
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999
Ok, here goes. Don't sue me, Sigma, but your lenses are junk. I would not
have a Sigma lense if you gave it to me and then paid me to keep it. Over
that last year, we have special ordered 4 Sigma lenses for customers (we
don't stock them) and all of them have come back for me to take home and
test. They all failed, usually with elements slipping out of place or
complete cpu failure on AF lenses. Please check out Tamrom . . . I have
them and love them. Also look under the Promaster label, but make sure it
isn't a Sigma in the box. Other cheapy off brands are Phoenix and Cosina
(which used to be Vivitar) and are of good quality, believe it or not. The
Cosina's actually impressed me when I tested one to see if we would carry
them. Perhaps now something Vivitar will be as good as it used to be, long
ago, and Sigma will wake up and smell the bleach/fix.
Carlo van Wyk wrote
>Hi, > >I am looking for a Sigma wide-angle lens - preferably 15mm, 18mm. I live in >South Africa, and are looking for a place where I can buy Sigma lenses >online at a good price - or at least a place where I can buy Sigma lenses >for cheap. (Like in Dubai) If anyone has any e-mail addresses or >web-addresse I'd appreciate it. > > >I have a 18-35mm Sigma. I bought it second-hand 2 years ago, and it gave me >a couple of problems. I lost a lot of photos due to this. I think that the >lens is good, but the previous owner must have dropped it a couple of >times...
From: James Rigg [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Sigma Lenses
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1999
It could just be you've been amazingly unlucky or have a bad supplier. I use
Sigma lenses and have never had any problem with them.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
[email protected] wrote:
> [email protected] wrote: > [...] > >All of the camera companies test each other's lenses all the time. I have > >had the opportunity to see some of these tests done by a major camera maker. > > Um, that would not have been Canon, now would it....? ;-)
No, not Canon. In fact a major German lens maker that I have done consulting
work for. The tests were for their own internal information, not for
publication.
Nikon lenses in general were more mechanically rugged than most of the
others, which is why pros have favored them for years, but on the optical
bench showed more decentration than Leica, Zeiss and Canon. The Leica
people are fanatics about centration, and their lenses tend to be as close
to perfect in that respect as possible. Zeiss also show great concern on
this. So do Canon, who seem the most concerned of the Japanese companies.
All of these lenses are good, certainly good enough for most professional and
all amateur applications. But when it comes to those who are extremely picky
about absolute optical performance, there are measurable differences.
The differences are in resolution, contrast, flare level, coma, etc. There
are also visible differences in that quality being called bokeh, how the lens
renders the out of focus parts of the image. There are real philosophical
differences among lens designers. Look at the image quality and bokeh of a
Leica lens and compare it to any Japanese lens and you will see what I mean.
Why don't I shoot with Leica, then? Because their stuff is very expensive,
and I haven't really liked their SLR cameras. The R8 may change my mind
after it has been out long enough for a good shakedown, but it hasn't yet.
> >Generally speaking, Leica lenses test out the best optically, as you would > >expect. Next come the Zeiss lenses in most cases. Then Canon, although in > >some cases Canon beats out Zeiss. Then come Pentax, Minolta, Nikon in a dead > >heat with one another. Olympus nearly always comes in dead last. > > > >Those are the facts, nothing but the facts.
Sorry if you don't believe it. Truth is truth, but many find it more
comfortable to cling to myths.
Bob
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999
> I agree, and that is what I did. I still use 35mm in addition to > medium format. I have tried (using a sturdy tripod) Leica, Minolta, > Nikon, > Yashica, Pentax, and Olympus. At most there is only a subtle difference > and > I would not be able to identify a photo as taken by one of these with an > reasonable degree of confidence.
This is very true. In the end you get what you pay for. There are no
difference between the volume japanese manufacturers. After all, lens design
is not rocket science. They all have acess to the same technology, use people
with the same education, and exist under the same manufacturing and cost
regime. Sure, sometimes one company is more lucky with a particualr lens than
the others, but taken as a whole quality is even; their all have their gems
and their dogs. Quality is more reflected in the price than in the brand
name.
> If I see a group of photos taken with > various 35mm cameras > with some taken with medium format mixed in, I can, with a VERY high > degree > of confidence, identify those taken with medium format even with prints > as small > as 4x5. The degree of confidence will increase even more with larger > prints.
If you really want picture quality Medium or large format is the way to go.
Paal
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
remove the dot and y wrote:
>[email protected] says... > > >Nonsense. They invented IS and hold patents on it, which is why Nikon, > >Minolta, Pentax, etc., don't have it. > > No, this is nonsense. A number of other camcorder companies have > IS based camcorders. Nikon among them. Someone posted a list > of patents recently for image stabilization technology and > Nikon holds a number of patents dating back into the 80's. > How much would you like to wager that they will introduce > an IS lens in the next two years ? > > Canon deserves credit for doing it first.
OK, let's talk image stabilization.
The first attempt at IS was the external gyro, Kenyon being the best known.
Later on, in the 80s if I am not mistaken, a lens system for cinematography
and professional video was introduced called the Gyrozoom. This had an
internal gyro mechanism connected to an optical wedge, and worked extremely
well for shooting hand held, particularly from unstable platforms like
helicopters. This was impractical for still photography due to the size and
weight of the components.
I did some consulting work for the Gyrozoom people in the early 90s, and
ultimately connected them up with Vivitar. Together they developed a
modified system using an inertial damper instead of a gyro, with the intent
of putting it into 35 mm still camera lenses and binoculars. Due to changes
in ownership at Vivitar the program was cancelled. This was a totally
passive system with no motors, gyros, servos, etc., but it worked pretty well
on the prototypes they built.
At this point Goko entered the picture with a different IS system using
springs and a servo system, but no gyro. This was suitable only for use in
simple point and shoot cameras, and Goko built one. This was sold under the
Nikon name, but was not a sales success. This is what Nikon people are
talking about when they claim they invented IS.
Meanwhile, Canon had been working on a system to do IS with a gyro and
servos, and produced a prototype 300 mm lens with this system. This was
the first IS lens for still 35 mm photography shown to the public. From
this the current generation of IS Canon lenses derive.
Video cameras are a totally different realm. Most, if not all, of the
current ones with IS use an electronic system which modifies the video
signal to stabilize the image. All of the ones I have used show a
noticeable loss of sharpness when the IS is activated.
Bob
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
[email protected] wrote:
> No point in arguing with someone who hasn't the foggiest notion of what he is > talking about.
Your discussion technique is really advanced. When you get cornered you make
statements like the one above.
I repeat myself: The priorities of the camera companies is mainly business
decisions. They are not due to the lack of technology. Eg. Pentax have for
years had eye control AF patents but never used them in a product. This is
a business decision. They also have patents of very sofisticated
tilt/shift lenses but never manufactured them. Minolta invented and
patended OTF metering, but never used it. They later licenced it to
Olympus and Pentax. Ultrasonic motors isn't a Canon invention. Using
motors to drive something, regardless of what, is not rocketscience and
that has been done for more than 100 years. All manufacturers can use
ultrasonic motors if they want to. That is also a business decision. Some
companies make the following business decicion and they have said so in
public: shall we do conservative engineering
and increase profit and make some high-tech model which developing cost are
high and which sucess in the market is uncertain?
Most of the camera manufacturers are first and foremost Optical companies.
A couple of them are mainly office machinery manufacturers. These optical
companies, and I can mention Olympus, Asahi, Zeiss, Leica and Nikon, are
among the worlds leading state of the art optic companies making high
precision scientific and industrial equipment. Eg. Less than 10% of what
Olympus produces are photo related. Anyone who believe that some of these
companies do not have the technology of of making slr lenses as good as
the company next door is living on planet Zorgon. Making 35mm slr lenses
is a low-tech piece of cake.
The world according to Bob Shell: In the Minolta headquarters after they have
tested an 85mm canon lens the director ask the engineers "why can't we make
as good a 85mm lens as Canon does"? "Sorry sir, but we don't have the
technology". get a life.
Paal
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Get a real camera (WAS Re: Heres why I use Contax and not
Nikon!)
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
"Only me..." [email protected] wrote:
> pwright wrote > >If you really are concerned with sharpness then 35mm is out of the > question. > > You miss the point. It's BECAUSE we use 35mm that we're all concerned > with lens sharpness. You can get a sharp image of a 4x5 neg with any lens.
The difference between a high quality lens and a mediocre one for the 35mm
slr system is so small that it doesn't make any sense unless you use a sturdy
tripod and mirror lock. I have yet to see any lens that was not able to give
publishable quality. If you realy lust after sharpness, medium format (or
larger) is the way to go.
Paal
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Heres why I use Contax and not Nikon!
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999
> [email protected] wrote: > > > No point in arguing with someone who hasn't the foggiest notion of what he is > > talking about. > Your discussion technique is really advanced. When you get cornered you make > statements like the one above.
No, some times I just ignore people like you.
> I repeat myself:
Bad habit, that. Annoys people.
>The priorities of the camera companies is mainly business > decisions. They are not due to the lack of technology. Eg. Pentax have for > years had eye control AF patents but never used them in a product.
Actually, some of the most important patents in eye control belong to
Olympus, who have demonstrated prototypes at photokina a number of times
but never used them in a product because they have decided to make their
money on point and shoot cameras.
>This is a > business decision. They also have patents of very sofisticated tilt/shift > lenses but never manufactured them. Minolta invented and patended OTF > metering, but never used it. They later licenced it to Olympus and Pentax. > Ultrasonic motors isn't a Canon invention. Using motors to drive something, > regardless of what, is not rocketscience and that has been done for more than > 100 years. All manufacturers can use ultrasonic motors if they want to.
Ultrasonic motors in the broad concept were not invented by Canon. Canon
engineers invented the ring ultrasonic and micro-USM motors used in their
lenses.
>That > is also a business decision. Some companies make the following business > decicion and they have said so in public: shall we do conservative engineering > and increase profit and make some high-tech model which developing cost are > high and which sucess in the market is uncertain? > > Most of the camera manufacturers are first and foremost Optical companies. A > couple of them are mainly office machinery manufacturers.
Ricoh, Minolta and anyone else?
>These optical > companies, and I can mention Olympus, Asahi, Zeiss, Leica and Nikon, are > among the worlds lading state of the art optic companies making high > precision scientific and industrial equipment.
Leica makes only cameras, lenses and binoculars in their Leica division, and
only cameras and monoculars in their Minox division.
>Eg. Less than 10% of what > Olympus produces are photo related. Anyone who believe that some of these > companies do not have the technology of of making slr lenses as good as the > company next door is living on planet Zorgon. Making 35mm slr lenses is a > low-tech piece of cake.
Making SLR lenses is not so simple as you keep saying. Just ask the
people at Zeiss, Leica, etc., and see what they tell you. It is very
demanding.
Other companies may have the ability to make lenses as good as the best, but
choose not to because they are not selling into that price bracket. I once
asked a lens designer at a major camera company if his company could make a
lens as good as the 50 mm f/1.4 Planar, a benchmark lens. His reply was that
they probably could, but he would never be allowed to do it because it would
cost too much.
> The world according to Bob Shell: In the Minolta headquarters after they have
> tested an 85mm canon lens the director ask the engineers "why can't we make
> as good a 85mm lens as Canon does"? "Sorry sir, but we don't have the
> technology". get a life.
See above for accurate version.
BTW, I have a life.
Bob
From: [email protected] (Howard Johnson)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma 135-400 zoom lens
Date: 29 Jan 1999
I have no experience with the 135-400, but I've got lots of experience with
the 170-500, and it's a very good lens, IMHO. I use it primarily for
shooting soccer (high-school, club and college), track, baseball and
high-school football. I very often use it at 500mm, and I've never had a
sharpness problem that I attribute to the lens. A number of my images from
this lens have been enlarged to 16x20in. and even 20x24in, and those
enlargements all came out very well.
The slow speed of the lens is not a problem for my use, because in daylight
I use Fuji CZ, and at night I normally need a flash even with an f2.8 lens
and CZ as ISO 1600. On my EOS, the Sigma autofocuses surprisingly well,
even under the lights, though I often use it on manual focus. It's also a
solid lens, yet quite light--I rarely use a tripod or monopod.
I've not seen any "lens survey" information on the 170-500, nor on the
135-400, but I'm never particularly trusting of such surveys any more than
I am of the articles written about photo equipment in magazines which
depend on the respective manufacturer to buy ads. The best way to judge
any lens you're considering is to borrow one, either from a friend or from
a good dealer--even if you have to pay a rental fee, it's worth it.
Good luck!
Howard
[email protected] wrote: : To the group:
: Any experience with the Sigma 135-400 lens? I'm between it and the 175-500, : but a tally on a different "lens survey" website gave the 175-500 pretty poor : user opinion, while the 135-400 was rated considerably sharper, less : distortion, etc. Pleas let me know something that you do on this lens
From: [email protected] (Devin Shieh)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Is Sigma lenses better than the Nikkor for pros?
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999
"Diane Ross" [email protected] wrote:
>most people here disagree with that. What I don't understand is why a store >tries to sell you a cheaper lens instead of one that costs roughly twice as >much. Do they really make more money on the cheaper lens?
Yes, they have a much larger margin on Sigmas than any other brand.
That is why they are pushed so hard by all the less-than-honest
salesman/stores
Devin
rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected] (Mel1wood1)
[1] Re: Quantaray
Date: Thu Mar 18 1999
Ruben Sanchez [email protected]
writes:
>You would be better off spending a few >more dollars on a GOOD quality lens, instead of throwing your money away >on a low quality lens such as a Quantaray.
I can't totally agree with this. My first telephoto was a Quantaray lens, I
took it with me when I visited Senegal West Africa. The quaily of those
photographs that I took using that lens was quite amazing. I'm not
saying it
is comparable to a high end Nikon or professional line of Tamron, but
qualitywise for the money, I would have to say it's a damned good lens.
mel
From: Jason Cheng [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Best third party Minolta MD lenses
Date: Sun, 03 Jan 1999
I would second the recommendation for the Kiron 105/2.8 which I have in
Contax/Yashica mount. The lens is really well made and very sharp.
Focuses down to 1:1 without extension tubes.
Jason
Don Baccus wrote:
> Eric Trexler [email protected] wrote: > > >I have two Minolta x-series cameras, the 700 and the 370. What are the best > >third party lenses for these cameras? I have a Vivitar Series 1 135mm 2.3 > >that I love, but I'm not sure which, Tameron, Sigma, Vivtar Series 1, etc... > >is the better lense manufacturer. > > If you can find an old Kiron 105/2.8 1:1 macro on the used market, > this is an excellent and very solidly built lens. It's bulky > compared to modern 100-ish length macro designs, but is very > sharp. I used one for years and sold it to a very happy > graduate student about three years ago when I switched to an > AF system. > -- > > - Don Baccus, Portland OR [email protected] > Nature photos, on-line guides, at http://donb.photo.net
rec.photo.misc
From: [email protected] (GeorgeBros)
[1] Re: Are all lenses the same?
Date: Fri Mar 19 1999
>From: Don Farra [email protected] > >If you take two lenses from two different manufacturing lots >or two different manufacturers with the same focal length, >used the same f/stop for the same exposure, use the same >high resolution film & format, set the focus to infinity, >and framing the image identically, could you tell the >pictures apart? > >Any comments? > >Don
One of the main reasons I sold all my high level stuff and rely
exclusively on
Sears & K-Mart lenses.
George B.
From Nikon Digest:
Date: Fri, 12 Mar 1999
From: Anatol Poiata [email protected]
Subject: Re:Third party lenses [v04.n299/10]
>Subject: Third party lenses [v04.n297/19] > >Greetings All, > >I'm just curious. There seems to be a lot of strong feelings about N >vs. C on this list. How does everyone feel about Nikon vs. third party >lenses? I see a lot of people asking about or using third party >lenses. I'm not sure what the difference between that & using a >different brand of body is. If you buy Nikon, you should do so for the >glass (at least I do). In theory, you could put a Nikon lens on a >cereal box & produce good images. > >Best regards, > >John
Hi John,
I also see a lot of people asking: "Next week our family will
celebrate 1 year of our favorite dog. I wish to present to my dear
wife (husband) something.
I have hear that Nikon F5 is very COOL. Is it F5+80-200/2.8AF-S good
enough ???
Unfortunately my wife (husband) has no idea about exposure, focusing,
etc., but my friend told me F5 look very sexy"
To my mind not all Nikon users can afford a Nikon glass. Have a look
to the test results of different brands and you will see that
sometimes third party lenses are very close to Nikon in optic
performance. The prices are also very attractive.
Pictures are made not by the camera, but by photographers.
Happy shooting,
Anatol from Moldova
PHOTOZONE PHOTODO Price
Perf. Perf. B&H
Lens w/open s/down ($US)
Nikkor AF 20/2.8 78 92 3.5 300
Nikkor AI-S 24/2.0 88 97 3.6 620
Nikkor AF 24/2.8 85 98 3.7 275
Nikkor AI-S 28/2.8 85 97 4.1
Nikkor AF 28/2.8 65 85 3.2 195
Sigma AF 24/2.8 60 79 4.0 180
Sigma AF 28/1.8 28 72 3.4 165
Tokina AF AT-X 17/3.5 80 87 3.0 370
- ---------------------------------------------------
Nikkor AI-S 55/2.8 4.4 260
Nikkor AF 60/2.8 79 95 4.2 300
Nikkor AI-S 105/2.8 78 96 4.2 515
Nikkor AF 105/2.8 89 98 4.1 520
Nikkor AF 200/4.0 82 95 1050
Nikkor AF 70-180/4.5-5.6 96 100 790
Sigma AF EX 105/2.8 4.1 360
Tamron AF SP 90/2.8 81 95 4.3 440
Tokina AF AT-X 100/2.8 3.9 380
Tokina AT-X 90/2.5 4.6
Vivitar AF 100/3.5 84 94 4.0 125
- ---------------------------------------------------
Nikkor AF 300/2.8 94 100 4.2 4400
Sigma AF 300/2.8 75 100 3.6 2200
Tamron AF SP 300/2.8 88 100 2615
Tokina AF AT-X 300/2.8 88 95 3.5 2200
- ----------------------------------------------------
PHOTOZONE PHOTODO Price
Perf. Perf. Perf. Perf. B&H
Lens w/open w/open s/down s/down $US
(wide) (long) (wide) (long)
Nikkor AF 20-35/2.8 91 91 99 98 3.6 1390
Nikkor AF 24-50/3.3-4.5 73 78 92 91 3.2 330
Nikkor AF 24-120/3.5-5.6 74 68 86 80 2.3 430
Sigma AF 18-35/3.5-4.5 52 57 66 67 2.9 380
Sigma AF 21-35/3.5-4.2 74 74 85 83 2.4
Tamron AF SP 20-40/2.7-3.5 71 74 86 87 3.7 675
Tokina AF AT-X 20-35/3.5-4.5 86 82 93 87 3.3 280
Tokina AF AT-X 20-35/2.8 2.5 700
- ---------------------------------------------------------------
Nikkor AF 35-70/2.8 85 86 93 93 3.8 530
Nikkor AF 28-70/3.5-4.5 67 69 81 84 2.8 285
Nikkor AF 28-80/3.5-5.6 64 65 71 67 3.0 150
Nikkor 28-85/3.5-4.5 69 68 76 78 2.9
Nikkor AF 35-105/3.5-4.5 63 63 82 75 2.6 290
Nikkor AF 28-105/3.4-5.6 3.2
Nikkor 35-135/3.5-4.5 3.3 350
Sigma AF 28-70/2.8 67 67 80 79
Sigma AF EX 28-70/2.8 3.5 330
Sigma AF 28-80/3.5-5.6 45 57 61 60 2.7 110
Sigma AF 28-105/2.8-4.0 66 66 67 63 2.4 200
Tamron AF 28-80/4-5.6 55 69 76 78 3.0
Tamron AF 28-105/2.8 74 68 85 80 2.4 800
Tokina AF AT-X 28-70/2.6-2.8 82 80 89 89 3.1 500
Angenieux AF 28-70/2.6 3.3
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikkor AF ED 80-200/2.8 90 91 97 97 3.9
Nikkor AF ED New 80-200/2.8 88 83 96 94 4.0 790
Nikkor AF-S 80-200/2.8 4.1
Sigma AF 70-210/2.8 80 77 90 86 3.9 760
Tamron AF SP LD 70-210/2.8 82 80 88 84 900
Tokina AF AT-X 80-200/2.8 84 81 88 88 3.4 760
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Nikkor AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 71 66 82 78 3.2
Nikkor AF ED 70-300/4-5.6 88 88 88 88 2.4 275
Sigma AF APO 70-300/4-5.6 65 61 77 71 3.1 290
Sigma AF APO 135-400/4.5-5.6 71 62 79 74 2.6 570
Sigma AF APO 170-500/5-6.7 63 54 67 59 610
Tamron AF 75-300/4-5.6 67 67 71 71 230
Tamron AF LD IF 200-400/5.6 64 58 74 71 540
Tokina AF 75-300/4.5 240
Tokina AF AT-X 100-300/4.0 82 82 88 88 3.1 800
Tokina AF AT-X 80-400/4.5-5.6 64 57 72 71 2.3 550
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Eric Edelman" eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org
[1] Re: An important 'quality' question
Date: Wed Mar 24 1999
I might be the only guy around who really doesn't like the 35-70 f2.8. The
80-200 f2.8 I love, and you'd really have to pry it out of my fingers. But
that 35-70 is a finicky 1 touch zoom.
If you don't mind buying a 3rd party lens, the Tokina 28-70 f2.6-2.8 is very
well made, the optics are excellent, and it's a 2 touch zoom.
This doesn't answer your quality question though. Can I suggest you go hold
both lenses in your hand, try them on your camera, and make a decision that
way?
--
Eric Edelman
Eric@*No*Spam*edelmans.org
www.edelmans.org
Not A Speck Of Cereal wrote
>Nikon or Canon?!? > > joke, Joke it's a JOKE!!! ;^) > >Comparing 2 Nikkor D zoom lenses, the f2.8 is more than twice the cost >of the f3.5. Please tell me that it's also a better lens at that >price (sharpness/detail) and not just twice the price for one f stop. > >The lenses are: > AF 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5D ($300 list) > vs. > AF 35-70mm f/2.8D ($650 list) > >Thanks, Chris
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Tom)
[1] Re: super-wide angle opinions
Date: Thu Mar 25 1999
>[email protected] >(Jerrold A. Carsello) wrote: > >>I'm considering purchasing a Tamron or Sigma 14mmf2.8, or another type. I have >>an fm2 nikon. Any opinions?
Below is a review of the lens I recently wrote for another newsgroup.
I hope it answers your question.
With respect to your bottom line question of how do I like the lens,
the short answer is I voted with my credit card and kept it (grin).
Below is my review of this lens.
Immediately after getting the lens, I ran a series of tests. One test
involved shooting pix inside a darkened church, directly on axis on
the center isle, and shooting directly into a stained glass window
which at this time of year, the sun is directly behind. This test was
primarily to look for diffuse veiling flare (large angle scattering)
and also would show up any geometric distortion.
Other tests included shooting outside, directly into the sun at
various stops (to look at aperature diffraction / small angle
scattering effects), and some real-world interior architectural shots.
I didn't have another ultra wide with me to do direct comparisons, but
I duplicated all shots with a reaslnably new Nikon 20 f/2.8 AF-D.
To summarize the flare results, under the conditions of my tests,
which were designed to bring out the worst in a lens, the Sigma 14
f/2.9 lens had noticably more small angle scattering (localized flare
around small individual light sources) AND more large angle scattering
(diffuse veiling flare) than the Nikon at corresponding angles,
contrast conditions, and aperatures. It's hard to be quantitative in
such informal tests but I would note that these differences in flare
could not be seen under less extreme contrast situations, ie normal
interior shots.
Small angle diffraction (aperature "star-bursts") and flair improved
somewhat as you go from 2.8 to about 5.6, but then gets worse as you
keep on stopping down. This is clearly a lens where the old rule that
the optimum aperature is 1-2 stops down from wide open is correct.
Ghost images were troubling. They were *much* worse than those of the
Nikkor, and could occasionally be seen in conventional shots (ie, non
extreme tests). Thus one has to be be careful to scan the frame for
ghosts, and take appropriate measures to avoid them. In outdoor
shots, if the sun is outside the frame, but at certain angles in front
of the camera you get ghosts galore. The newly introduced
"Flair-buster" that slides into the hot shoe is made for this lens.
I did not do a lot of work to seek out Geometric distortion. Its
obviously fairly small and certainly was not objectionable in any of
the test shots or real-world shots I have taken.
With respect to light fall-off, most of my shots are done stopped down
so this is not an issue, but focussing and viewing at 2.8 is certainly
welcome. In a few cases where I did have to shoot wide open because
it was a fast moving, available light situation, strongly uneven
lighting also existed and tended to mask the lens fall-off, so I
simply overexposed a bit (on neg film) to ensure adequate exposure in
the corners and in the shadows, and fixed the overall unevenness in
Photoshop. Thus, having 2.8 available when needed is a real blessing.
Finally, I should point out that the large, bulbous front element
seems to be a magnet for dirt and is about as vulnerable as they get.
I did a shoot inside a farm house, and had to keep blowing off the
front element every 15 minutes. I would never use this lens around
kids or animals that might decide to thumbprint it or lick it (grin).
After these tests, because of the ghost, flair and light fall-off
problems, I considered returning the lens. However, after I started
using the lens for real world shooting situations, I decided to keep
it and work within its limitations.
It gives pictures that simply couldn't be taken otherwise for the same
amount of money, as conveniently, at relatively low light levels,
etc.. All in all, I like it and will definitely keep it.
Feedback on my pix taken with this lens has been positive. I've taken
a couple of very tight interior shots that subjects have said made
their farm house look like examples in "Better Homes and Gardens".
Hope this helps.
Tom
Washington, DC
From: "Paul G Young" [email protected]
Subject: Sigma EX build quality
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 1999
I picked up a manual focus Sigma 50mm 2.8 EX macro lens. Optically is
seems quite good, but the thing I was most impressed by was the build
quality. It's got a better finish than some of the primes - all the
Pentax, some of the others. It's not flimsy plastic so prevalent recently.
The difference between a good lens and an average one is the
confidence it will do well in adverse conditions. It seems to and I have
to believe it will for some time. Sigma seems to have gotten the idea that
not only should a lens work well, it should work well for a long time.
Kudos
Do the other EX lenses have this build quality? Is there a difference in
build quality between manual and auto-focus lenses? Do you care about
build quality? Are there many out there still looking for manual focus
lenses?
PGY
Paul G Young
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Xavier Black" [email protected]
[1] Re: Tamron vs. other Brands
Date: Sun Apr 25 1999
Something that I wonder when there is the lens quality argument, usually
between tamron vs nikon/pentax/canon or between the major companies
themselves, is what are you using the lens for? Doesnt this matter, in
terms of journalist photography and documentary type work, which is what
I lean towards, softness around the corners at f/5.6 at 200mm is not a
big deal, infact it is probably unnoticable a lot of time because it is
out of focus as it is. still lifes I also shoot, and even that I dont
rely on my lens quality, its more about subject and lighting, in terms
of true sharpness I can hardly tell the difference between a nikon,
tamron, so on. just a different idea for the lens wars.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Ron Walton" [email protected]
[1] Re: macrophotography
Date: Sat May 01 1999
HITTEN wrote in message
>i have a Canon A-1 and i was interested in buying a macro lens. i do not know >the price nor which brand would be quality but reasonable.Can anyone tell what >i should look for in price , and quality?. the lens can be used.
Vivitar Series 1 lenses are always a good choice. You can
still get a Vivitar 105 f/2.5 in FD mount for about $300.00 from
B&H.
The Vivitar 90mm f/2.5 is one of the sharpest lenses around.
It only goes 1:2, but there is a tube made for it that allows 1:1.
There are also some dogs out there. Some to stay away from
are Vivitar and Sigma 50mm f/2.8 and the Sigma 90mm f/2.8. These
are the old versions which you will find used. The new Sigma 50mm
f/2.8 is supposed to be pretty good but I don't think it is
offered in FD mount.
Ron Walton
Visit the BPC http://www.bpc.photographer.org
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "John Smith" [email protected]
[1] Re: Tokina ATX 24-40/2.8
Date: Sat May 01 1999
As for another opinion... I have owned a 24-40 Tokina ATX (Pentax K) for
several years and have been extremely happy with it. Unlike the other
poster, I find that the color and contrast are fine. Best bet? Ask to use it
for a few days and evaluate the results for yourself.
From: "joedeane" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Kalimar 60-300: Excellent
Date: Thu, 6 May 1999
Here is a tip for you photofans: the 3.9 60-300 Kalimar is a remarkably
good lens, a hair less sharp than my 70-210 AF Nikor; this is a bargain!
Date: Tue, 18 May 1999
From: Alan Hunt [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Tamron 400mm/f6.9
Reply to: Re: Tamron 400mm/f6.9
Hello Bob,
Thanks very much for
the update. I checked out the additions and feel quite "honored" to be
mentioned in your informative and highly respected pages. Many thanks! I
always get quite a kick in discovering inexpensive "sleeper" lenses. I
normally use both Nikon (AF & manual) and Canon FD equipment, but have
been quite flabbergasted by the quality of oddball stuff, such as the
55/1.8 Mamiya screwmount (which I use on a Canon T90 with Canon P-mount
converter) or the Spiratone 200mm (I picked up in a pawnshop for a song).
The Mamiya produces highly detailed images which enlarge beautifully up to
11x14. Who would have thoughta Mamiya screwmount!! This is what makes
photography so much fun. And thank you for the lead you have provided us
through your pages.
Best Wishes, Alan
Date: Tue, 11 May 1999
From: [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] re:tokina 200mm lens
yesterday I found a very cheap used tokina tele-lens a mf 200/3.5 it
looked quite robust (metal), had smooth and easy focusing and was also not
in a bad contition (filtersize 58mm) - its price was about 45$ (us) which
is not too bad, i think (what do you think?)
Bernhard, this takes me back a bit! When I bought my FE2 I was a teenager
on a
tight budget and bought the very same lens. It is a beauty (along with the
Tamron 135mm f2.5 which I also used to own). A 200mm f3.5 is a fairly
conservative design, which makes it easier to produce good optical
quality. I
found the images from the Tokina to be sharp and contrasty and still bear
comparison with images taken on my modern Nikkor lenses. Also, the Tokina
has a
'Nikon' feel to it-metal, good focus ring and positive aperture ring (and a
built in hood which most Nikkors don't have now). I say buy it at that price.
Ah, nostalgia!
Stewart
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quantaray (Ritz) Anygood?
Date: Mon, 10 May 1999
"Robert Goldstein" [email protected] wrote:
> Quantaray lenses are not multi-coated. Only the outer 2 elements (their > definition of multi-coating). A Ritz salesman might of told you there is no > difference between Sigma and Quantaray. This is another partial truth. Ritz > purchased a discontinued line of Sigma lenses which Ritz now calls > Quantaray. If you want to buy an off-brand, I would suggest Tamaron. Or buy > a used lens. Visit http://feauxtoe.com for reviews of high-end photographic > equipment.
I have to disagree a bit here. I recently looked at zooms in the
70-300 range. I compared the Tamron, Nikon, Sigma and Quantaray.
The Sigma and Quantaray were identical, 1:2 macro, min. focusing
distance, elements & groups, and image quality. I think the main
problem with these lenses is the build quality and reliability,
and a small concern for variances from lens to lens. BTW, of all the
lenses I tested, they were all about the same in terms of image quality.
chris
From: tut@ishi (Bill Tuthill)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: 300mm zoom price/performance derby
Date: 10 May 1999
Recently, Nikon's belated introduction of a 70-300mm lens (they were
the last manufacturer to bring out such a lens) means we can now compare
products from all major manufactucturers.
The winner is Minolta, whose 100-300 APO outpoints the Canon 100-300 L
in Easy Guide composite score, costs $150 less, is 259 grams lighter,
and approaches the L's Photodo MTF score. The inexpensive Minolta 75-300
outpoints other 300 zoom models, all of which cost more. (Note however
that Canon's 300mm f4 offers the best optical quality by a wide margin.)
Sorted by Easy Guide composite score:
focal length & speed wgt len cost close fltr EZavg Photodo
Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO 436g 102mm $450 150cm �55 3.09 3.2
Canon 100-300mm f5.6 L USM 695g 167mm $600 140cm �58 3.05 3.6
Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 525g 122mm $210 150cm �55 3.04 ?
Pentax 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 FA 605g 146mm $350 150cm �58 2.85 2.4
Tamron 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 LD 510g 116mm $249 150cm �58 2.83 2.4
Nikon 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 ED 515g 74mm new 150cm �62 2.83 2.4
Canon 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 USM 540g 121mm $295 150cm �58 2.65 2.4
Sigma 70-300mm f4.0-5.6 APO 584g 117mm $287 150 M95 �58 2.60 ?
Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 IS USM 650g 138mm $500 150cm �58 2.59 2.9
Canon 75-300mm f4-5.6 USM 495g 122mm $215 150cm �58 2.58 3.1
From: [email protected] (DLWood2000)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quantaray ?
Date: 20 May 1999
>I'm thing of buying a Quantray lens and a Quantray filter, Can anyone >please tell if they are any good and how are there prices ?
I own a couple of Quantaray lenses, but no filters. You'll find their
lens
prices, comparing new lenses to new lenses, to generally be considerably less
than camera brands, often half or less. They will also be less than
other lens
producers (Tokina, Sigma, Tamron), but the price difference will not be as
pronounced.
I find they work fine, but most NG users will tell you to avoid them. I
guess
it depends on what you plan to shoot, whether you will be using slide or
print
film, and how big you plan to make the prints. I blown shots up to 8 X
10, no
problems.
They are made by Sigma, according to Ritz Camera, who sells them. Some NG
users
have stated that they are Sigma seconds, or that they really aren't made by
Sigma. Ritz says they are made to as high, or higher standards, than Sigma's
lenses, and that they are all currently made by Sigma. I have been told
this as
recently as the last month.
I have shot with a Minolta XG-M with a Minolta 50mm prime, then changed
to my
Nikon N70 with a Quantaray 70-210 zoom, continued to shoot the same film,
same
subjects, same time, same light, at about 50-60mm and had the shots turn out
impossible to tell apart in a 4" X 6" print.
Under a 8X loupe, however, there was discernable difference, but I didn't
think
it was pronounced. I didn't enlarge any of this particular set of
shots.
I also own a Nikkor 35-80 zoom which I have shot on the same roll as photos
shot with the 70-210. Couldn't tell the difference easily.
I have also shot some film through Tamron and Tokina lenses on the
Minolta, and
I don't see any difference there, either, in 4 X 6 prints. Some NG users
would say these are better lower cost lenses than the Quantaray, but that has
not been my experience.
Finally, there are discussion about the mechanical reliability of Sigma
(and by
implication Quantaray) lenses. I have seen posts by several users that these
lenses "fell apart" or were not reliable. I have had no problems with
mine in
the year or so I have used them. Quantarays come with a signficant warranty
from Ritz, if bought new.
To sum up, if you aren't going to do any professional shooting, which might
require big enlargements, then I think you'll be okay with the
Quantaray. On
the other hand, if you plan to shot professionally, or fine art type
photography, then you may need to save up for a better lens(es).
There are various ways to test the quality of a lens. You might want to pick
up a copy of a magazine to see how they are evaluated, and get a feel for
what
makes for a "better" lens. Then, you can decide if you are willing to
pay the
difference for the better quality lens.
Let's be clear: there is a difference between the Quantarays and other
lenses.
You get what you pay for- the question is: is it a good value for you to
pay the price at this time to get the additional capabilities of the more
expensive lenses.
Dennis
From: Ron Ginsberg [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quantaray ?
Date: Sat, 22 May 1999
A lot of what is posted on Photozone seems to be pretty outdated in
referring to much earlier Sigma models. I have three Sigmas for EOS: The
28-105 ASPH, the 135-400 APO, the 18-35. The 28-105 I sent in as it
suffered from zoom creep a little too loose as most lenses do in its
class (at extreme tilts). Sigma swapped it at no charge with a snugger
zoom sample turning it around within two days. I abused the lens too
weeks ago when doing macro work when attempting to zoom in while there
was a lot of pressure on the front barrel do to my carelessness. The
force was beyond normal with a couple of branches leaning on the barrel.
The zoom ring linkage snapped. Sigma USA turned around the lense (not a
swap) with in two days of receiving it with minimal charge. In both
instances Sigma USA service was STELLAR.
I have been very pleased with all three models.
Don Atzberger wrote:
> Sigma has had myriad mechanical and electronic failures, and their service > is less than stellar according to the folks who have bothered to post > their experiences to http://www.cmpsolv.com/photozone/sigma.htm I have > also seen trouble with Quantaray, but Ritz has a pretty decent service > department and they resolved my problem exactly when they said they > would.
From: "Shinichi Hayakawa" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tokina 17mm lens queston
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1999
Tokina says the PRO model is exactly the same with the original one in
optical
configuration. I like the new model, though, because you can use sheet-type
filters now.
Shinichi
Gpmsu wrote
>There is a new PRO version of this lens. Costs about $60 more. The original >model is now discontinued but still available in many stores. Interested in the >performance of the new model, but haven't seen any reviews.
From: [email protected] (Don Atzberger)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma/Quantary
Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999
> I understand that the Ritz Camera stores carry the Quantary line of > Lenses and filters which the lenses are made by Sigma. I was wondering > if anyone has used the Quantary line and if so how is it working out. > > Don
Hey Don...
They're okay, but they're pretty low-contrast compared to lenses made by
the camera manufacturers -- they just don't have the same punch. Quality
control seems all over the place with Quantaray lenses in my experience.
The Quantaray lenses have a different coating than the Sigma equivalents
which gives them a slightly warmer cast.
Quantaray filters are made by Hoya and aren't bad at all. Get the
multicoated ones, though.
If I were you, I'd skip the 3rd party lenses altogether and opt for the
camera manufacturers' glass even if you have to buy used. This isn't to
say that the 3rd party manufacturers don't make some good lenses. I have
a Tamron 400mm f/4 that's fabulous. They just have a much higher "dog to
good model ratio" than the camera manufacturers do.
You don't mention what camera you have or what lens you're looking for.
If you post this info, I'm certain someone can give you a lead to a good
deal on a manufacturer's lens.
Peace,
Don
--
For a look at a few of my photos.
http://www.cleveland.com/ultrafolder/airshow
From: [email protected] (Natr Pix)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma/Quantary
Date: 12 Apr 1999
The Quantaray lenses are indeed made by Sigma and are in fact identical to
the Sigma lens of the same focal length. I have the 18 mm and 70 - 300 mm
zoom by Quantaray and have been very satisfied as they are good
performers. See the review in Jan 99 Shutterbug of the 70 - 300 Sigma.
The Quantarays are a liitle less expensive than the corresponding Sigma.
I would not hesitate to recommend these lenses.
Tim
From: [email protected] (Lmt3405)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: tamron lenses
Date: 24 Apr 1999
I have been using Tamron lenses since 1976 and have NEVER had a problem.The
sharpest lens I own is a late '70's 135mm f2.8 Tamron adaptall. By the way,
Promaster is made by Sigma not Tamron.
From: "Brad The Dog" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: tamron lenses
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 1999
you need to check your facts. promaster haven't used sigma glass for 10
years. they currently uses tamaron glass and workings.
From: Todd & Sharon Peach [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma vs. Nikon Lenses
Date: Sat, 15 May 1999
Eugene J. Park wrote:
> I'm thinking about getting two versatile lenses covering the range > between 28-80 mm and 70-300 mm. As I now have a Nikon N70, > a salesman told me to consider the Sigma's 28-80 f3.5-5.6 asph macro > + Sigma's 70-300 f4.0-5.6 APO Macro, rather than Nikon's 28-80mm > and 70-300 mm line of lenses. He is charging $50 more for Sigma's > pair of lenses, arguing that Sigma uses metal and glass instead of > Nikon's polycarbonate, plastic materials, and says that Sigma's lenses > are faster, quieter, and have macro, unlike Nikon's counterpart lenses. > > I'm wondering if anyone has had any experiences with Nikon or > Sigma's 28-80 or 70-300 mm lenses and if you could comment > what made you decide which brand name to go with.
I have used the Sigma 70-300 APO Macro on my N90s for 3 years or so.
The image quality is surprisingly good, and the lens "color" is very
close to Nikon's. I have some sample photos up on the web at:
http://home1.gte.net/tpeach/Photography/ZackPitch.htm
(and yes, it's almost useless to evaluate lens quality based on web
images, but they're out there anyway in case you're curious.)
I don't consider the Sigma lens to be rugged at all. It's quite
plastic-y. I'm generally pretty rough on equipment, but this one I
baby. The strongly held rumor is that the new Nikon lens in this same
focal length range is a re-badged Tamron. I have not handled it
extensively, but my impression is that the build ruggedness is about the
same as the Sigma.
I have one big beef with the Sigma. I recently bought an F100, and the
Sigma has some bizarre software bug that prevents it from properly
focusing at longer focal lengths with an F100 or F5. This has
supposedly been fixed in the latest Sigmas, but there is no upgrade path
(short of selling used and re-buying). If that happened to me with a
Nikon lens, I feel that Nikon would offer a fairly painless upgrade
path.
I'm afraid my Sigma is destined to become Spud Gun Ammo.
-Todd
From: Paul [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma vs. Nikon Lenses
Date: Sun, 16 May 1999
Sigma lenses are fine for the most part. I have a 400mm Sigma and it
has performed well for several years. Optics and construction are of
high quality. Yet, I recomend the Nikon lenses. With the move towards
more electronics in Nikon bodies the 3rd party lens manufactures have a
more difficult time reverse engineering the electronics. You may find
that the Sigma will not work properly with a future Nikon body. EOS
users are already discovering this situation.
From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: mixing lenses with bodies
Date: Fri, 28 May 1999
Reasons could be
Price/Economy - the third party lensmaker may make a similar range lens to
lower cost, and that lens has a more favourable price/performance ratio.
Consider that price/performance has two levels, end-user price/performance
and vendor price/performance. Camera shops (may) make more money on third
party lenses than they do on OEM. So, the stage is nicely set: If the
customer wants a "cheaper" lens than the OEM one, the camera shop will
probably be very happy to sell him/her that...
Unavailability - the third party lensmaker makes a lens that isn't available
in the OEM range. This is not completely unusual, even if the OEM ranges are
very wide compared to the third party programs.
Supreme quality - no joke. Zeiss is a third party lens maker, too. Equal (or
thereabouts) quality at a *lower* price is hard to find, ofcourse.
***
The common third party lensmakers has considerable experience and are quite
able to make superior (to OEM) lenses. That they usually don't is probably
only because the market expects a lower price and making a superior lens will
make it more expensive. They are good, but not *so* good that they can be
better at lower cost.
The market (we) also need to adjust considerably before we accept that Nikkors
(exchange for your favourite brand, please) are quite allright, but it is the
new Tokina's that are *the* ultimate... Only Zeiss (and similar specialists)
can manage that stunt.
So, I personally believe that the third party lensmakers are happy producing
80 % of the perfomance (usually plenty enough) for 50 % of the cost, and
sharing that cost saving between themselves, the camera shop and the customer
is perfectly legitimate, IMHO.
Anders
stephen skrev:
> Just curious .......why would you want to put a sigma or any other lens on > the camera (such as a canon) as opposed to a canon lens....... > > I could understand if you were trying to cut costs somewhere but......... > can those other companies make a lens just as good as canon???? > > just curious... > stephen
From: [email protected] (DLWood2000)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Anybody uses Quantary lenses?
Date: 5 Jun 1999
>I never saw any discussion about Quantary lenses which are >the main lenses sold in local RITZ Camera's. > >This makes me curious: in terms of rating (performance, quality, etc), >what does >the Quantary look like? Very bad? Why nobody is buying it? (It is not >expensive, by >the way).
I own and use Quantaray lenses on my Nikon N70. I have an 70-210, a 70 -
300 and a 24 prime. They all work fine and I have had no mechanical
problems with them.
I have owned the first two about a year and the last about a month. I
also have a Minolta camera, with 50 mm Minolta prima and a Tokina and a
Tamron lens I have used. When I have compared the results of the lens, I
think the Q's hold up against the others, except the 50mm prime. Which is
to be expected, since prime lenses are sharper than zooms at all focal
lengths.
Quantaray lenses are made by Sigma. So, trading from Quantaray to Sigma
isn't much of an upgrade, if any. You'll have people tell you they are
not made by Sigma, and I suppose at one point they may not have been, but
the ones I own were. I had another poster tell me they are Sigma
"seconds" that Sigma won't sell under their own name, or that they are not
made up to Sigma's specs. Ritz says this is not so, at least as of 1998.
I would be interested in any comments you have about your Sigma, after you
get it. I am especially curious about its performance at short focal
lengths and in comparison to the Quantarays you own.
With that said, I think most of the input you get on the NG about
Quantaray lenses will be negative. That's because, as you'll be told,
"you get what you pay for." If you look at www.photodo.com, you'll see
that the Sigma versions of Quantaray's lenses fare worse, for the most
part, than the camera manufacturer glass. And Quantaray lenses, per se,
aren't rated at all. Ratings vary from lens to lens, instead of
manufacturer to manufacturer.
Photodo is a comsumer rating system that compares various aspects of a
lens' performance, and gives it a score. Kind of like Consumer Reports
for photographic lenses. Other sources exist, such as Popular
Photography's lens reviews. And as with any comsumer rating, you need to
take into account what you demand of the lens, your long and short term
plans and reliability of the product, as well as price. It's a question
of how much you are willing to pay for additional performance.
The key difference I can see in the ratings, in photodo and Popular
Photography magazine, is sharpness at various focal lengths, apertures and
size of prints. Inexpensive lenses like the Sigma/Quantaray tend to fare
worse at the long end of their zoom focal lengths, and the sharpness of
the prints tends to deteriorate as the print gets larger. Sharpness will
reportedly fall off at the edge of the photo, as well.
Bottom line, if you plan to routinely make prints bigger than 8 X 10, the
Quantarays may not be a good choice. But, you have had Q lens longer than
I have, so maybe you can address the issue of a larger print better than
me. I'd like to know if you have any experience along those lines. I
haven't made anything bigger than an 8 X 10.
I have been into SLR photography since the late 60's, but it was as a
journalism student, using the school's or a friend's equipment. Certainly
the Quantaray's performance on the slides I shot last year equals that of
the Ektachrome I shot 27 years ago with Pentax glass.
I think there are also subjective matters coming into play. For instance,
I can't tell any difference at all in the color saturation between the
Nikon, Minolta, Quantaray, Tokina and Tamron lenses. There are
photographers, however, who swear they can tell a significant difference
in color between lenses.
As far as the weight of the lenses is concerned, I think generally lenses
and cameras in general are a LOT lighter than they used to be. I don't
know if the weight of the lens says anything about its quality other than
the fact that a heavier lens might stand up better to being dropped.
Let me know about your new lens, if you don't mind. Email me at
[email protected]. Thanks and good luck.
Dennis
From: [email protected] (PBurian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: Telephoto advice >=500mm
Date: 4 Jun 1999
>The 400 f/5.6 L runs about $1400 and the 1.4x about $400, so the $1800 >is >over my nominal limit. And how good are the images with the 1.4x? >Wouldn't the 600 f/8 Sigma be better image quality?>>>>
No. The Sigma 400mm f/5.6 APO however, is an excellent lens, esp. with
the HSM
focusing. Their matched 1.4x teleconverter is very, very good. This
combo will
produce better results than the 600mm f/8 and gives you 400mm and 560mm when
desired.
The 600 is a mirror lens: not as sharp or contrasty and renders out-of-focus
highlights as donut shaped. Also, how often do you want only a 600mm
lens? The
400 +1.4x is more versatile.
Yes, more expensive too.
Peter Burian
From: Jim Gifford and Sara Watson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Do different grades of lenses really exist?
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 1999
Anthony wrote:
> So is this really true? Is there a very high correlation between > price and > lens quality? Can one safely assume that you get exactly what you pay > for > when you buy a camera lens? > > -- Anthony
1) Yes. 2) Yes. 3) No.
A high correlation, yes. A perfect correlation for every purchaser, with
every lens... no. But here's the general rule for choices within any one
manufacturer's lineup of lenses. If the company sells a lens for $600
and then introduces a new lens that performs just as well for $300,
sales of the $600 lens will soon drop to near zero.
I shoot with Nikons and Nikkors, and in that corral the perfect example
is the autofocus 80-200 zoom. You have a choice of AF-D f/4.5-5.6 zoom
for $150, fast AF-D ED f/2.8 zoom for $800 or spiffy AF-S f/2.8 zoom
(which can take adantage of some $400+ autofocus teleconverters) for
something like $1,400. Just for grins, there's also an AF-D ED f/4-5.6
70-300 zoom for about $300. So you have four lenses that cover the
80-200 focal length range. Perhaps five ways, ever so briefly. I think
the least expensive 80-200 is about to be supplanted by a 75-240 AF-D
zoom that will continue in its predecessor's uninspired footsteps.
Each increase in price brings at least some increase in optical
precision, plus benefits in focusing speed or tripod mount or
flexibility when linked to teleconverters. But in no case does a cheaper
Nikkor do everything its more expensive cousins do, at a lower cost (and
to prove the point, when the 70-300 hit the market, the older and more
expensive 75-300 went R.I.P.)
That's an example of how "you get what you pay for" works almost all the
time within any one manufacturer's line. The issue gets muddier when you
compare third-party lenses to the manufacturers' own efforts. Sometimes
the Sigmas and Tokinas come awfully, awfully close to the manufacturers'
products at lower prices.
Hope that helps.
-Jim
From: "David Brown" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: 8 mm peleng
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999
I've been thinking about getting a circular fisheye, and recently I saw an
ad for the Peleng 8 mm circular fisheye lens. The ad mentioned the
resolution was 65 lp/mm in the center and 15 lp/mm at the side.
Putting aside just how this was measured, or how this measurement applies to
every Peleng 8 mm, most lenses I own don't suffer a decrease a factor of 4+
in resolution from center to side. I can think of three reasons for this.
1) The projection used in fisheyes, sort of magnifying the center and
demagnifying the edge, may result in lower resolution.
2) Circular fisheyes, unlike every other lens, shows the end of the image
circle. The edge of the image circle is affected the most by diffraction
off the aperture and edge of the lens. This may be why every circular
fisheye image I've seen appears a bit fuzzy at the edge. But because of
this, one would think a lens tester wouldn't go all the way out to the edge.
3) The lens is crap.
Does someone with familiarity with circular fisheyes know if any of these
are correct? If anyone owns a Peleng 8 mm, information on how this lens
performs compared to the Sigma 8 mm (or the Nikkors, which are somewhat out
of my price range) would be appreciated.
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (Dennis Swanson)
[1] Re: Vivitar Zoom Lens
Date: Sun Aug 22 1999
Sasha Siddhartha ([email protected]) would say:
What can be said about the quality of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f/2.8-4 lens? As I recall, it retails for approx $200 or less. It seems like a great deal considering the large apertures possible. Anyone ever use this lens?
I own this lens in a manual-focus Minolta mount, and bought it about,
well, I'd say right around a decade ago, back in college (on a student's
budget). Here are my particular opinions on my particular sample:
Pros:
-----
Price - As I recall, the constant f2.8 jobbers were around $700 for the
Tokina (that's what a friend of mine who worked for the campus paper
paid) and up, and the f4-5.6 jobbers I looked at (like the Sigma UC)
were $100, so for something in between in many respects, I thought it
was an outstanding value (I paid $199, from B&H).
Speed - A full stop better than the compact ones, for greater versatility
(I liked to be able to shoot in lower light w/out flash and/or use 100
speed film for finer grain). Besides, I'm such a lousy focusser as it is,
it didn't take more than a minute of playing around with an f5.6'er in a
store and seeing my split-image viewfinder blacking-out to know these
weren't for me. At f4 I don't have any problem keeping my eyeball centered
enough in the viewfinder to prevent this.
1:2.5 macro - I took some nice dandelion shots on a table-top tripod,
when the wind permitted.
Build quality - Zero problems. Exhibits zoom creep since wearing in,
when tilting at extreme angles, but I don't consider this a problem,
as I believe this is simply inherent with push-pull type zoom lenses.
Cons:
-----
Weight - Not as heavy as the constant f2.8'ers, of course, but for all-
day photo excursions, I bought an inexpensive Bogen monopod, as other-
wise ones arms can get really tired holding that thing up.
Size - Again, not as humongous as the constant f2.8 goodies, but it's
still pretty big and conspicuous. One day a group of kids were biking
by chatting to each other, but couldn't help noticing my li'l monster,
and one of them jokingly said "anybody want a camera?". I tend to prefer
to be much less noticeable.
No tripod collar/mount - Zoomed out to 210mm and at 1:2.5, this puppy is
about 7.5 inches long, and will bob just a bit on a tripod.
Aperture setting - Click-stops at full f-stops only. A 9-blade diaphragm,
but not exactly precisely aligned.
Image quality - Compared to my Minolta 50mm, not as sharp and contrasty.
No hood - Shortly after I got it, I called up Vivitar and asked, and they
said there was none.
BTW, the reason I'm talking about this in the past is that I've done
little more than take family snapshots recently, and now that I've just
changed jobs and am actually about to be able to afford it, my thoughts
are on the AF Nikon primes (and the body to go with it!) I'll soon shell
out for.
Overall I think the Vivitar is a pretty good lens, and I have many
treasured animal park photos that I got with it. I wouldn't have wanted
anything else on the days of leaning on a railing for 20-30 minutes at a
time grabbing incredible shots maxed-out at 210mm of big cats interacting
with their trainers/caretakers, feeling sorry for the folk around me with
shorter and darker glass.
Hope that helped some.
Den
--
Dennis M. Swanson
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Dr. A.Routh MD." [email protected]
[1] Sigma 28mm f1.8 II lens
Date: Thu Oct 07 1999
I bought a Sigma auto focus 28 mm f1.8 II lens for my Pentax ZX50 to
supplement my other two lenses - Pentax FA 50 mm f1.7 & Pentax FA 135
mm f2.8. The reason for buying this lens is the faster aperture of f1.8
vs f2.8 of Pentax lens. I have received the prints & slides after using
this lens. I used 100 ASA Kodak Royal Gold print film & 100 ASA
Ektachrome Elite film. The pictures were very sharp. Colour
reproductions were very good. I am quite happy with this lens. This is
just for information. I am just an amateur. Does any one knows when
Sigma introduced this lens? With thanks.
From: chris kelly [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: photodo.com - the cheaper the better???????
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999
I must politely disagree with you. After your comments I went and took a
look at the Sigma lenses on PhotoDo. I am glad I saw this thread purely
from the point of view of the Sigma 400mm. I will never be able to afford
(I am married and she would kill me) the Nikon 400mm. Where the Sigma is
not of the same quality, it is of an acceptable quality.
Now, on the the heart of the discussion. Nikon has, in the past few years,
releases many lenses which I would rate "casual consumer." They are
relatively cheap, and the optics are not anything to jump up and down
about. I have two, the 35-80 f4-5.6 which came with my wifes n70, and a
70-210 f4-5.6. They are cheap, and not the great glass that you would
expect. The comparable lense is the sigma 70-210/4-5.6. Photodo rates my
Nikon at a 2.8. The sigma is a 2.1. The sigma costs a third as much. My
lense is as as low as I will go as far as lense quality. I shoot slow
slide film, use a tripon, and pay a lot of attention to what I am doing. I
blow shots up, to 8x10 using a very good slide scanner or larger by sending
it out and paying the bucks. Honestly, and politely, I would not touch
anything that rated a 2.1 with a ten foot pole. I only use my 70-210 when
going on backpacking trips. My larger lense just weighs to damn much.
Otherwise it is a Nikor 80-200 ed if. Where Sigma has recently produced a
knock off of this lense, and done a Very good job (3.9), it still isn't the
same (4.0). Moreover, Sigma is a little late to the party, my lense is now
going for, at most, $50 dollars more. Nikon has produced a better lense,
which Sigma probably will never match. It just simply is not what they
sell to.
My other lense is a 35-70 f2.8, which is a 3.9. Sigma' version is a 3.5.
It is good, in fact it is definately good enough so that I wouldn't think
twice about using it and probably being very happy with it, especially
since it costs HALF as much.
CONCLUSION. I won't denigrate Sigma lenses. I think that they make some
Very good products at very good prices. However, if you are comparing
Sigma's high end stuff to Nikon's high end stuff, without considering the
price - from a purely optical point of view - they are not as good. If you
through in all the other things, like construction, durability, etc. then
Nikon pulls farther ahead. Now, if you want to say, "hey, the Sigma 28-80
2.8 (3.5) at $339 beats the pants off of the Nikon 28-70 f3.5-4.5d (2.8) at
$299," then I would have to agree with you. Just don't say that with all
the modern equipment they will catch up to Nikon in the high end land. If
they could have, they would have.
Have a nice day,
Chris
Bulldog wrote:
> According to photodo when you but a cheaper lens you get better optical > quality.. here there are some examples: > 1)Sigma 70-300mm DL macro super: 2.9, Sigma 70-300mm APO macro: 2.4 > 2)Sigma 100-300mm: 2.6, Canon 100-300mm USM: 2.4 > 3)Sigma 28mm (f/1.8): 3.4, Canon 28mm (f1.8) USM: 3.2 > 4)Canon 50mm L (f/1.0): 3.9, Canon 50mm Mk II (f/1.8): 4,2 > can anyone explain it?? > and I can continiue with the list..........
From: "The McGraths" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Just how good are Sigma lenses
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999
Aftermarket lens used to suffer from poor manufacturing and quality control
rather than bad design, with everything being made by computer controlled
machines nowadays this is less of a problem,many Sigma lenses are a lot
better made than some of the cheap and nasty stuff being put out by Nikon
and Canon these days, with the competition from the ever improving
aftermarket lenses the major manufacturers are cutting costs by using
cheaper materials and farming out work to whichever country is the poorest.
Remember when Canon or Nikon invest in developing a new lens they can only
recover the cost from their system users. Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. can
sell to all system users just by offering different mounts - in other words
they can actually afford to spend a little more on R+D as well as materials
as their sales are potentially that much higher.
...
[Ed. note: test your own lens using online chart..]
From: David Chien [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
Subject: Brief Lens Resolution Tests - Film Cameras
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 1999
(cross posted to rec.photo.digital - Of note to those digitizing film,
see PhotoCD resolution and slide scanner resolving capabilties below.)
Ricoh R1 Minolta 600si w/28-200mm Tamron Super Canon AE-1P with 1.8 50mm lens Heavy Bogen tripod Pictures set off by 10 second timer delay. Auto AE/AF (around 5.6f-8f for most images)
Fuji SuperG 100 speed film of 12 frames, expiration date of 10/2000.
Rated to have HIGH resolution in magazine, corresponding to maximum
capability of 100-150 lines of resolution.
Modern Photography lens resolution test using USAF chart from article in
magazine from years ago. Download at:
http://users.erols.com/johnchap/lenstest/lenstest.htm
Backyard setup with direct sunlight hitting light gray brick wall at
30x Radio Shack pocket microscope used to view negatives.
Notes: A review of the Olympus Stylus Epic by
one of the photography magazines earlier
said the lens rated Excellent to Outstanding,
with a tested lens resolution of just under
90 lines/mm. This is around 2x the resolution
of any lens below, and closer to those expensive
Leicas, etc. of high praise.
An interesting point is the resolution loss
of the 28-200 is not as great at the far and
near zooms. One would think then that because
the center resolution is somewhat better than
a pocket P/S (besides the excellent Epic above),
subjects are usually centered, and nothing of
note is usually to the side of them, the
lens is 'good' enough for most people because
it has a sharp center, and the edges at min/max
are close enough to the center resolutions of
a regular P/S that most people will not notice
any significant resolution problems with the
lens (ie. looks just like my P/S picture or
better -- thus, it's a great lens! says the
average user).
Also, for pictures of people, couples, etc. -
eg. for weddings, you will get a center image
close to what you'd expect from a 50mm fixed
lens in image resolution, so unless you've
worked with far better lenses, the 28-200
will seem similar to your old equipment, albeit
with greater edge resolution falloff.
I'd love to hear others doing this same test
and see if they can come up with a list of
results, esp. for the 28-300 tamron and the
Ricoh GR1.
My initial concern was the sharpness of my Ricoh R1.
Clearly, it is 1/2 as sharp as the Olympus
Stylus Epic, and even more so than the sharper
rated Ricoh GR1 lens (guessing from Ricoh's
GR1 MTF chart - which looks more like a Leica
lens test than a P/S lens test). Close to
an average SLR zoom lens or 50mm, but with
significant edge resolution falloff (also
noted in the magazines tests of the R1).
Of note, another site tested the resolving
capabilities of PhotoCD by submitting a slide
of the resolution chart. Test resolution
was around 50 line pairs/mm. The images
scanned onto PhotoCD from film was also
noted to be of higher quality, sharpness,
resolution than any currently available
as well.
Note that for a 2800 dpi slide scanner,
this corresponds to about 110 lines per mm,
or about 55 line pairs/mm for maximum
resolving capability. 4000 dpi slide
scanners will do around 157 lines per mm,
or about 78 line pairs/mm -- still far
lower than the resolving capability of
Fuji SuperG 100 speed film. (ie. that's
why the pros drum-scan negatives at
10,000 dpi+ - around 200 lp/mm.)
M = Center of frame MM = Midway between corner and center of frame C = Corner of frame Ricoh R1 Readings off a couple frames show: 30mm lens mode M = ~50 line pairs/mm +/- 5 MM = ~45 +/- 5 C = ~30 +/- 5 24mm lens mode (one frame reading) M = 56 lp/mm MM = 45 C = 25 Canon AE-1P w/50mm f1.8 (two frames) M = 63, 71 MM = 56, 56 C = 56, 56 Minolta 600si w/28-200 Super Tamron @ 28mm M = 64 MM = 50 @ 50mm M = 50 MM = 45 C = 35 @ 200mm M = 63 MM = 50 C = 50 =========
rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat Feb 05 2000
From: [email protected]
[1] Re: Are Leica lenses really better?
OK. I used Leica for a while, and liked it; However, I now use Pentax
almost exclusively, for 35mm work. Why? I love the feel of the leica (
I'm an engineer ), and I love the fine engineering and craftmanship
associated with leica. But I found that pentax takes pictures that are
just as good ( at least to this mortal's eyeballs ) as those taken by
leicas, and for a helluva a lot less money. Now I have 3 pentaxes +
lenses, 2 graphics + lenses, and a good old Rolleiflex tlr for less
money than a leica and a couple of decent lenses would have cost me.
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000
From: dg [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Kiron lenses
Any comments on the performance of Kiron's 35-135 and the 28-210? I have
Kiron's 28-85 and have found it an oustanding performer regarding all
parameters.
Thanks,
Dave
Date: Sat, 25 Dec 1999
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Sigma 105 micro test
I have tested Sigma 105 2.8 EX macro lens installed on Canon 1n. I used
mirror lockup, remote shatter release and tripod. Film was Kodak 100
B&W. USAF target was mounted on the wall in the center of 1000 mm
window. (I checked resolution only in the centre of image.) Camera was
installed on such a distance from the wall that 1000 mm window was
exactly fitted in the camera viewfinder.(Canon 1n has 100% viewfinder.)
In this case we will have 1000mm/36mm = 27.78 picture-to-negative
compression. I took pictures with 3/4 f-stop underexpose. After film
was developed I used 50X microscope to analyze negatives. The results
are:
f-stop group-element coefficient resolution (coefficient * compression) 2.8 1-3 2.52 70 l/mm 4.0 1-3 2.52 70 l/mm 5.6 1-5 3.17 88 l/mm 8.0 1-5 3.17 88 l/mm 11.0 1-4 2.83 79 l/mm 16.0 1-2 2.24 62 l/mm 22.0 0-6 1.78 49 l/mm.
I did not checked resolution for the micro because on working distances
last element of the last group was clearly visible.
In spite that officially this lens has last f-stop at 32, lens I have
tested has last f-stop at f45. However I did not tested it up to this
stop.
I have tested all my lenses in the same way, because I want to know lens
resolution on distances at which I take pictures not at infinity.
All kind of criticism is welcome.
Date: 28 Feb 2000
From: [email protected] (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: want to buy inexpensive medium format
David Foy ([email protected]) wrote:
> well, since you ask...a lens comes to mind. I've never had the courage to > shoot with a Wollensak. Are they right up there with Twindars, or am I being > too dismissive?
David,
The "Ansco" lens on my Ansco Titan is apparently made by Wollensak. This
90mm f4.5 lens is one of the best that I own. Other people I know have
reported wonderful results with their Optar lenses. As a general working
principle, I've never been afraid to experiment with lenses that are
badmouthed by others. I've had a few dogs, but far more pleasant
surprises.
Mark
Date: 22 Jun 1999
From: "Joaquim" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: compatible lens for practica (eg.sigma)?
Hello
The Praktica BMS uses PB mount lenses.
No other manufacturer made cameras with this type of mount.
At the moment only Samyang and Tamron make lenses that can be used in the
Praktica.
The Samyang lenses, are also distributed by Pentacon, makers of Praktica
cameras.
You can email Pentacon or Samyang asking if there are importers in your
country
http://www.pentacon-dresden.de/
http://www.samyang-optical.co.kr
The other alternative is Tamron lenses used via an adaptor, Tamron lenses
are widely available.
Hope it helps
Yalcin Alimoglu [email protected] wrote in article
> Hello, > > I found an old MF east german SLR camera Practica BMS at a very cheap > price. The camera looks good. However, I need a 35-70 zoom lens for > that. > > I think that sigma may produce compatible lenses for practica. But I do > not know what it must be called or what actual company(minolta, pentax, > canon etc.) is compatible with the camera . > > Sincerely, > > Yalcin Alimoglu
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998
From: "Anders Svensson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Third Party Lenses (long)
Chris [email protected] wrote:
> >One of the problems of comparing performance is that the idea with TP > >lenses is to differentiate in *price* - not features - from CM (Camera > >Manufacturer). That low cost TP lenses are put up against high cost CM > >lenses is the choice of the TP manufacturer - and also part of his > >business plan, IMHO. > I'm not sure if I can agree on that - if TP manufacturers are pitching > a low cost lens against against a high cost CM lens, why do they go to > the bother of also manufacturing high cost lenses????
For marketing reasons ? To fill a particular niche, that some OEM
maker have missed ?
I feel that the issue here is moot, at best. The majority of Sigmas,
Tamrons, Tokinas, Vivitars and Soligors that are sold are not "high
cost" but are budget alternatives to OEM offerings.
> I don't think loss of qulity is the only way the TP manufacturer can > reduce costs, they also have an economy of scale - for one lens > design, they will ship more units because it will be available in a > number of mounts for differrent bodies.
I feel, however that this was more reasonable in "old days". TP
lensmakers cannot make a Canon AF lens (in-lens motordrive)
particularily like a Nikon or a Minolta (in-camera drive).
> .... > Buying used may not get you 100% of the quality at 50% off the price > and you have even less come-back if it goes wrong!
Well, in the example you quoted, it would seem that a used Nikkor would
be 300 dollars, and a new Sigma 360 dollars. Assuming that you don't
claim any particular superiority for the Sigma optics, I feel that if
one starts out with a decent, but used Nikor, that would be a better
move - but thats just me... I base this on how I have understood the
value of used Nikkors and used Sigmas and to some extent (All Sigma
fan's - stop reading) how many Sigma lenses seem to be designed to
make it in one piece to the end of the warranty period, just...
> So why not provide the correct advise about them rather than simply > jumping to the CM option. I think there are just as many Nikkor lenses > that would generally fall into the "not recommended" class as for any > other manufacturer.
Given that the Nikkor range is so big, there are probably some that are
"not recommended". My (totally unscientific) investigations have lead
me to believe that they at least have one lens that is low quality, and
no better than most TP lensmakers similar priced offerings.
But if one happens to have a Nikon, Nikkors usually work pretty well,
tho'.... ;-)
> From my own experience, I made a major step up in quality when I first > mounted a Tamron zoom onto my first SLR a Zenith EM and then continued > to use it when I aquired a Yashica FRII (due to the benifits of the > Adaptall lens system - and I'm sure a lot of people would agree that > that was a good idea!!!)
Well, I'll certainly would agree that from some OEM levels, the better
TP offerings may be a giant step upwards in performance.
My own OEM experiences in that area comes from a old Practica with a 30
mm "budget" OEM lens (Meyer Orestegon ? - memory reacts as slowly like
a oily diphragm....). That camera costed me 12 dollars in 1967 and the
lens was a result of a swap for a non functional exposure timer. We
both thought that the other guy was the looser, and - unusually - we
were both right...
Merry Christmas !
--
Anders Svensson
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 1999
From: [email protected] (Michael Goodin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma EX build quality
> Do the other EX lenses have this build quality? Is there a difference in > build quality between manual and auto-focus lenses? Do you care about > build quality? Are there many out there still looking for manual focus > lenses?
I only have AF EX lenses. I have both the EX 28-70 and 105Macro (both
f2.8). Build quality is excellent (my Tamron 28-105/f4.5-5.6 used to
rattle if you shook it, the EX lenes are solidly built). the 105 is my
favourite lens - incredibly sharp/great contrast etc etc. The 28-70 is a
fine performer and when woking with a Sunpak 4000AF flash and an N70 makes
for a nice "photojournalism" set up. As soon as the $$$s become availble I
see no reason not to to pursue the 70-210 and 400mm macro members of this
family of lenses. I hear there is talk of an EX 17-35 (close to that
range anyway), hopefully it will maintain the high quality of the rest of
the series members which provide excellent quality for good price. An
alternaive series is the Tokina ATX-Pro which has had excellent reviews.
Sure I'd like the Nikkor equivalents of all the lenses mentioned, however
SigmaEXs match the "state of my photography" when all factors are
considered.
MG
Date: 29 Mar 1999
From: [email protected] (Kirbyko3)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Vivitar Lenses...Why so inexpensive?
I have 2 Vivitar lenses for my Pentax K1000 and I've been really impressed
by them. I use their 24mm lens (which was only about $80) and their 100mm
($115ish), and the resulting pictures have been excellent. Last summer Pop
Photo gave a stellar review to the 100mm lens and even admitted that they
felt a bit embarrassed giving so much praise to such an inexpensive lens!
Sure, they're not the finest quality and probably won't last even close to
forever, but for those of us who can't afford to shell out $300-500 per
lens, Vivitar is a lifesaver!
Kerry
Date: 29 Mar 1999
From: [email protected] (Kirbyko3)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Vivitar 100mm Macro
Actually, it's the June issue ('98) of POp Photo that gave the 100mm a
stellar review. I picked one up recently and I've been really impressed
with the results. It feels light and it won't last forever, but it's a
great alternative when you don't have $300-500 to spend on a new lens!
Kerry
PS I think B&H has a picture of it on their website (www.bhphoto.com).
[Ed. note: see Cult Classic Lenses for
more...]
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000
From: Steve [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Vivitar Filter Sizes
Hi Bob,
I`ve got some more filter sizes of Vivitar lenses if you want them. If
not, just delete.
135 2.8 Close Focus: 62mm
24 f2: 55mm
450mm 4.5 Cat: 97mm (according to Herbert Kepplers measurement)
Series 1 90-180: 72mm
A friend up in Canada just sent me an article by Keppler about "24
fascinating, discontinued lenses you might want to search out and use".
Five of the lenses were Vivitars.
I am just about to get my hands on the Series 1 200 f/3, when I do, I`ll
let you know the size of that one, but I have a good hunch it`s 72mm, like
the 135 2.3, 35-85 2.8, and the 90-180. BTW, the Series 1 35-85 2.8 is
soooooooo sharp.
I realize that filter size is not that big a factor with wide-angles
because the filter ring is usually much larger than the element, but for
normal to tele, I think it`s handy to know.
Best Regards,
Steve (can`t get my hands on the old glass fast enough) Larson
From Nikon Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2000
From: Jonathan Castner [email protected]
Subject: [NIKON] All this talk about lens quality..
Ok, here is one way of looking at this discussion.
Contax: Makes exceptional lenses, very good bodies but has very limited
range of lenses and accessories.
Leica: Makes exceptional lenses, mediocre bodies and good range but
limited
range of bright short lenses and their Modul-system long lenses are
although excellent, silly in construction.
Nikon: Makes excellent lenses, many of which are exceptional and unique,
excellent bodies and a huge array of lenses and accessories.
The bottom line in maximum lens quality is:
1) Get a range finder. All short lenses will be sharper as well as most
medium length lenses.
2) Decide what your application is. If you are a specialist in macro, you
might want to get a Leica R8 and 100mm APO-MACRO-ELMARIT, or the Contax
RTSIII and 100mm f/2.8 AE Macro Planar T. If you are shooting a lot of
downhill ski racing, get a Nikon F5 and AF-S 400mm f/2.8. Need bright
lenses for low light work? Get Nikon. Neither Contax nor Leica make 24mm
f/2.0, 28mm f/1.4, 105mm f/1.8 or 135mm f/2.0 lenses. Doing news
photography? Get Nikon. Neither Contax nor Leica makes, or will ever make
a
17-35 f/2.8 or 20-35mm f/2.8 zoom.
3) Is there a difference between the three makers? Yes. Some Leica and
Contax lenses are a tad sharper than equivalent Nikon lenses, meaning less
than 10% better. There are different color renditions and different
contrast qualities as well as blur qualities; but that is for each user to
decide.
Contax and Leica are made and marketed for upper middle class European
males. They are designed for pure optical excellence regardless of cost
and due to the amateur nature of the bulk of their customers, their
limited
applications are not an impediment to sales. They are excellent tools but
are not designed for maximum system flexibility and quality while being
affordable enough for the working pro. That is what Nikon is for.
For me and the way that I work, my Nikon system and my constantly relied
upon: 24mm f/2.8 D, 28mm f/1.4D, 85mm f/1.4D, 80-200 f/2.8D and AF-I 400mm
f/2.8 are as good or better than Contax or Leica equivalents. Most
importantly, they are good enough for me and my clients. That is the most
important part.
Jonathan Castner -Photojournalist
Online folio at: http://www.jonathancastner.com
From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 04 May 2000
From: Magnus Wedberg [email protected]
Subject: Re: Question about AF Reflex 500 mm/f8
> I'd be very grateful if some of you who have practical experience with > this lens could provide me with some info about the performance in > general and, more specifically about the advantages/disadvantages of > using mirror reflexes for shooting nature and wildlife themes.
General mirror reflex disadvantages:
* Donut shaped bokeh -- out of focus highlights will be in the shape
of a ring, donut, toroid, whatever you want to call it.
* Lower contrast. This is, AFAIK, a problem for all mirror lenses;
maybe not so for the solid cats (cat = catadioptic) who as I
understand has a solid glass element with the ends "silvered" to
provide mirror function (sorry, don't have the words to describe this
accurately :-) I read somewhere that those were better, but only a
few such lenses were made (sold by Vivitar, I believe, but actually
made by Perkin-Elmer -- read NASA space telescope manufacturer).
* Somewhat less sharp than a glass lens. Often mirror telescopes are
useless for camera mounting because they are not really sharp in the
corners (not needed if you just look in it).
* Fixed aperture, and not very fast (f/8 is common, some f/4 lenses
has been made, but they are out of your budget. Don't ask ;-)
* Manual focus only. Most AF systems can't focus with a f/8 lens.
* Dark viewfinder. f/8!
General mirror reflex advantages:
* Very, very affordable. Cheap, even. The Sigma 600/8 can often be
found used for $200-300 here in Sweden (even cheaper in the states, I
guess)
* Light! You can easily haul it around all day. Much lighter than a
moderate length glass tele zoom.
Those two advantages are, in my book, more important than most of the
disadvantages.
Minolta 500/8 issues:
* The only reflex lens in the world who will AF. However, AF is not
very fast, and the camera will hunt quite a bit. You can only use the
central sensor. It's adequate however for normal use, and if you MF
it will be a non-issue of course. The AF lock button is a must have.
* If you use it with a camera with LCD overlay (as 7/9xi) the
viewfinder will be even darker.
* Great size, great weight, great versatility. This really is a key
issue for this lens. The fact that it AF:s, has the AF lock button,
and the other mirror advantages (all two of them) makes it a great
addition for one who want a tele lens but can't afford either the
300/4 + converter or the 400/4.5. And because it's so light, you will
never leave it at the foot of the mountain, saying "naaah, too heavy
to climb up there with". In Sweden, we have a special word, that
something is "lagom". That means that it is just right, or
satisfyingly sufficient, for a special issue. I have found that the
500/8 is "lagom" for my use. Paired with a monopod it's perfect for
ski shots, for example ;-)
Enough driveling :-) More questions? Go ahead!
Magnus Wedberg
http://mw.9000.org
[Ed. note: Mr. Shell is a noted photo book author, editor of Shutterbug,
past repairperson, photography instructor (workshops..), and glamour
etc. photographer...]
Steve,
The Tamron 500 SP mirror is pretty good. But not better than the Russian
ones which turn up pretty cheap. Also, the Russian ones use T-mounts
which can be had to fit just about any camera and are cheap. The Tamron,
even though there is no diaphragm, still needs the relatively expensive
Tamron Adaptall mount.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List:
- ----------
The next time I have the ear of a lens designer I'll try to remember
to ask this question. I honestly don't know how the physics of depth
of field works for mirror lenses.
There have been two mirror lenses I know of with diaphragms to allow
control of depth of field. One was a traditional design made by Carl
Zeiss Jena. It was 1000mm and something like f/8 wide open. This is
a very rare lens.
Nearly all "mirror" lenses are catadioptric designs, which means they
use a combination of mirrors (catoptric) and lens elements (dioptric)
in their designs. However, there have been a few which were true
mirror lenses, catoptrics, with no lens elements at all. The last one
of these that I know of was the Makowski Katoptron, made by Makowski
Optical in Cologne, Germany. This design uses an unusual optical path
and does not produce "donut" shaped out of focus highlights and has
a diaphragm. I don't know if the company is still in business. They
used to come to photokina every time but have not been at the last
few shows. The quality of these lenses was so good that they were
used as long distance microscopes for surgery and for scientific
research. I always wanted one but could never afford one.
Oh, so you did the experiment and report back to us!!!
Bob
[Ed. note: praise for some third party telephoto lenses...]
Hi Robert,
Just want to share with you and others my experience with the Tamron
Adaptall 2 SP LD 180mm/2.5, which within my limited experience, is the
best telephone lens I have ever used.
For over three years, I have been a dedicated Pentax user. Although I
occasionally used other third party lenses such as Vivitar Series 1 and
Kiron lenses, I have been, by and large, a Pentax fan.
However, this Tamron lens is just sharper and more contrasty than my
Pentax SMC K 200mm/2.5 and my Pentax SMC F 300mm/4.5 ED lenses - both
are excellent lenses and are among Pentax's best. The only Pentax
telephoto lens that I had used which produced results almost as good is
the Pentax SMC K 85mm/1.8, but it is a lens with much shorter focal
length.
This lens was produced for the 35th anniversary of Tamron back in 1985.
I don't know when Tamron stopped producing it, but this lens is mainly
available in the used market now. Since there seem to be little
discussions about this lens except one I found in the Zuiko list below,
I thought I should bring it up.
The Zuiko list discussion which mentioned this lens could be found at:
http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1998/msg11449.html
I shoot frequently in low light, and this lens is just wonderful for
such situations. You can see an example of a photo shot using this lens
at :
http://photocrit.hosting4less.com/cgi-bin/s?zzvRJn-p14150359+uqF+vRl+000220-21:34:33-kcng
Regards,
KC Ng
[Ed. note: some points about the rarer Sigma YS mount lenses...]
From the specs you describe it sounds like a copy of the old Sigma 16/2.8
Fisheye from the 70s. I've got one of the lens catalogs from Sigma's old
XQ line days with a recent eBay purchase. One of Sigma's sales points was
that their fast F2.8 lenses went to F22 while all of their competitors
went only as far as F16. And it had 4 built in filters, L-1A, Y-48, O-56,
and LB-180. It was 11 elements of 8 groups with the diagonal being 180
degrees, vertical 100 degrees and horizontal being 150 degrees. It also
came with an adapter to produce a 100 degree circular image. Plus it
focused to 6" from the film plane or 2" from the front element. This was
the first lens line optimized for MTF instead of just the sharpness from
resolution tests (according to Sigma anyway). I have 4 of this line in my
collection: 135/1.8 (K), 135/2.8 (ES), 200/2.8 (ES) and 200/4 (ES). Most
are interchangeable YS mount type.
Kent Gittings
....
[Ed. note: CZJ made a number of lenses for 35mm such as M42 cameras, this
is the East German post WWII mfgers and not the West German Zeiss
corp.]
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2000
Hi
eBay
item 1200987374 (Ends Dec-13-00 09:10:51 PST) - Soligor 120-600 Super
Tele-Zoom for Olympus .
Looks like an awesome lens.
I wish
I shot olympus, I'd love to get my hands on one of these for my minolta
x700.
I also would like to pick your brain for a moment if I may. I recently
came across a 28mm 2.8 Zeiss Jena lens for my x700. I was under the
impression that only contax users were privey to zeiss lenses? How does
zeiss jena compare to the lenses one would find for their
contax/hasselblad, etc?
[Ed. note: could be a lens left out of my reference list, but may also be
new importer using Soligor lens name with another newer lens made by some
other maker, and imported under the Soligor name? See manufacturers listings/changes re: Soligor ...]
Date: Sun, 10 Dec 2000
Another one for your older 3rd Party List if you are still maintaining it
Bob. I have just acquired a Tamron 300mm f5,6 in an SP Macro version -
which is new to me - didn't know they made the slow lens in the premium
version. Just put it up on eBay with douber but there doesn't seem to be
much interest! :-(
Regards
From Minolta Mailing List;
There was an article in the German Fotomagazine about Mirrorlenses
and such in the 500mm range.
Testes were: Sigma 600mm f8, Tamron 500mm f8, Minolta AF 500mm f8,
Nikon 500mm f8, some Zeiss and Novoflex lenses and some
spottingscope/zoom bastards to be attached via T2 adapter to the
camera mount. And a Danubia/Duerr 500mm f8-22 non-mirror lens (T-2
mount).
In short:
Minolta AF 500mm mated with new 7 was according to writer the most
pleasure to use. AF still works with center-sensor and picture
quality is good and appropriate for many situations.
All the other lenses had to be manually focussed!
Nikons mirror lens had the closest minimum focus distance and made it
interesting for close-ups.
All mirror lenses produced donut-shaped highlights when out-of-focus.
All mirror lens where to be found suitable only for static objects,
depth-of-field can't be regulated by stopping down!
The Zeiss and Novoflex lenses were good but expensive performers, the
Novoflex requiring its own aptall-system.
A surprise was the Danubia/Duerr non-mirror lens. Classical design (=
long), very good optical qualities and neutral in color.
Again, this lens was not suitable for moving objects because of the
slow aperture. Because of the low price of $150 new (I bought one for
$50 used once) this lens is a real bargain for those who want to get
started or only ever so often want to use this focal range!
All lenses were recommended for tripod support, a minimum
shutterspeed of 1/1000 and ISO 800 film.
Non was really effecient as a wildlife lens, but the 2 Novoflex
(400/560 mm) lenses.
Just wanted to share!
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001
Your guarantee is with Ritz, and rides on the quality of the
individual store. If the lens ever needs re-chipping - which is a
problem with Sigma lenses, Ritz does not do it and Sigma will not do it
to Quantary lenses. The Lens will still work with the original camera
and the "guarantee" does not cover the incompatibilities with future
cameras.
To be sure Sigma apparently does not make replacement chips for
lenses more than a generation out of date - which puts Sigma waay down
the list of lenses I would actually buy. Quantary, with almost no re-
sale value, is a lot further down that list though.
--
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2001
I share the same views on the Sigma 24 mm one of the other contributors.
It's been an excellent lens. what I've noticed is that little is mentioned
of the Sigma Filtermatic which had 4 internal filters(skylight,blue
tungsten correction,yellow and orange) as well as TWO filter threads. Most
people don't realize that inside the taper where the front lens lock ring
is there is a 52 mm thread to add to the main 62 mm threading. This has
been a very versatile lens in my collection. Try it with close-up lens for
some interesting shots as well as great landscapes and interior pictures.
If you try to use both front filter threads at the same time, be warned
that the inner thread sits high and you could damage the outer filter or
threads trying this.
From Rollei Mailing List;
For info on Rubinar take a look at www.zenit-foto.ru the official
web site of the Krasnogorsk Optical Works.
You will note that they offer a Rubinar 500mm f/8 and a Rubinar 1000mm
f/10. I have both. The 500 is damned good, better than much higher
priced ones I have compared it to. The 1000mm is not as good, but still
of high quality and beats out the low priced Japanese 1000.
Note that they also offer a 500mm f/5.6 mirror!!! I don't have one of
them, but want to get one.
Some friends and I have just put together a test order to meet their
minimum order requirements and are now awaiting delivery. It will be
interesting to see how fast they ship and what sort of quality we
get.
Bob
...
From Rollei Mailing List;
Bob Shell wrote:
For a complete discussion of the MTO lens series, see the article I
drafted for THE KIEV REPORT some years back. The original designation was
MTO for "Maksutov Telephoto Objective"; the Rubinar name is a marketing
ploy of the last several years.
The full range is: 5.6/300 (not made by KMZ, incidentally, but by a
company down near the Caspian Sea), 8/500, 6.3/500 (older) and 5.6/500
(newer), and the 10.5/1050, made originally as a camera lens but now sold
also as an astronomical telescope. The "Rubinar" name properly only
attaches to the products of PO Rubin, the old "Optical Glass Works" or
"Stekla" -- PO Rubin means "Industrial Enterprise Ruby" and the factory
started as an off-shoot of KMZ and the two work closely together.
All are superb lenses. I have a slew of these. The first offerings sold
in the US were by Spiratone and came in snazzy wooden boxes and in
t-mount:
these were all KMZ products, and most were marked with the "Grand Prix
Brussels" logo from their coup at the '58 World's Fair. Then production
shifted to Stekla, and the lenses appeared in leather cases and with a
most helpful mount: the mount was either Zenit thread mount (M39, but
with the optical registration of the M42 lenses) or in M42. BUT the mount
used could be removed from a stub mount by loosening three screws, and the
same having been done to a normal T2 adapter, another camera's mount could
be slipped on. I've shot my MTO's this way with Canon FD, Canon EOS, and
Icarex BM.
I translated the Passport (IB) for the 10.5/1050 MTO and can provide those
interested with a copy: please e-mail me privately. It is in WP7 format.
Marc
From Minolta Mailing List:
Soligor is the same as the cheaper non-Series 1 Vivitar's not the good
ones. That being said for their era the Soligor CD series was not bad. I
personally have had a different opinion about the MD 75-200 especially
with any 2x TC during the short time I used manual Minolta gear (I prefer
Pentax manual gear now). Anyway if the Flexar 400/6.3 is actually the same
lens as the Spiratone made during the 70s and 80s its actually pretty
sharp. And if it is I bet it will prove to be sharper that the zoom with a
TC considering how much image degradation you get even on the best 2x TCs
today.
Especially if you blow any shots up to at least 8x10. As for astro
photography unless you have a clock driven telescope to mount it on or a
clock driven equatorial mount of it's own you will be limited to basically
the moon or wide angle shots at best. Moon can be shot at fractions of
seconds but even planets take several seconds and they are moving at the
time. Anything else, even with fast films takes several minutes of a
guided exposure.
Kent Gittings
From Rollei Mailing List;
It's very common in zooms and long telephoto lenses, since the actual
infinity focus point will vary with temperature. The longer the lens
barrel is physically, the more the infinity position will change with
thermal expansion.
Bob
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001
I just thought I would share a nice website that has posted the results of
a pretty extensive test originally done by Popular Photography years ago
comparing ultra fast (f1.2) normal lenses, fast (f1.4) normal lenses and
normal (f1.7-2) normal lenses from a variety of makes including Canon,
Konica, Leica, Nikon, Pentax... The results are quite detailed and I found
it quite interesting reading particularly since there are few tests
available these days for older Konica Hexanon lenses. The tests show that
they were actually among the best of the manual focus normal lenses.
Here's the link:
http://photobluebook.virtualave.net/LensTests/LensTestIndex.htm
Jason
From Contax Mailing List:
I have one of those in Canon EOS mount. It's surprisingly good for the
cheap selling price. I've had photos published which were shot with this
lens, so it qualifies as "good enough".
Bob
From Minolta Mailing List:
Does anybody think that you could tell an improvement in quality in a
picture taken with a modern AF 50mm 1.4 over the same picture taken
with an MD 50mm 1.4 - or make this any other prime lens?
According to Asahi camera test team, Minolta MD or MD Rokkor 50mmF1.4
marked the highest point in sharpness/resolustion, and the lens still
keeps the record.
It is a report which I read a few years ago. All lenses and cameras which
the test team were impressed most for their careers as testing stuffs were
mentioned, the MD50mmF1.4 was mentioned.
Hope the lens still keep its record.
And I've heard Ai Nikkor 50mmF2.8 macro is very sharp lens, its resolution
excells AF Nikkor60mmF2.8.
However, it does not mean the lens technology has not improved since then
(MF age).
Today I was browsing a magazine, and found a report of a professial user
about maxxum9. He refered to newly released AF200 macro. He praised the
lens for the lens still keeping high resolution at F22 aperture.
Most lenses lose high resolution at largest F number due to that light
scattered when it goes through a lens aperture, according to him.
He is major in close up photography, he often has to use largest F number.
We can rely on his comment.
Ryujin
Hello, My name is Carmen Manfredi. I love your site and use it all the
time. You might want to add to your Spiratone list a Spiratone 500mm /4
Mirror Ultratel. There is also a "diaphragm" that goes over the front of
the lens and stops it to a f/5.6.
Happy Shooting...Carmen
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
Thanks for the credit on the re-discovery of the Spiratone lens. I was
shocked to see my name cited on your great site. Upon further
investigation it seems that the Spiratones were made by Sigma. The Sigma
Ultratel discription listed is the same for the Spiratone Ultratel, plus
the Spiratone has a Greek sigma letter w/ numbers trailing it. I'm going
to sell it on Ebay in a few weeks. If you don't mine, I would like to
hyperlink to your Sigma page..
Best Carmine
From Contax Mailing List;
...
Well, except for the Japanese-built 500/8, the Zeiss mirror lenses are
ridiculous in price. Even that one is high, at a dealer net of about $
2,000 !
Surprisingly, the best 500mm f/8 that I have found is the Russian MC
Rubinar. I bought one new for next to nothing and have been just amazed at
how good it is.
Bob
From Contax Mailing List;
That's the problem with Russian optics, sloppy quality control. I've
tried several of the 500/8 and all were good, but some better than others.
I bought a 1000/11 at the same time as my 500 and it is only average in
performance. You pays your money and you takes your chances.
Bob
[Ed. note: this illustrates the problems with trying to discuss lenses;
not only do lenses vary in parameters like resolution, but there are many
changes within production of a given lens over time, and finally there may
be several versions of the same lens (or one version labeled differently
for marketing reasons]
From Sigma Mailing List;
Sigma has had a number of 70-300 and 75-300 lenses so you have to be very
careful about which version you are talking about . I know of at least 5
versions. They are (in what I believe is chronological order):
1. Sigma 75-300 f/4.0-5.6
I don't know about Practical Photography but Popular Photography rated the
APO Macro Super as superior to the DL Macro Super. The difference between
the two was most apparent at the long end and close focusing. As far as I
can tell from the specifications the DL Macro Super and the APO macro
Super are the same except that the APO has three SLD elements and the DL
Macro super has only 1. Intuitively, you would expect the APO Macro
version to be superior.
I do know that photodo rates the APO Macro (#3) at 2.4 and the DL Macro
Super (#4) at 2.9. I believe some people confuse the APO Macro with the
APO Macro Super.
I own the APO Macro Super and I also own a Nikon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens.
While I have noticed differences in performance between the Nikkor and the
Sigma I haven't reach a conclusion which is the better performer. One of
these days I'll run back-to-back tests and decide which one to keep.
Regards,
...
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Andrew,
First switch off the annoying HTML and send messages in plain text without
adverts, please.
Yes, I have used both the 1000mm MTO and the more recent 1000mm MC
Rubinar. Both are made by the Lytcareno works, and you can buy them direct
from the factory these days.
As with all Russian/Ukrainian optics, buying one is a sort of crap shoot.
I have a 500/8 MC Rubinar which is spectacular and a 1000 which is pretty
mediocre.
It depends on what day of the week it was made, the humidity, the price of
beer, etc. If you get a good one, it can be very good indeed. If you get
a bad one, then you have a great super tele soft focus lens!
To see a photo taken with my 500/8 go to:
http://www.bobshell.com/gallery/photobuyers/photostock019.htm
Bob
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Hi Andrew.
I have current production MTO-100- , and the superior 1000mm Rubinar,
which as Bob noted are made by the Lytkarina factory.
The MTO 100 is mechanically superior, but has a very curved field, which
means that you must enlarge only the center of the image. IMO, they were
designed this way, as the field of view is wider than that of the
Rubinar. The lens, when used, and the negative is enlarged properly is a
MOST satisfactory lens.
The Rubinars, have a demonstrably flatter field than the MTO's. They also
have a rotating mount to allow vertical or horizontal photos without
dismounting and remounting the lens as required with the MTO, but the
MTO is effectively more solid, IMO. The Rubinars do focus more closely,
which might be an advantage.
The 1000mm lenses are both very specialized and very difficult to use,
and I had to do extensive testing before I was ready to write the
article found in the old Kiev Report magazine.
There a several very critical issues connected with the use of these
lenses: focus screen, focusing, and stabilization (tripod!).
The focus screeen is best a full ground glass screen, as you MUST-
especially with the MTO- focus ACCURATELY in the center of the frame,
and focusing aids effective block the center of the image, as they are
NOT useable with the f10 lenses- they are totally useless.
Focusing. The focusing MUST be done very accurately, and this is best
done with a focusing magnifier, which magnifies the CENTER of the
screen. Good ones have a built in diopter adjustment which allows the
device to be focused sharply on the focusing screen, which is VERY
important. While the MTO is the most critical, due to it's curved field,
a magnifier is just as important with the Rubinar.
The 1000's require a REALLY good tripod. After beating my head against
the wall with my Bogen 3021/3221 tripods, I bought a Bogen 3246 tripod
with the 3039 Pro head- a VERY good choice. I also found that the Bogen
3252 Long Lens Support under the body and a 2# sand bag on the camera
body provided really fine results. A mirror lock up is also HIGHLY
recommended!!!! used this way, the sharpness is really equivalent to the
50mm at much closer distances. I did my tests high in the mountains to
avoid the L. A. smog and at a range of about 800 yards- a long shot even
with a good rifle!
I also tested the 500/8 Rubinar, which was also a real joy, and which
beat out the Vivitar 500/8 I tested it against. Both were new lenses, I
might add.
I also have a Rubinar 300/4.5, but haven't had time to do much with it
yet, but intial testing is promsing- VERY. The problem here is the
rather too fast aperture, which limits it to very moderate speed films.
I also have, and extensively tested the Rubinar 500/5.6 lens, which is
absolutely bloody superb!! Highly recommended.
If you don't mind cropping over half your negative away to get a sharp
image, the MTOs are very, very good- no kidding, but overall, I do
recommend the Rubinars due to their significantly flatter field.
As mentioned, these are VERY specialized lenses and require VERY
careful, and methodical handling to get the very best out of them. They
are as good as, or better than competing lenses- especially in the price
ranges ranges involved!! Remember, something worth doing, is worth doing
well, and in this case, that means really working for your results, but
the results---ahhhh!!!
Best wishes,
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
[email protected] wrote:
I currently own the 6.3/500, 8/500, and 10.5/1050 MTO's and wrote the
definitive article on these puppies for the lamented and late KIEV REPORT.
Wonderful lenses but beware of two things: as Bob Shell properly pointed
out, SPS quality assurance/quality control is a bit of a crap-shoot but,
luckily, these seems less of an issue with these guys than with other
lenses. And, second, how often will you USE a 1050mm telephoto? (I also
have a Leica APO-Televid scope and a 1300mm Questar.)
I have translated the Passport (instruction book for the non-Cyrillic in
our number) and will cheerfully send a copy by e-mail to those who ask me
by PRIVATE e-mail. It will be in WP7 format.
Marc
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Kevin
There are two separate designs here you are discussing.
There is a basic 10.5/1050 MTO, made by KMZ originally and later by PO
Rubin/Lytkarino; this design survives today as the Rubinar. There is no
optical distinction between the original 1958 MTO and the present Rubinar.
There is a widefield MTO produced briefly in the middle 1990's which
flopped in the marketplace; Bob Shell might know more about this, as it
was flogged for several months in SHUTTERBUG around 1995 by a firm out of
Las Vegas, Nevada. This design suffered from field curvature.
Marc
From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Hi Marc,
I do not have any of the older MTOs, unfortunately- sniff. Mine are the
ones that have been available for the last several years. The article
mentioned appeared in K-R vol 4 #3.
I thought I had a 1050mm MTO, but the deal fell through due to
transportation difficulties. but I'll keep looking.
The 1000 MTO I have is dated 1996- it's an MC MTO-11CA. The Rubinar 1000
is a 1995 MC Rubinar 10/100 Macro. I got these from LAN Optics Intl.:
http://www.russianoptics.com/
This is a reliable supplier, I might add!
The comment about how often will this lens be used is very much to the
point!!
Not often!
Best wishes,
From Nikon MF Mailing List;
--- In NikonMF@y..., danstrou@h... wrote:
There are 2 400mm lenses from that era, one is the 400 6.3, and the
other is a 400 5.6. In addition to being offered in a bunch of fixed
mounts, the 6.3 was offered as a T4 lens, and the 5.6 as a TX. I
*think* the 6.3 was only offered as a non-AI lens (F/F2), while the
fixed mount 5.6 was offered as an AI lens, albeit with the bunny ears
to couple with non-AI cameras. There was also a T-mount version of
the 6.3, which did not have automatic diaphragm operation. The
autodiaphragm lenses had pull out hoods, which is good because these
lenses are pretty prone to flare.
Unless you have the AI coupling on the back of the lens, you cannot
meter at full aperture. (It the lens is non-AI, you might have a
problem on the FE2 since you can't fold the AI coupler away on that
camera like you can on the FE, I beleive installing a non-AI lens on
an FE2/FM2 will damage the coupler; I'm not sure what the deal is on
the F100.)
These were good lenses for their time (late 60's/early 70's), they
definitely suffer from not being modern multicoated designs (ie,
having aspherical elements, an apochromatic design, low dispersion
glass) but that is why they are inexpensive now. Since the chromatic
aberrations are not too well corrected, there will be some noticeable
color fringing on big enlargements. The 5.6 has an edge in sharpness.
It's definitely below Nikon quality, but then again, it's a fraction
of the cost of a Nikkor. If it will phsyically mount on the camera
and you are comfortable with the price, go for it. I like my 5.6 TX
lens, it is bulky and all-metal by surprisingly light for its size. A
monopod or a tripod is practically a must.
MadMat
[Ed. note: thanks to Lance for these comments, see
http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/third/kievwide.html on russian lenses..]
Thanks, Robert. This is coming a little too late for my trip to Russia,
but I will remain interested after that.
It's interesting that much of the material you point to has to do with
pitting aftermarket, off-brand, and off-beat lenses against the
high-priced spread.
This is an issue that's near and dear to my heart. I have an F100 rig,
including the 80-200 2.8 AFD/ED/IF two-touch Nikkor. It's an awesome
camera and an incredible piece of glass.
At the same time and not to take anything away from those pieces, I also
have the Tokina 28-80 2.8 ATX-Pro and the Tamron 200-400 5.6 push-pull AF
zoom.
And without being specific or longwinded about things... The differences,
while perhaps visible at larger magnification or detectable as differences
in MTF, are also by and large NOT evident in typical photos most people
(including many pros or serious amateurs) take.
The bottom line for me is that unless someone is paying me a lot of money
to take pix (NOT!), I really can't afford nor rationalize a stable full of
lenses that start with the hefty price of the 80-200 and go up. And that
given the similarity in results, that extra money goes well beyond the
point of diminishing returns.
Make no mistake, the Nikkor is the best lense in my kit. It would take
some pretty serious competition to change that. But when all things are
taken into account and remembering that there is no such thing as
"perfect" optics, I just can't justify the cost of a kit full of Nikkor
quality/price optics.
- Lance
[Ed. note: note number of lens variations
From Sigma Mailing List;
Hi Olivier,
I'll just copy you some previous discussions on the relevant lenses -
hopefully it'll be of some help!
This 1st bit from Steve Bartlett:
Sigma has had a number of 70-300 and 75-300 lenses so you have to be very
careful about which version you are talking about . I know of at least 5
versions. They are (in what I believe is chronological order):
1. Sigma 75-300 f/4.0-5.6
2. Sigma 70-300 DL f/4.0-5.6 (14 elements 11 groups, 1 SLD element)
3. Sigma 70-300 APO Macro f/4.0-5.6 (14 elements 11 groups, 2 SLD
elements)
4. Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super f/4.0-5.6 (14 elements 10 groups, 1 SLD
element)
5. Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super f/4.0-5.6. (14 elements 10 groups, 3 SLD
elements)
I don't know about Practical Photography but Popular Photography rated the
APO Macro Super as superior to the DL Macro Super. The difference between
the two was most apparent at the long end and close focusing. As far as I
can tell from the specifications the DL Macro Super and the APO macro
Super are the same except that the APO has three SLD elements and the DL
Macro super has only 1. Intuitively, you would expect the APO Macro
version to be superior.
I do know that photodo rates the APO Macro (#3) at 2.4 and the DL Macro
Super (#4) at 2.9. I believe some people confuse the APO Macro with the
APO Macro Super.
I own the APO Macro Super and I also own a Nikon 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens.
While I have noticed differences in performance between the Nikkor and the
Sigma I haven't reach a conclusion which is the better performer. One of
these days I'll run back-to-back tests and decide which one to keep.
Regards,
...
This message from The Kiev Report(Russ.&Ukr. camera's) on Delphi.com was
forwarded to you by
PENTAXNUT.
You can view it in the context of the entire discussion by going to:
http://forums.delphi.com/kievreport/messages/?msg=1701.47
To view PENTAXNUT's Profile, visit
PENTAXNUT says to you
Your post in rec.photo.equipment.35mm was interesting. I think you have
valid points. I also have an older 7 element MC Quantaray 28mm f2.8 lens
that is tack sharp, but has a little distortion. Considering that event
the famed Zeiss 28mm f2.8 has comparable distortion, it is a great
bargain. Of course, you do not mention the possibility of mechanical
problems like sticky aperture blades etc which is more common with third
party lenses. Although my Quantaray does not exhibit this problem, some of
the better optics like from Makinon 8 element 28mm f2.8 or Kiron 28mm f2
often have this problem.
Unfortunately, your implication that the Takumar lens is a third party
lens or not par with a Leica M lens is a little offending. I thought you
had old Modern Photo Tests (since you often refer to them). Then, you
should know that SMC Takumars are among the highest resolution 35mm lenses
ever.
John
Forum: The Kiev Report(Russ.&Ukr. camera's) Forum
Dear Peter,
Included are some resolution figures for several lenses:
The above tests were objectively done at Modern Photo for their lens tests
between 2/72 and 2/1975. The different SMC Takumar results
may mean a change in optics or sample variance due to centering etc.
Leica R 50/2 is the legendary "R" series lens.
This is much sharper than "M" lens.
Leica Elmar is shifted one column, it can stop down to f22!
First number: center lines/mm, second number:corner lines/mm
Edited 2/11/2001 by PENTAXNUT
From: [email protected] (Christophe Pinson)
"Bill Webster"
Before I chose , I read the review of the panagor in an old french
Now, there was a thread in the manual minolta group about this lens, a
I'm not a specialist in image scanning, but can a scan have enough From: [email protected] (Alfisto NJ) On 8/31/2001 I bought one on his recommend and am also very pleased with it as a macro
[Ed. note: the fixed older primes could be quite good, while the newer ones
may be trading on the name..]
> > I see lots lenses with this mark on e-bay, I'm just wondering how good
Regards!
From: A1 Shooter [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality Lenses
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002
Ron Todd [email protected] wrote:
>Well, the secret is, everything is built to a price point. The higher
>the price point, the fewer compromises that the manufacture has to
>take.
Completely correct, but it's also arguable that some manufacturers
set their price points higher at a given level of quality, because
they know their buyers are willing to pay for the name. There are
some awfully good lenses out there that cost a heckuva lot less
than the major camera brands, just as there are some awful
lenses bearing the camera's names. This holds true for all of
the manufacturers, I think.
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2002
From: Ian O'Neill [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: tokina atx 35-200
Hi,
I use a canon ef mid seventies vintage with a tokina atx 35-200 lense as my
standard go everywhere lense. I am very happy with this combination , but I
rarely see this tokina mentioned.If I do my part , pictures are vey sharp, and
I find that this lense suits most of my every occaison needs .It's certainly no
lightweight , but there is no doubting the quality in construction .It has a
macro function , and considering what I paid for it secondhand , I imagine that
it is going to be with me for some time.
Regards , Ian.
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Multi coated M42 lenses
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002
http://212.187.14.19/lenses.htm
http://www.gate.net/~hifisapi/lens1.htm
Multi-coated M42 lenses usually say so on the front ring. Since
they're made later than the single-coated models, some may have also
been re-computed.
Multi-coating improves flare-resistance, contrast, and reduces
ghosting. A lens hood, however, also help in these areas. Put one on
your lens whenever possible, especially with single-coated lenses.
Andrew
Mojtaba [email protected] wrote:
>How to detrmine if a lens is coated or multi coated?
>
>I have gathered several M42 lenses, all Auto Chinon from 70's. Only
>one of them (55 mm, macro) has this lable on it: Auto chinon MCM and
>outside on the barell: Multi coate dlens. Does it mean all others are
>not multi coated or coated?
>And to be honest, what difference does it make if the lens is coated
>or not?
>
>Thanks for your respons,
>
>Mojtaba
From: [email protected] (Larry Miracle)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Off brand lenses
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2002
I work on a lot of off brand lenses at our repair shop.
I am not at all impressed with the craftsmanship or construction
methods MOST off brand lenses use.
In worse cases I have seen camera bodies damaged because linkage lined
up poorly or camera bodies circuits burnt up because of large current
consumption (battery drains) caused by off brand lenses (Sigma on
Canon for instance).
I have seen a lot of off brand lenses that needed to be repaired
because the screws loosened up and they were literally falling apart.
As far as the price goes, I only buy Nikon lenses for my Nikon bodies.
I have bought a lot of lenses used, used them for several years and
sold them for what I bought them for.
I have saved a lot of money.
Most off brand lenses do not hold there value and fall apart faster
than brand name lenses.
Go to any pawn shop and look at what they sell off brand lenses for.
Go to a place that buys used equipment and ask them what your off
brand lenses are worth.
Some of you will be very disappointed.
Some older Nikon lenses are selling close to what they cost new.
Although off brand lenses seem cheaper in the short term, I think they
are a poor investment and cost more in the long run.
Most pros won't use them.
The optics on modern off brand lenses are very good, and is the main
reason these lenses continue to sell.
They generally do very well on comparison tests.
Also it is a little known fact that the mark up is higher on off brand
lenses than brand lenses and the dealers would rather you bought them
in most cases because they make more money.
I have heard many people say that they were told that the off brand
lenses were as good or better by the dealers that sold them.
Besides lens optics and quality of construction, there are other
issues like how accurate the lens diaphragm is and the circuitry in
the lens that contributes to the picture taking process.
Generally you get what you pay for.
I have found that older off brand lenses are harder to get parts for
and are not as serviceable in the long run as brand name lenses.
I do not see them as a long term investment.
What I am saying is only my opinion, and I am being very general.
There are some higher quality off brand lenses out there but they are
not cheap. They are much better than they used to be.
For light use I can see the advantage of off brand equipment.
However if you are going to buy a Sigma lens, why not get a Sigma body
to go with it. Your pictures will turn out the same.
Although I see a lot of people using off brand lenses and arguing that
they are just as good as brand name lenses, I don't see many people
using off brand bodies and saying the same thing. Don't you think that's
kind of odd?
Some people will talk about the name brand bodies that they use and
ignore the importance of the lens as if it were unimportant to the
photo taking ability of the system. The lens is a very important part
of the system.
Also, in recent years off brand lenses have been scooping up a large
part of the lens market and Nikon and other camera manufactures have
responded by making their own low quality lenses.
Some of these aren't much better in many ways than off brand.
Their resale will be a little higher and parts should be available
longer though.
And you probably won't have to worry about them damaging your camera
or fitting poorly.
I personally would not buy any lens that uses a plastic mount.
These break all the time and can be expensive in some cases to fix.
The story for off brand flashes is about the same.
Some flashes will pop the IC on the main circuit and you will have a
very expensive camera repair on your hands.
Using equipment on your camera that was designed by a third party is
somewhat of a risky business.
Larr
From Sigma Lens Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002
From: "b_nightingale99" [email protected]
Subject: naturephotographers.net, sigma reviews!
Well, I just discovered www.naturephotographers.net and they have
great things to say about Sigma lenses. Their reviews for the 100-
300 f/4 lens is great, and they like the 70-200 2.8 HSM better than
Canon's 70-200 2.8 USM!!! These reviews really sold me on buying the
Sigma 70-200 2.8, I've been needing one! Just thought I'd let you
guys know.
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Leica lenses are not always the best.
That is interesting that you say that. A good friend told me a story a
while back I always thought to be a tall tale but knowing this perhaps its
true. A VP at Nikon had told him that Nikon Japan would systematically test
others Japanese made lenses to ensure they had the best lenses on the market
when it came to 35mm. The only company that Nikon was always most concerened
with in terms of optics was Konica. Apparently the top brass there were not
happy that many of the Konica lenses performed as good and in some cases
better than the Nikon glass. Having used Konica lenses years back I can say
they were excellent lenses (nnot all but I distinctly remember the 85mm F1.8
to be a gem) but the SLR bodies were not as good as they could have been.
Peter K
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Shell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2002
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Leica lenses are not always the best.
Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
Why conflict? Hasselblad makes cameras not lenses. If the Zeiss lenses they
use rate well it helps them sell cameras.
Leica and Canon test every lens from every other maker, too, but they refuse to release
their results to the press. I think Hasselblad ought to do likewise.
Bob
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Leica lenses are not always the best.
Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:
That is interesting that you say that. A good friend told me a story a
while back I always thought to be a tall tale but knowing this perhaps its
true. A VP at Nikon had told him that Nikon Japan would systematically test
others Japanese made lenses to ensure they had the best lenses on the market
when it came to 35mm. The only company that Nikon was always most concerened
with in terms of optics was Konica. Apparently the top brass there were not
happy that many of the Konica lenses performed as good and in some cases
better than the Nikon glass. Having used Konica lenses years back I can say
they were excellent lenses (nnot all but I distinctly remember the 85mm F1.8
to be a gem) but the SLR bodies were not as good as they could have been.
I mentioned Leica and Canon because I have been in their test facilities. I'm sure Nikon,
Minolta, Pentax, etc., also buy one or two of each new lens from every maker
and test them. Leica does it to make sure their lenses are always better
than everything else, and if another maker comes too close it upsets them a
lot. They told me that among Japanese lenses the only lenses to worry them
in recent years were Canon L.
Bob
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002
From: "premis2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: third party lens manufacturers
I'll give you my opinion and understand it's just my opinion and may
not be grounded in scientific fact. Here goes. The lenses you
mentioned are from the 1970's and 80's. First you are faced with the
problem of the product being 15-25 years old. Second if your not
familiar with what was good equipment and what was not its going to
be tough going.
Vivitar, Soligor, Tamron and Tokina were recognized as the major
players offering price efficient alternatives to manufacturers own
products. The quality of these were usually good enough for all but
professional use. Stick with post 1975 offerings as that is about the
time these manufacturers introduced down sized and more competitive
products. Vivitar and Soligor raised the stakes in 1975 or so by
introducing premium quality lenses. Vivitar intoduced its SERIES ONE
line and Soligor countered with the CD line of lenses. These products
are very impressive, well constructed and were usually set apart from
their pedestrian counterparts by fast glass and or impressive (for
the time) zoom ranges. The lenses were pricey but were well
constructed and performed on par optically and mechanically with
prime manufacturers products. Lens design was still done at a
drafting board with a slide rule so many elements in many groups was
the norm. These offerings are suseptible to internal lens flare.
By the mid 1980's Korean manufacturers had flooded the market with
inexpensive zoom lenses by the container load. Names like Zykor,
Rokinon and others proliferated and were very inexpensive allowing
camera retailers to eliminate the standard 50mm prime lens and
replace it with a medium range zoom. Computer aided design allowed
smaller and lighter units and the death of the single focal length
lens could be seen. These lenses were a crap shoot as to quality both
image wise and mechanically back then and they sure haven't gotten any
better after two decades of use.
Aspheric elements, cad designed lenses have leveled the playing field
in the past ten years.
As a rule of thumb, lenses made or marketed by the camera
manufacturer are your best bet. Glass, coatings, mechanical function,
are matched between different lenses. Photos taken with differents
single focal length or zoom lenses are matched as far as color
balance and contrast. Manufacturers lenses are usually a best bet
even if you're dealing with a two or three decade old product.
Im sure someone else in this group can add to this rambling.
As for EBAY, unfortunately you can't inspect the lens before purchase.
Critical items such as focus, diaphram blade operation, stiffness or
looseness in the focusing heliocoid or fungus on the lens can't be
ascertained on line. I'd stick to your local camera shop and his
expertise.
Premis
--- In ManualMinolta@y..., "Michael L. Washington" mlwsgw@a... wrote:
> Are there any third party lenses out there that are particularly good or any
> manufacturers to stay away from? I've seen several lenses made by Kalimar,
> Solingnor (sp?), Sears & JC Penny (!) 5 STar, Zykkor, Bushnell, Vivitar,
> Samyang etc on eBay and was thinking of picking up one. Any opinions?
> Thanks!
[Ed. note: since the SIGnificant MAlfunctions pages seem to be gone, this may be useful?]
From: "Klaus Schroiff" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: FAO Tony Polson - Ref Sigma Lenses
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
Yeah, the front element of a couple of Sigma lenses is (alloy-)taped
to the main body. I've seen an (old) example - no idea whether they
still do that today.
Till about a year ago I maintained a site called "SIGnificant MAlfunction".
There were a couple of stories about front elements falling just off the
lens body. Really funny ... unless, of course, you're the owner ...
Personally I had only a couple of compatibility problems (sometimes without
firmware upgrade possibilities), a desintegrated focus motor and the honor
to experience Sigma's patented self-composting feature.
Here're a couple of "SIGnificant MAlfunction" examples - have fun!
======
Yes I to will confirm that the 70-210 lens takes very good shots but I also
experience the tape construction of the lens. I have
replace the siver foil tape with electrical tape and have not had a problem
since. However, today while playing around with my 35-70
autofocus lens I started to have problems with the autofocus. Upon inspection
of the lens I could hear something rattling around
inside the lens. I decieded to further inspect the lens and upon opening up the
rear portion of the lens I was able to get the loose
object out. It turned out to be a loose gear drive that had fallen off a
spindle that operates the focus gears. I have had this lens
about 10 years without mishap. I do not use my still camera very heavy but it
has been out on several camping trips and such.
======
A few years ago when just getting started in photography and doing it only for
personal pleasure (now I do it professionally), I
bought a Sigma 28-70mm 3.5-4.5 lens. Fortunately I also purchased an extended
warranty plan because I have needed it!
About 16 months after purchasing the lens, I was shooting in a Botanic Garden
on a tripod when the lens came apart completely. The
lens came apart internally and one could look inside the lens and see the
pieces of glass. By twisting the lens one could have a
good view of the internals!
I sent it back to the company providing the insurance and they put the lens
back together again. Just this past week I was using it
and noticed that the zoom ring is tight when moving it clockwise, though it
moves O.K. counter-clockwise. Haven't decided whether
it's worth it to pursue the warranty again or not to repair it.
I only use the lens as a back-up or when covering an event where I need two
films in two different cameras and need the same focal
length. When I replace this one, I think I will spring for the L series lens
from Canon.
I will never again buy a Sigma lens no matter what the reviews say. Image
quality has been acceptable, but not great. The
mechanical/construction quality has been abyssmal. Do no recommend these lenses
to anyone!
======
Sigma lenses are bargain priced lenses, so I do not expect people to think of
them as high quality products. They are good for the
money, but nothing exceptional. And, like all bargain priced goods, they will
fail once in a while. This is to be expected. HOWEVER,
the reason we stopped selling Sigma (I work in a photo shop) is due to their
HORRIBLE warranty service and support service. It is
the worst in the industry. There is NO reason for us to sell Sigma anymore.
This is not due to the product, but due to a very poorly
managed company that does not understand the concept of consumer and retailer
support.
=======
Today I bought from a friend a Sigma 70-210 Mc for my EOS 50 E, and I have
realized a problem at once: Setting a diaphragm aperture
different from the minimum of the used focale (i. e. if I set f/11 for
example), the camera doesn't shoot, but the "out of battery"
symbol blinks on the display, and the camera's shutter doesn't release until I
press again the shoot button.
=======
While the Sigma 70-210/f4-5.6 APO lens is optically quite good, the mechanical
quality of the lenses is terrible. Critical parts of
the focusing mechanism are held together by TAPE! Just normal usage (removing
and replacing the lens hood, for example) will cause
the tape to fail and the lens to literally fall apart in your hands.
Addtionally, Sigma's customer service and warranty problems are
legendary. I strongly suggest that people stay away from Sigma lenses.
========
I have to admit that I had the same problem that is being discussed here with
my 70-210 Sigma. You are correct, I found the same
thing, the front focusing ring is held in place by an interference fit caused
by tape around the ring. The tape only creates the
interference from one part to the other. A pretty lousy design if you ask me,
but it was easily fixed. I simply removed the Sigma
tape that had worn because of removing/mounting the hood with electrical tape
that was a little thicker. This created a better
interference and I haven't had a problem since. It shouldn't have happened in
the first place though
========
I have the 75-300mm f4-5.6 DL lens by Sigma and it has a similar mechanism at
the front keeping the focusing lens base attached to
the internal mechanism. I haven't removed the adhesive tape to say whether
there is anything underneath holding the construction
together, but if you press the front element at the circumference, you will see
that it moves in respect to the rest of the lens,
the adhesive tape giving way to the pressure
=========
The hood has a bayonet mounting onto the external focus ring. It doesn't go on
an off very smoothly. This means there's stress every
time you take it off and remove it. Now, the external focusing ring is attached
to the internal focusing mechanism by tape, believe
it or not (I don't recommend you dismantling you lens to find out). While I was
shooting a motorcycle race out in the desert, the
focus started to get funky. Then it stopped working altogether. At this point,
I NEED a lens that works! So, I try to get the hood
off and focusing ring free to see if I can make something happen. There is no
way to focus the lens. As I'm wrestling with this
infernal contraption, trying to see if I can make the lens operable in manual
focus (at least), the front element becomes loose and
deposits itself in my hand. I understand why the lens failed, it had already
reached the ancient age of six months and Sigma wanted
me back at the dealer (and NOT to get warranty work). I didn't see the internal
workings of this masterpiece of engineering until I
took a closer look at it later
===========
FWIW, I work part-time in a specialty photo supply business. We are through
with Sigma. We have just written them off completely.
They are just a massive ad campaign with no substance to back it all up.
Warranty service is beyond dismal. I could tell you some
horror stories but I'll save you the time...... a lot of times they don't even
answer the phone. Their products are for first time
users and folks who take a photograph once or twice a month; we have more
respect for our customers than to sell them Sigma products
==========
... My Sigma 300 f2.8 and 70-210 f2.8 both fell apart only after a few uses.
==========
Yes, scientific statistical data would be great. But in some cases, one doesn't
need statistics to prove a poor quality. People are
not just data receivers. They actively observe. They also extrapolate from what
they see, not only from the fact a lens has broken
but more importantly from *how* a lens has broken. I once was handed a very
USED Pentax 40-80/2.8-4.0 with a sticky zoom. While I
tried to fix it I was amazed by its solid inner build and precise mechanics and
began to wonder how that problem could have hapened
for such a lens even after so much use. But on another accasion, the front
element of a Sigma 70-210/4.0-5.6 UC came off when I was
trying to unscrew a filter on it with a reasonably gentle force. Again I tried
to fix it. The moment I opened up the thing and saw
the inside mechanics, I actually started to wonder why the front element
*didn't* come off a long time ago!
========
I only need one set of statistics-- I had a Sigma 70-210 f2.8 and it broke down
in only a few months. Then I stupidly bought a Sigma
300 f2.8 thinking that it would be better and I know use this broken piece of
equipment for a paper weight! None of my CAnon EOS
equipment has fallen apart on me.
========
I finally got the response from Sigma about my AF 24mm... It does *not* work
with the Pentax Z-20 and they are aware of it. The
electronics simply do *not* communicate between the body/lens. (Note that
mechanics are fine)
They can change the electronics, but *I* have to pay for it ! And it costs
approximately US$ 100 !!! (On a lens that costs $150,-
it's not really cheap
((
So, to everyone who thinks of Sigma, don't.
========
Hi to all, I have had now too very disappointing experinces with Sigma and I
want to share them with you on the list. 1st: Last year my
Sigma 2.8/70-210 APO AF started to make problems. The focusing was no longer
smooth and finally got stuck. The thread in which
the lenses were moving for focusing became rough and had a high friction.. So
I had to send it to Sigma Germany. Paid DEM 135 (
$90) for CLEANING the thread. No parts have been replaced. The improvement
lasted exactly 6 mounths and I had the same problems
again. 2nd: After 2 years of use the contacts of my Sigma 4.5/500 AF that
connect the lens electronics to the camera were used up.
They became shorter and shorter, as they are made of cheap and not very
durable copper. Replacing is very simple: unmount two
screws tear the piece out, replace by a new one and remount the two screws. 5
minutes maximum. So I decided to apply for a
replacement part (like I usually do when I need sth from Nikon). "We do not
send out spare parts!" was the very helpful answer
from Sigma Germany. "It is more expensive for Sigma to send spare parts." the
person on the telephone said. So I asked to talk
to his boss, but like usual he is not in today..... The costs for getting it
done by Sigma wouldn't be too high, but I will be without
my needed lens for weeks, as I know the Sigma service is not the fastest from
last year experience. The only thing I can learn from this is:
... THINK TWICE BEFORE YOU BUY SIGMA lenses !!!...
========
I must say that if I ever _have_ to buy another Sigma lens, I'll quit
photography ! I'd rather take up drawing with sticks and rocks
than use a Sigma lens! In '92 I purchased a brand new Sigma 70-210/ 2.8 zoom.
My birthday present to myself ! I couldn't have been
happier ! It seemed sharp, was very bright, moderatly heavy ,everything I
wanted and expected ! The next day some of my co-workers
and I were having a party that I was sort of expected to take photos at. Some
of the guys had ridden thier colorful cafe racer style
motorcycles over so I lined them up out front for a photo. Evrything was
perfect ! I had light, good looking colorful,racy
motorcycles and just for kicks we had them light up thier tires ! Well I took 1
photo with my new pride and joy and it stopped
working ! Stopped working ? How can a manual focus lens stop working ? Well it
seems the aperature stopped down and didn't want to
open up ! So I went out to my car got another lens and proceded to party till
the cows came home ! No doggone lens is going to spoil
my day, nosiree !
The following day I called up the store, 42nd St.Photo in NY, that I purchased
the lens from and they told me to call the
manufacturer ! Upon calling Sigma I spoke to one Mark Amir, who assured me that
the lens would be repaired and returned to me
promptly. This guy is a real piece of work, but evidently he is in charge of
the tech. dept., probably because he's the only one who
speaks english there !
So I send the lens to Sigma with a note stating to the attn. of Mr.Amir
decscribing the circumstances of the lenses failure. Is that
even necessary ? After about three weeks I began to wonder what happened to my
lens so I called Mr.Amir and he stated that I should
have it back in a few days. Three days later my lens is delivered UPS to my
door. I open the box and take my birthday present out
and hold it up to the light and what do ya think I saw ? That's right a closed
aperature ! They hadn't even touched it ! I
immediatley call Sigma and start chewing butt. "Send it back" they say. O.K.,
another $6.00 in shipping and my lens is supposed to
have the aperature replaced. Another month goes by and I still don't have a
lens so I call Sigma again and they told me that they
were waiting on a new aperature to come in and it should be in any day. I'm
pretty easy when it comes to dealing with manufacturers
because I once worked in customer service myself, so I let it slide with the
assurance that my lens would be repaired and back in my
hands in 2 weeks.
Well my lens came back and the aperature was open! So far so good ! But the
test is "How Will it work on the camera?". It didn't
even make it that far ! I toggled the aperature a few times and it locked up
solid ! Yeah, that's why I buy a 2.8 lens so I can
shoot at f/22 ! I had to send it back two more times ! 5 times total, countem'
5 !! And when they did get it working the lens
elements were loose ! They had taken it apart and forgotten to tighten
everything back up when done ! I couldn't get a sharp picture
to save my soul! As a professional photographer I'm tired of the mediocre
equipment that the manufacturers hype up to no end. And
that goes double for thier slaves in publication. Rags like Popular
Photography, Photographic, Shutterbug and others should be
ashamed of thier priorities. They serve the manufacturers that sponser thier
magazines ! Blatantly I might add. Either that or they
are _really_ stupid ! Every test that Pop.Photo ever did was so scued that I
would by the lenses that they said were terrible. You
might think this a little overkill, however I have many examples ,such as the
Tokina 80-200/2.8. They said it was "below average".
Well I don't think so. I recently borrowed a friends and it tested out to be an
incredible optic !
So if I even see a Sigma add anymore I get sick at my stomach just remembering
the BS that I went through. By the way that lens cost
$588.00 which at the time was a little pricey for me. I sure got my moneys
worth ! How much is BS worth per pound.
=========
Well I don't work for any other lens manufacturer (other than sigma that is ),
and I can tell you that my experience with Sigma
lenses has been consistently poor. It may have something to do with the fact
that I shoot for a living and my equipment see's alot
of use, but I've never had a Canon lens fail, and I can think of four sigma
failures some of them rather catastrophic. I've found
sigmas service poor, as I've had lenses returned that failed almost
immediately. I've had several lenses broken right out of the
box, and these are not the cheap ones either. I had a 300 f4 macro APO broken
right out of the box, it was returned to sigma took
two months to repair, and when I recieved it back it broke again in about five
exposures. I bought a sigma 500 f4.5 APO lens,
because it was about $2000.00 cheaper than the same lens from Canon. It to was
broken right out of the box. I returned it to Adorama
and they sent me another one which worked for several months before seperating
into two pieces at a golf tournament. I'm still using
this lens and its the last sigma lens I will ever purchase. To this day it
still intermitantly jams my EOS-1, which can only be
unjammed by removing the lens and then turning the camera off and on. If you
have had good luck with sigma lenses consider youself
fortunate my experiences have been consistently poor and I will not purchase
another.
==========
What you can read below is a translation of a phone call with the Sigma Hotline
(Germany). Take your own conclusion ...
Q: Hi, I've a couple of question in regard to two Sigma lenses.
A: Any problems ?
Q: One lens (Sigma AF 1.8 28mm) produces some strange noises on my Canon EOS 5
(A2E) - you probably know of that problem. Can you
tell me how much it would cost to update the lens ?
A: I have to tell you that there's no possibility to update your lens, you have
to live with that problem! A Canon EOS 50 will even
lock with this lens!
Q: The other lens (Sigma AF 2.8 24mm Macro) has a minor problem when focusing
...
A:...
A: Oh, to be honest I have to inform you that this lens will also refuse to
work on a Canon EOS 50 (Elan II) or any future Canon EOS
camera!
To point it out: Till now I had 6 Sigma lenses. Today only 2 out of these 6
lenses would work with newer Canon bodies -2 out of 6!!!
========
A week ago, I went to the store and asked to try the new 28-70 f: 2.8 EX. I
carried my EOS 50, and had no problems. Anyway, I asked
to try the lens with the EOS 3, and , Do you know what happened then? Yes,
you�re right, NOTHING AT ALL. The camera seemed to be out
of batteries, and it wouldn�t autofocus, wouldn�t lock to preview the depth of
field....nothing. Of course the EOS 3 worked fine
with EF lenses. So, be careful, cos� if you have a sigma lenses working fine,
and you change to a brand new camera, maybe you�ll
have to change also to a brand new lenses
========
Lessons learnd ? No more Sigmas!
cheers
Klaus
[Ed. note: in fairness to Sigma (which I use a lot, from 14mm to 400mm), most of
these problems relate to older lenses; moreover, indications are that Sigma is
working harder to overcome its past reputation for construction problems, and their
newer lenses can be very good. Conversely, with millions of lenses sold, it is not
surprising that there are some problem lenses out there. Still, it pays to test carefully,
see our lens testing notes at http://medfmt.8k.com/broncameratest.html etc.]
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: FAO Tony Polson - Ref Sigma Lenses
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001
"Klaus Schroiff" [email protected] wrote:
> > > Tokina had some problems in EOS land but it seems as if they managed to "survive" the EOS 30/Elan 7 - unlike
> > > most of the Sigmas. I've read a couple of comments regarding Tamrons and the Nikon F5.
> > > I haven't heard of impossible firmware upgrades for those two.
> >
> > Is that perhaps because both Tokina and Tamron license the interface
> > technology from the camera manufacturers, whereas Sigma doesn't ?
>
> I don't think that this is true in general.
With respect Klaus, I'd like to have my question answered by someone who
*knows*. I believe that is the situation, but I don't know, and, with
respect, neither do you.
> The Tamron 70-300LD has the identical optical construction of the Nikkor
70-300ED.
It's the worst kept secret in the industry that Tamron make the Nikkor
70-300mm ED for Nikon. They also make the 28-80mm and 70-300mm G lenses.
But beware making the statement that the Tamron 70-300mm with LD glass
and the Nikkor 70-300 with ED glass are optically identical. It would
be strange if they were, because LD and ED glass have properties that
are definitely not optically identical; low dispersion and extraordinary
dispersion are not the same thing. There may, however, be a good case
for saying that the 70-300mm G Nikkor (which does not include ED glass)
and the Tamron with LD glass may be optically identical. Perhaps
someone who *knows* will tell us.
> There're also at least two Tamron lenses that are relabeled/restyled for Pentax
> (the cheap 28-105/4-5.6 and 28-200).
> There were also a few statements here than the low end Canon lenses are produced by
> Tamron. This may explain why Tamron has the least problems to date.
It may, but it may not. Perhaps Tamron are just more competent and cut
less corners than some other manufacturers. We need to know the *facts*,
not surmise.
> On the last Photokina a Tokina Rep stated that "they use Canon chips now". They didn't
> do that at least till the EOS 3 - they had problems here as well.
>
> Sigma HSM lenses seem to be largely unaffected - I guess the problem with 180/3.5 HSM
> was just sloppy QC. All other HSM lenses seem to remain compatible even across new camera
> generations ... to date. I suspect that they have a license contract for those - I speculate
> that Canon did not grant the USM/HSM licence for standard zooms - I find it very odd that
> just such a successful zoom like the 28-70/2.8EX has a standard AF motor.
> This is just speculation from my side based on no hard data whatsoever.
I hope we will get some more reliable information from someone else on
here. To repeat what I said above, with respect Klaus, I'd like to have
my question answered by someone who *knows*.
Speculation gets us nowhere.
--
Tony Polson
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Gotta love those pawn shop deals
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001
[email protected] (Lance Ball) wrote:
> In 1984 I was sophomore in high school and had just recieved my first 35mm
> SLR (Konica Auto Reflex TC w/40mm 1.7 lens). It was stolen from a hotel room
> while I was on vacation with my parents in Dallas. A couple of months later
> the Dallas PD called us up and confirmed the SN on the camera, and gave us
> the name of the pawn shop where we could buy it back!
>
> In December I took one of my favorite pictures of all time with that camera.
> I was feeling nostalgic and pulled it out for an afternoon to get away from
> my auto-everything Nikon. It drove home the notion that the equipment is
> not always what matters.
There are not many Nikon lenses that will significantly better the
optical quality of the Hexanon lenses for Konica SLRs. In particular,
they have a sparkling colour rendition that is probably unmatched by
lenses of that period.
--
Tony Polson
From: "mcsalty" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: OT: A minor sermon about lenses
Date: Mon, 21 May 2001
My opinion, such as it is, goes like this (sing along if you know the
words).
The best lens for the job is the one you can afford, and are happy with. If
a lens has no major distortion, and no obvious flare problems, and you like
the pictures you take with it, it's worth the money. A professional
photographer with customers to cater for, whose career depends on being
better than the competition, THEY are the ones who should fork out hundreds,
nay thousands of the local currency on the best glass available. For we
amateurs, who photograph for the joy of doing so, then the point of all
those 300mm f2.8s and ultra-sharp standard lenses is simply something to
aspire to. Not one of the lenses I own is worth more than �100. I own a
Kiron 28mm f2, which I bought for its huge value-to-speed ratio, and I don't
regret it. I own a Unitor 35mm which was free, and is frankly terrible.
However, I keep it for those times when 28mm is too wide and 50mm is not
enough. I have a Nikon Series E (for which my appreciation grows daily)
50mm, which is a good enough lens. I have a Tamron 90mm (which as I
repeatedly state is worth it's weight in precious metals). I have a Sigma
75-200mm f3.8 zoom which I bough simply because I wanted a longer FL, and a
constant aperture is very convenient. Most of these wouldn't find their way
into any pro photographer's arsenal. But then, who wants to earn vast sums
for relatively little energy expenditure anyway? :)
Here ends today's sermon. May whatever Deity you Follow not lead you a Merry
Dance.
--
From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Pentax Spotmatic users out there?
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
>No battery to test the meter with either.
> Got the 28 3.5, 55 1.8, 85 1.9 with cases, most caps and hoods too.
> All was kept in great shape. I really like the smooth feel of this camera
> and lenses..not like some of the EOS plastic lenses I use to use.
> Very smooth focus and also in superb shape. I may add a longer lens
> in the future since they are so cheap sometimes. Any suggestions?
>
Well, welcome to the club!! I started out in 35mm in 1972, with the
purchase of a Spotmatic II-a, which was the first camera (along with the
Spotmatic II) to come with the Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses. I have
since acquired an ES, an ES-II and a Spotmatic-F, for a total of 4 bodies.
I have never shot with any other 35mm camera. Never needed to or wanted to.
I would offer the following suggestions:
1: Go to Radio Shack and order the replacement battery. They have a nice
button battery, made in Switzerland, that has been adapted to take the place
of the mercury battery that Spotmatic originally used. All the mercury
batteries have been banned in USA for years. Radio Shack will have you pay
up front and they'll ship the batteries to you from their parts department.
Mine took less than a week to arrive. Get several batteries.
2: You can download the Pentax Spotmatic manual directly from the Pentax
web site, for free. Go to
http://www.pentaxusa.com/docstore/index.cfm?show=6
and scroll down to the manual you want. Pentax has posted manuals for lots
of their old equipment.
3: With regard to the lens, I would recommend that you pick up a
SMC_Takumar 50mm f/1.4 normal lens on eBay. Be sure to get the newer
version, with the rubber focusing ring, as the older version (with the metal
focusing ring) had a problem with the multi-coating turning yellow over
time.
The multi-coated Takumars were superb. I don't know if today's lenses are
much better, by comparison. Pentax was the first manufacturer to use the
7-coat process on their lenses. They worked on it with Leica, as a joint
project. They licensed the technology from the American company that
developed it for spacecraft windows.
The SMC lenses are sharp and contrasty. They were manufactured in large
quantities and are still readily available. You can put together a really
nice shooting kit for pennies on the dollar over what you would spend for
new equipment. Unless you must have autofocus or today's zoom lenses, you
will do well with the old Pentaxes.
Also, if you really want to expand your knowledge of the Pentax screw mount
line, pick up a copy of Herbert Kepplar's classic book, "The Pentax Way."
Get the ninth edition, if you want it to cover all of the Pentax screwmount
models, up to their final date of production. You can find the books at
www.abebooks.com used. Kepplar packed the book with information, and all of
it is directly related to your camera. There is MUCH more info in that book
than you will ever find in the original camera manual.
Check eBay for Takumar lens bargains. I would recommend that you purchase
only SMC lenses, as they do have a margin of improved quality over the
Super-Takumars. Less flare, bolder colors. They may run you 10% more in
terms of cost, but it is well worth it.
Pentax manufactured a total of 27 different SuperMultiCoated Takumars as of
the time the Spotmatic-F went out of production. It was an incredible line,
for its time.
Be sure to use a good processor. There is nothing worse than taking photos
with superb lenses, only to have the final prints botched up by a cheap lab.
I can heartily recommend Dale Labs as an excellent photofinisher
www.dalelabs.com. I've used them for 30 years and have always been pleased
with their results.
If you want to shoot photos that rival medium format, try shooting with
Kodachrome. I read somewhere that Kodachrome 25 was recently discontinued,
but that Kodachrome 64 was still manufactured. If you really want to see
what your lenses can do, try a roll, at least once.
Obviously a 40 year old camera would be unsuitable for todays pro, who needs
reliability and availability of parts and service. But if your needs are a
bit more modest (i.e., if you're a weekend shutterbug, like I am) you may
find that there is no reason to even think about using anything else.
Best of luck with your camera.
From: "Jeremy 1952" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Pentax Spotmatic users out there?
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
> I may have a few more questions I would ask directly...
> Any idea of the radio shack part number for this one?
The battery is # "387S" (it is a 394 with spacer ring). Appears to be a
silver 1.55 volt watch battery that has been fitted with a plastic ring to
enlarge the battery to fit perfectly into the Spotmatic battery opening. I
don't have the Radio Shack part number, but they can look it up in their
computer. The battery is not stocked in the stores, but their delivery via
mail is excellent.
The brand they shipped was "Renata," made in Switzerland. I like this
batter replacement option much more than the (more popular) Wein air cell,
which requires that a hold be drilled into the battery cover to allow air to
get into the battery.
I have read that the Wein batteries don't last very long, but I can't
confirm that from personal observation. I've had my 387S battery installed
since July 2001 and my meter still works fine.
What makes it nice is the ready availability, through any Radio Shack store.
No need to go hunting all over creation to find these batteries.
By all means, be sure to get "The Pentax Way," by Kepplar. You might even
find a copy at the library. Since information about Spotmatics is
unavailable via the normal channels--magazine articles, advertising and
camera dealers--you will find this book indispensable. I bought mine used
for under $10.00. Two internet sites that I've had good luck with are
www.abebooks.com (independent dealers--browse for best price among the ones
offered) and www.alibris.com. You might also procure the book through
Amazon or Barnes & Noble (www.bn.com).
The book came out in numerous editions. Get the 9th edition or later to be
sure that it has all the info on the full line of Spotmatics and SMC Takumar
lenses.
As far as I know, the Super-Takumars (i.e., the NON-multi-coated lenses) are
identical to the SMC Takumars, except for the lack of multi-coating. I have
read that those Super-Takumars that were manufactured just prior to the
roll-out of the SMCs, in 1971, WERE, in fact, multi-coated, but they were
not labeled as such. So, have a good look at your lens--you just might have
a SMC coated lens, even though it doesn't say so!
I shoot strictly color, and for me, the multi-coating is a must, but I can
see where B&W may not realize much benefit from multi-coating. You can
easily expand your lens collection on eBay. I cannot imagine a better
combination of good supply, low prices and performance.
My Pentaxes have all performed flawlessly. My shooting style, fortunately,
has never required that I use today's automated cameras or bayonet mounts.
And I sure do love those SMC Takumar lenses . . .
Cheers!
From: Tony [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Pentax Spotmatic users out there?
Date: Mon, 06 May 2002
Ron Todd [email protected] wrote:
>The only function of the super multi coating is to reduce flare. I have
>single coated Super Takumars and I assure you they perform excellently
>with color film.
The side-effect of good coating that's equally or more important than
flare reduction is that it obtains increased contrast. Increased
contrast means increased apparent sharpness. The contrast reduction
caused by less-than-optimal coating occurs all the time, not just when
flare is visible in the viewfinder or on the film.
The importance of this is that the lens designer need not over-correct
the lens's spherical aberration in order to optimise sharpness.
That's why lenses with very good AR coatings can obtain excellent
sharpness while retaining the wonderful out of focus effects that
characterise the truly *great* optics.
The difference between the Takumars and Super-Takumars was hugely
significant. The Super-Takumars were known to be sharper even if they
were of the identical optical design to their predecessors, all
because of the improved coatings, including some multi-coating.
The difference between the Super-Takumars and the Super-Multi-Coated
M42 Takumars was less significant. All the glass-to-air surfaces were
multi-coated but the improvement was relatively small. Yet the SMC
Takumars were among the very best lenses of their time, giving away
surprisingly little to Leica glass.
My own tests of M42 Super-Takumar and SMC-Takumar lenses and some of
their K- and M-mount successors seem to indicate that optical
standards dropped at Pentax. In particular, the superb contrast seems
to have been reduced. Sharpness appears to have been maintained more
by over-correction of aberrations than good coating and at the expense
of the more desirable qualities of a lens.
>BTW, the turning yellow with age problem. It wasn't the coating, it is
>the glass. Has something to do with the rare earth glass they were
>using at the time. I have one, it gives a nice warm effect on color
>slides.
None of my M42 Super-Takumar and SMC-Takumar lenses seem to have this
problem - yet. But I have a 20mm f/2.8 Flektogon (made in Jena) which
has a noticeable yellow cast. I use it only with black and white
film, when it offers a similar effect to a pale yellow filter. {g}
It has lost none of its sharpness or resistance to flare; another
example of the difference that good AR coatings can make.
[Ed. note: I think I meant priced like most 3rd party lenses, since I have a Pentax M42
body and a number of lenses for it, and like the Takumars and SMC Takumars a lot too ;-)]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: A lens is a smooth wide brush....
This message from The Kiev Report(Russ.&Ukr. camera's) on Delphi.com was
forwarded to you by PENTAXNUT.
You can view it in the context of the entire discussion by going to:
http://forums.delphi.com/kievreport/messages/?msg=1701.47
To view PENTAXNUT's Profile, visit
http://forums.delphi.com/dir-app/showprofile.asp?uname=PENTAXNUT
======== PENTAXNUT says to you ========
Bob,
Your post in rec.photo.equipment.35mm was interesting. I think you have
valid points. I also have an older 7 element MC Quantaray 28mm f2.8 lens
that is tack sharp, but has a little distortion. Considering that event the
famed Zeiss 28mm f2.8 has comparable distortion, it is a great bargain. Of
course, you do not mention the possibility of mechanical problems like
sticky aperture blades etc which is more common with third party lenses.
Although my Quantaray does not exhibit this problem, some of the better
optics like from Makinon 8 element 28mm f2.8 or Kiron 28mm f2 often have
this problem.
Unfortunately, your implication that the Takumar lens is a third party
lens or not par with a Leica M lens is a little offending. I thought you
had old Modern Photo Tests (since you often refer to them). Then, you
should know that SMC Takumars are among the highest resolution 35mm lenses
ever.
John
Forwarded Message:
Forum: The Kiev Report(Russ.&Ukr. camera's) Forum
Subject: A lens is a smooth wide brush....
From: (PENTAXNUT)
To: (PETERKUUS)
DateTime: 2/11/01 12:05:05 PM
Dear Peter,
Included are some resolution figures for several lenses:
Model, class, tested
f1.4
f2
f2.8
f4
f5.6
f8
f11
f16
Elmar 1:47,1955 50mm f3.5
66/26
66/30
59/37
59/37
59/37
59/42
47/42
Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC
55/34
62/39
62/49
69/55
69/62
69/62
69/55
62/49
Minolta 50mm f1.4 MC Rokkor
54/43
68/48
68/48
68/54
76/68
84/68
76/68
68/60
SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 No:565** 2/1973
53/30
59/33
67/42
75/53
75/59
75/53
67/53
59/53
SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 No:651** 2/1974
55/31
69/31
78/35
78/49
87/62
87/69
69/62
69/62
Auto Chinon/ Tomioka 55mm f1.4 NO:306* for Gaf L/ES
45/32
56/40
63/45
63/45
63/45
56/45
56/45
56/45
Leica 50/2 Summicron Reflex for SL2
56/35
63/45
80/50
70/56
70/56
63/56
63/50
The above tests were objectively done at Modern Photo for their lens tests
between 2/72 and 2/1975. The different SMC Takumar results
may mean a change in optics or sample variance due to centering etc.
Leica R 50/2 is the legendary "R" series lens.
This is much sharper than "M" lens.
Leica Elmar is shifted one column, it can stop down to f22!
First number: center lines/mm, second number:corner lines/mm
Edited 2/11/2001 by PENTAXNUT
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: What 35 mm SLR for introductory photography course?
Geez, I have always heard good thing about the 50mm F1.4.
Now if you really want best bang for the buck in terms of optics,
pick up an old Konica Autoreflex T3 (all mechanical, but uses the
a PX-675 merc cell) and the Hexanon 85mm F1.8 which will amaze you.
I have a shot taken with that lens of my sone where I used only
1/3 negative and the 8x10 is tack sharp. Even Leicaphiles like this
optics (Irwin in particular commented positive about it).
Combine that with the 40mm F1.8 (about $30), and 28mm F3.5 ($50) and
you have quite a neat setup at a very low price.
Peter K
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 09 May 2002
From: John Hicks [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: What 35 mm SLR for introductory photography course?
you wrote:
>Are you kidding? The Zuiko 85/2 that I had was simply terrible. And one
>other person I've talked to about it, Mike Johnston, also had a terrible
>85/2.
Hi guys; I've used OM gear (plus of course others) since the early '80s.
Although I know this is about lenses, let me note that my OM gear used in
the daily news business made it through five years of that _without a
single failure_.
Anyway...the point I want to make is that most of the f2.8 and slower
lenses are products of the very early '70s and are pretty much comparable
to most other makers of that vintage, that's to say, not all that good at
wide apertures, of course improving as they're stopped down. I moved to OM
from Nikon so had plenty of similar photos to compare.
In the early '80s everyone revamped their lenses; in particular Nikon
replaced some lenses with smaller, newer designs, some including ED
elements and some with floating elements/groups. Olympus did something
similar, but in many cases replaced the older lenses with newer types that
were also a full stop faster such as the 24 f2 w/floating elements replaced
the old 24 f2.8, and sometimes replaced the old lens with a quite different
type, specifically the old 85 f2 was replaced by the 90 f2 macro.
Olympus also kept the old lenses in the lineup, offering a much
less-expensive way to get into the OM system; this is why that if you
compare an f2.8 OM lens to an f2.8 lens of another manufacturer, you're
actually comparing an older type of OM lens that doesn't have the benefits
of floating elements, ED-type glass etc, and of course that OM lens will be
found lacking.
Olympus made imho a couple of glaring errors; these were leaving in the
lineup the so-so 50 f1.4 that had really been replaced by the much better
f1.2 lens, and the really poor (by '80s standards) 85 f2, which they
essentially replaced with the stellar 90 f2 macro.
In fact regarding that 85 f2 that Mike found to be terrible, he and I
passed that one back and forth a couple of times before one of us unloaded
it. It _was_ terrible at maximum and fairly wide apertures and didn't get
decent until around f11. _Three_ others I've tried were exactly the same. I
already had the superb 100 f2; I was just looking for a fast lens that was
a bit lighter, but the old 85 f2 definitely wasn't it.
Anyway, of the OM lenses, the last batch, of f2 aperture, are the best
ones. The bad exception is the old 85; the good exceptions are the 24
shift, 50 f3.5 macro and the 350 f2.8. There's probably a couple more I've
forgotten but you get the gist of it.
And now back to our regularly-scheduled topic.
John Hicks
[email protected]
From: "jriegle" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: when to buy used gear
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002
I haven't noticed a better time to buy. I would think that now would be,
given the weak economy.
While were on the used gear subject, I look for something that stands out
from the rest. Something that looks to be really low priced and appears to
be a bargain (clean, no fungus...). This usually means off brand older
manual focus lenses. Sometimes I get a real gem, other times I get a dog.
I'm happy to report that 75% of the time the lenses turn out to be pretty
good. Since I bought them so cheaply in the first place, if they are a dog,
I can sell them without much loss. Of course, you have to be willing to
shoot with non electronic or basic autoexposure cameras. I use K mount stuff
because the price is even lower.
I've found that buying new bargain lenses (such as Vivitar) has yielded more
dog lenses than good ones. In fact, with Vivitar as an example with new
lenses, I'm 0 for 3 and buying the old Vivitar stuff, I'm 3 for 0!
John
...
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002
From: "plusxpan" [email protected]
Subject: Series 1 35-85 f2.8
I agree with good feedback for 35-85 f/2.8 series I, and used a
secondhand example for 80% of my photos in college including lots of
indoor sports with fast action shot wide open. It's a great lens but
slightly heavy, and it is one of the few good choices for a fast
zoom. It can be slightly prone to flare, I paid attention outdoors
to shade the lens (outside of the picture) if I noticed diffuse flare
on days with mixed sun and clouds. You may want to get a generic 72
mm hood, probably not more than 3/4 inch extending from lens, and
test for vignetting. B&H (and Adorama too I am sure) have decent
metal generic hoods if you can't find one in a junk bin. I don't
know if Vivitar made a hood specifically for that lens, I seem to
recall one that was held on with a set screw(??)
HTH Jay
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002
From: "celicav8" [email protected]
Subject: Re: nathaniel gilliam - Vivitar Series 1 35-85 f2.8
I have one too and I like it, because of the constant aperture (handy
for manual flash) and despite its bulk and weight. I think these even
are an advantage as they help in eliminating vibrations. The
varifocal design doesn't bother me, since I have owned the newer 2.8-
3.5/28-90mm which is a varifocal too. I quickly got used to that and
I tend to refocus for every shot anyway.
I have only heard praise for this lens, so if one is not sharp there
is something wrong with it!
BTW: mine is MC-coupled only; later versions (from 77/78 onwards,
when the XD-series bodies were released) were MD-coupled, but
optically exactly the same! Since this doesn't have any influence on
the camera's exposure, it is of no importance to me.
Bert
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2002
From: "celicav8" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Series 1 35-85 f2.8
You are right; there is an original lenshood for this zoom and it is
secured by a screw. About 2/3 of all offerings on Ebay include the
lenshood. It is also much more convenient than a generic screw-in
hood, because the latter tend to block the movement of the lens'
front part (it foes in and out when zooming and focusing, whereas the
outer rim (where the original lenshood is put on) is rigid.
Bert
[Ed. note: thanks to Steve for sharing these notes on his cult classic lens ;-)]
Date: Sun, 14 Jul 2002
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Cult classic: Tokina ATX 28-85 3.5-4.5
Hi!
I bought one of these, purely on a whim. What a great lens! I have it pretty
much permanently attached to a Nikon n6000. It's amazing how little
distortion there is at the 28 end. And it's decently sharp even wide open.
Better stopped down, of course.
Always enjoy rummaging through your website. Always something interesting to
see. Thanks.
Steven Hupp
[email protected]
From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002
From: "premis2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vivitar 28-210 Macro / Makinon 28-80mm - recomm. needed
When choosing a 28-210mm lens, be aware early versions have a near focusing
limit of 6-8 feet, fine for 200mm work, but very limiting for the wide angle
side of the lens. Most expierienced photo buffs would opt for the closer
focusing 28-80ish zoom range. As far as recomendations, they can be very
subjective. One user may have loved his Makinon, another may have had grief
(me, it was a mechanically bad lens). Yet my knock around Makinon 70-150mm has
performed brilliantly.
Here are my choices for NON MANUFACTURER LENSES and not neccessarily in order:
Vivitar Series 1, early
Soligor CD Series
Kiron
I've owned all of the above and have had excellent results. Good Luck
My favorite zoom for optical performance is the MINOLTA 50-135mm push/pull
zoom. Unfortunately it may not meet your needs in the wide angle dept.
Premis
...
From: T.P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Mysterious Macro 100mm 2.8 Vivitar
Date: Wed, 04 Sep 2002
"Bishop" [email protected] wrote:
>I have a Vivitar FD mount lens that is not listed.
>The "1:1 MACRO TELEPHOTO 100mm 1:2.8 Vivitar" with 52mm front
>filter and a built in metal hood.
>I wonder how this excellent lens is not listed anywhere, even in Vivitar.
>
>Could someone give any link?
Hi Bishop,
This lens dates from the time (late 70s, 80s) when Vivitar lenses were
good to excellent performers, being designed in the USA and built by
Kiron of Japan.
It is an outstanding macro lens with excellent sharpness. It also has
excellent bokeh (smooth rendition of out-of-focus areas of the shot,
especially highlights) and therefore makes a very good portrait lens.
Whatever you do, don't sell it!! (Except to me!)
The reason why it is not listed in the current Vivitar range is
simple. After Vivitar ceased trading, the brand name was purchased by
Cosina of Japan, who used it to give a dubious "credibility" to some
of the worst lenses ever made for 35mm cameras.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002
From: "Dave Saalsaa" [email protected]
Subject: Re: New versus Old
Hi Dallas,
This discussion of manual focus Minolta lenses has been going on for some
time both on this list and others. Although there are no hard and fast
generalizations that hold for all of the lenses, I and a few others here
have seen a good optical performance turned in by late versions MC and early
version MD lenses. In my own tests, I have found that the late version MC
Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 is a very good performer and slightly out performs the
MD version. In terms of the 135mm lenses, in my tests, the early version MD
135 Rokkor f/2.8 4 element lens out performed the later 5 element version.
So here are two cases in which earlier version lenses outperformed later
version lenses. Now, this is a very small sample and differences were quite
small and please don't get the impression that all early version Minolta
lenses are better than later version. They are not. Later lens coatings
are much improved over the early version ones and this help enormously with
flair reduction and better transmission of light through the lens.
Although, I must admit, I have a much greater liking for the all metal
constructed Minolta lenses, the later version plastic barreled marvels do
perform quite well. All in all, I have not found a Minolta lens which I
would classify as a looser. Their consistently high performance speaks well
of a company committed to excellence in optics.
Dave Saalsaa
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: New versus Old
Minolta is not the only company that people think this about. My suspicion
is that most manufacturers aim their optics for a particular performance
level. As long as all the variables are the same the lenses stay the same.
However over the span of manual cameras, film made giant leaps in speed,
reduced grain, and color rendition. As a result the photos got better
without any change in optics so possibly the makers relaxed a little since a
slightly inferior lens (not talking about much) with the latest film could
show results as good as a better older lens with the films available at that
time. And remember in the old days they didn't really have "consumer"
lenses. Every lens was expected to stand on its own merits. Only zooms from
the early days are suspect, mainly because they didn't have access to low
dispersion glass at prices that could be used in zooms cheaply. I have a
large collection of M42 Pentax SMC lenses and bodies. I'd put the Pentax SMC
300/4 and a Spotmatic F Motordrive against any 300mm lens made by anybody
with any kind of glass, period. The SMC 135/2.5 and the 28/3.5 are truly
awesome lenses even wide open. I'm sure there are probably Minolta, Canon,
or Nikon lenses that people have the same opinions about.
Kent Gittings
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002
From: Douglas Nelson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: OEM Canon 28 f 3.5's
I need to test to confirm this, but I think the old FD f3.5 28 Canons,
both the chrome filter ring and later SC versions ('71and '73,
respectively), are as good as the old FL-series 28 of 1966. That old FL
lens may have been an SLR version of the great old Canon rangefinder 28
f3.5. I've used an FL 28 for years. If there's ANY distortion, I can't
see it.
Nikon also had a great old 28 f3.5. What is it about these old slow
lenses? They seem to be quite sharp and as free of distortion as is
possible. Are they the retrofocus, inverted telephoto designs of the
newer, faster lenses?
Thanks
Doug Nelson
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What third party lenses for Nikon?
From: Magus [email protected]
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002
[email protected] (Neuman - Ruether) wrotep:
> "Bland" [email protected] wrote:
>
>>What 3rd party lenses are considered to be good quality/value for a
>>Nikon (or any other SLR for that matter)?
>>Sigma? Tamron? Quantaray? Sakar? etc
>>
>>Are any of these a good brand of lens or are they a waste and I'm
>>better off spending my money on a Nikkor.
>
> Depends.............;-)
Indeed it does!
Jo, what sort of photography do you like doing? - it really makes a
difference to the interpretation of your question.
And also -
do you have:
Nikon Pre-AI (old!)
Nikon Manual Focus (aI 'F series)
or Nikon AF?
If its one of the first two -and- your intended subject / direction is 'a
bit of everything', then I'm sure you would be happy with secondhand
examples from Tokina or Tamron or Vivitar 'Series 1'
For example, those three brands alone would take you from at least 17mm -
300mm in fixed focal lenghths of generally fine quality.
I'm sure that 'in the real world' you would see little difference between
Tokina, Tamron and the equivalent Nikkor. (Please - no flame war folks,
you *know* the where and why of I am coming from in this case!) except
small variations of colour rendition betweeen the brands and not having a
common filter size etc (which wouldnt be so even with Nikkors over a 17mm -
350mm span of lenses either).
Example -
I recently owned a bunch of nikkors ranging from 24mm - 200mm
I have sold most (but not the 28mm!) and replaced with '3rd party' marques.
I dont miss those Nikkors, but I enjoyed the difference in cash :)
I bought film with it and took some photos that, aside from aesthetic
considerations, were really quite sharp enough for all but 'laboratory'
examination, and I didnt lose sleep over whether the images I took were
'substandard' or not (they were jus' fine) only because they were not
'made' with a Nikkor.
I saw a thread some short while back (its just up there somewhere! ^^^^ )
which compared a Leitz and a Nikkor superfast 50mm in terms of quality. The
post promoted a lively thread, but no-one who took an interest pointed out
how dreadfully uninteresting the image was. (FWIW, a 'snap' of a cat
sitting in a tree). Maybe the subject was just for test purposes and not
meant for artistic critique .. but I couldnt help thinking "those two
lenses you own cost much more than my car is worth, and thats what your
idea of imagary is?"
I'd rather get in that car I own , and go somewhere with a cheap(ish)
secondhand Tamron 24mm on an FM2 (I just happen to have FM2's) than to
fanny around trying to get my cat sit still in the garden using a hideously
expensive 'jewel' that I might subsequently be afraid to take down to the
beach ..or anywhere else for that matter..
However, and lastly - if you plan to buy a zoom, then matching a Nikkor is
going to be a much harder task altogether - whether AF or MF.
Nikkon zooms are good. Its a known fact!
Many , if not most other brand zooms are not so good. Also a fact.
Hey its a zoom thing :)
IMHO, the only reasonable thing(s) to do is save up - buy a good condition
secondhand Nikkor zoom, or if you are a little bit strapped for cash, a
secondhand Tokina Pro series perhaps (again, please NO flame war!) - but
even that option may no be very much cheaper anyway?
Or if you are really, really strapped for cash, a Tamron model or (gulp!)
even a Sigma, but be prepared to want to trade it up at some time sooner
rather than later.
(yep I've also heard that some of the latest 'Nikon' Zooms are made for
Nikon by Tamron, but I also understand that there is no actual equivalent
Tamron model, and the 'TamroNikkors' remain of Nikon quality / standard /
tolerance, are of course badged Nikkor, and thus still cost Nikon money)
Jeez! - Jo, Ive talked enough! (it was a good bottle of Rioja!)
Please expand on your original question so that others can help out?
M.
> A very few "off-brand" lenses are about as good as
> the "other-than-bottom-end-el-cheapo-AF-Nikkors"
> (see: www.ferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html for
> some of these, mostly Sigma, Tamron, and Tokina).
> BTW, used Nikkors can represent better value in
> terms of image quality and resale price (you can
> often buy a used Nikkor, use it for a few years,
> and sell it for what you paid, making its use
> "free"...).
>
> David Ruether
> [email protected]
> http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
From: [email protected] (Dr. Heinz Anderle)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Soligor 135/2 weight
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002
"Sam" [email protected]
>Every now and then you run across a Soligor 135/2 lens online.
>Does anyone own one of these? How much does it weigh? (for
>carrying) How is the performance?
>
>
>Sam
The lens weighs about 800 g and wouldn't be bad if they hadn't applied
a single-layer coating only. So it is very prone to flare with low
contrast at wide apertures, and the light transmission is about 1/2
f-stop less than indicated.
I don't know if there have been multicoated versions.
Mechanically it is well-built.
Dr. Heinz Anderle
From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002
From: "Maisch, Manfred" [email protected]
Subject: 28mm primes test
Hi,
for your information:
in the recent issue of the German "Colorfoto" is a test of 28mm primes,
separated in a F2,8 group and the faster lenses. Nice for us Minoltonians:
* The Minolta 2,0/28mm won in the group of faster lenses, together
with the Sigma 1,8/28mm
* The Minolta 2,8/28mm was third in the F2,8 group, only behind the
Leica and Zeiss and won the value for money prize ("Kauftipp"). The F2,8
group was generally sharper than the faster lenses.
Knowing, that one has to read this tests with a certain care, it's
nevertheless nice after all our discussions about lacking IS or SSM lenses
or D-SLR, Minolta is quality-wise still in the premier league.
I was a little surprised about the positive result of the Minolta 2,8/28mm:
as I already stated in previous posts, I own one and don't use it very
often, because I didn't see an advantage over my 3,5-4,5/24-85mm at 28mm. I
do no scientific comparison, but the prime has visible distortion (also
stated in the test) and the zoom not (at 28mm), also I can't see a visible
difference in sharpness, but the test stated excellent sharpness for the
2,8/28mm.
The test in detail (max 100 points for a lens):
Minolta AF 2,0/28mm: 74
Sigma 1,8/28mm DG: 74
Canon EF 1,8/28mm USM: 69
Nikon AF Nikkor1,4/28mm D : 67
Leica Elmarit R 2,8/28mm: 84
Zeiss DistagonT 2,8/28mm: 81
Minolta AF 2,8/28mm: 78
Canon EF 2,8/28mm: 76
Nikon AF Nikkor2,8/28mm: 75
Manfred
From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: screw mount/M42/Russian lenses
M42 lenses in this order:
1. Pentax SMC-Takumar
2. Pentax Super-Takumar
3. Old Vivitar Series 1
4. Aus Jena/Praktica
5. Kiev/Pentacon
6. Sigma XQ (YS mount)
7. Polaris (Sun custom YS)
8. everything else
There are many however that are better than their level and some that are
worse. Can't go wrong with SMC-T lenses, especially 17/4, 28/3.5, 35/3.5,
50/1.4, 85/135/2.5, 300/4, 400/5.6, and 500/4.5. Most of these were also
available earlier in S-T versions without the open-aperture metering lever
and with the pre SMC coatings. Old Vivitar Series 1 like the 28/1.9, 50/2.8
Macro, 70-210/3.5, 90/2.5 Macro, 135/2.3, and others are very good. I'm not
as familiar with either of the European built lenses in 35mm but know
several who have them and I'm relying on their critique. Sigma XQ are not
bad, especially the 135/1.8, 200/2.8, 300/4, giant 500/4 Reflex, and any of
the fisheyes. Polaris was a marketing name that doesn't show up on Bob's 3rd
party site. They had some of the same lenses as Spiratone and Sigma in the
higher end ones like the 135/1.8 (82mm filter), but had several that were
also made by Sun but were never rebadged to other names like the 55-300/4.5
(I've owned 2 of these and still have one). Sun had 3 zooms that were not
bad also that were rebadged to other names that have high praise in
McBroom's also, the 24-40/3.5, 35-80/3.5, and the 80-200/3.5. All had a
macro position.
Many one off specialty lenses like fisheyes and the Schneider PC lenses are
excellent for their purposes. some are expensive.
Kent Gittings
[Ed. note: oddly enough, this is one of trio of lenses I carry around alot ;-)]
Date: Fri, 06 Dec 2002
From: Douglas Nelson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: List for 3rd party "dog" lenses?
Bob,
I bought a 28 Kiron f2 new in its box. The aperture mechanism is shot.
Two samples I checked earlier had bad aperture mechs.
Do you know of anyone who repairs these? I can't even dump it broken
like this. I don't think, given the incidence of malfunction on the
Kiron f2, that I would be out of line in warning folks about these.
Thanks
Doug
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Vivitar 400mm/f5.6
If you got it for that price you did indeed get a bargain. I found it a
decent lens, with several good features and pretty good sharpness and
clarity. If it's an older Vivitar, it has far less plastic in and on it than
the newer ones and should serve you well. The f5.6 rating is good for the
size of the lens, but I feel, a bit (about a 1/3 - 1/2 stop) over-optimistic
-you can adjust your ASA speed accordingly after you go thru a roll or two. I
use a sticker and put it on the lens cap so I remember what to do when I use
the lens. Enjoy!
Jim ([email protected])
[Ed. note: the kiron zoom 28-210mm f/3.8-5.6 cited in our
cult classics pages comes in a variety of versions
with marked ranges and apertures from 28-200 or 28-210mm, and f/3.5-, f/3.8- or f/4-f/5.6...]
Date: Sat, 08 Feb 2003
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Question about the Kiron 28-210mm
Hi, my name is Janosch... I have a question about the Kiron-zoom
28-210mm.
I read about the lenstest and information of this lens in your site..
but I`m a little bit confused, it seems to be several versions of that
Kiron-zoom... In your site is listed a Kiron with aperture 3.8-5.6. But
there are also versions with 3.5-5.6 and 4.0-5.6 .. and all are
28-210mm. Are they completely different ? ore the same opticcaly
performers ?
Thanks...
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2003
From: "Jim Headley" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] 125/2.3 Astro Berlin
Stephen,
I am familiar with the lens. Very nice find.
I once had a 150mm f:2.3 Astro Berlin Portrait lens built for an Exakta.
It was a huge lens built in 1936 or so out of aluminum. I sold it for
$2,200 but it is one of the hardest to find Astro's.
The Astro Berlin lenses are of very high quality for their age. The
Pan-Tachar is a newer model from my Portrait version but probably still
pre-war, though maybe not. These babies are very uncommon and nicely
built. I've been trying to collect these lenses over the years and
believe me, they are hard to find and best to find in the Leica mount.
They also made them to fit their own viso-type units.
Nice find, wish it was mine!
Sincerely,
Jim Headley
Casper, Wyoming USA
From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Phoenix/Samyang Optics
Date: 13 Feb 2003
the korean (phoenix/samyang) 500mm f/8-f/32 T mount glass lenses scored
all excellents, center and edge, at every f/stop in Pop Photo's resolution
tests. Not bad for a $99/$129 (multicoated) lens ;-) Weight is under 2
lbs, and many versions unscrew in the middle to make packing easier. OFten
sold at $50 or so used (astromart, ebay..). I have several, one for medium
format work (on a bronica s2A/EC mount). They were remounted in various
medium format mounts for use by pentax 645, mamiya 645, and rollei SL66
users, as well as hasselblad mounts for the focal plane bodies. Use a lens
shade; the multicoated version is probably the more desirable version...
some of the 400mm f/6.3 "sharpshooter" lenses are okay, but they didn't
score quite so well as the 500mm; the 600mm f/8-f/45 vivitar T-mount with
split lens head and mounting system was designed to compete with the
Nikkor " " series. Heavy. Old. Impressive performer. I also have the auto
T4/TX mount vivitar 400mm, also heavy, very good performer for a non-APO
lens, though I tend to use my sigma 400mm AF/macro/APO for small size and
weight when walking in the field or around some area lakes ;-)
All of these lenses outperform similar priced mirror lenses for contrast
and resolution, without "donut" bokeh effects, and with a full range of
f/stops and control over depth of field.
see http://medfmt.8k.com/bronhb.html for photos of split 500mm lens etc.
see http://medfmt.8k.com/third/cult.html on cult classic vivitar lenses ;-)
hth bobm
From: "Code Developer" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sigma lens chip "upgrade"
Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2003
"Ed E." [email protected] wrote
>
> What did surprise me is Sigma's very good response to the situation. Here's
> a 4+ year old lens, and they said "Just ship it to us and we'll upgrade your
> lens". Of course, my $100 question: "How much will the upgrade cost?"
> "It's Free" (with a bit of "You expected to pay for this?" sound to the
> technician's voice.) Three to four day turnaround.
>
{snip}
Hmm, different response to the one I got from Sigma in the UK when I called
them.
Apparently they'll only chip the lens for free if you bought it brand new
and still have the original receipt. If not, then they charge you �33
(around $50) for the upgrade.
So why the different policy between the US and the UK? :-(
And I was told that they can only upgrade lenses up to a certain age. I
enquired about a 75-300 APO lens that I used to use with my Minolta 700si. I
bought this lens around 5 years ago so not surprisingly it doesn't work with
my new Dynax 7. When I asked if this could be chipped I was told that they
don't have the schematics for that lens any more. Their only offer was to
give me a 'good' trade in deal on a newer lens.
Regards,
Shaun.
From: [email protected] (Don Atzberger)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Which 3rd party lens maker is best?
Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2003
"Bill Karoly" [email protected] wrote:
> Sigma? Tamron or Tokina?
>
> I have been using a Tamron 28-105 on my Pentax ZX-5 and it's been a very
> good lens. Now I'm thinking of buying a new zoom lens and am looking for
> input.
>
> Thanks
> Bill
Got to throw in on this one. I'm leary of Sigma because I have heard so
many stories relating to them literally falling apart -- barrels
separating, front elements falling out, and such. They may be better now,
I don't know, but they have had problems in the past with their
construction according to quite a few users of this NG. There used to be
a page on the photozone site that was dedicated to this problem, but it
was pulled because of the threat of legal action. Don't misunderstand, I
used to use a Sigma 14mm f/3.5 and is did a fairly respectable job.
However, I know of a guy who had a Sigma 500mm f/4.5 literally separate in
half while he was shooting a golf tournament -- try explaining THAT to
your editor... :^\
I have a Tamron 400mm f/4 -- superb lens. I tried a Tamron 24-70
f/3.5-4.5, however, and was not impressed -- bought a Nikkor 24-50
instead. I have a Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 ATX -- it's incredible. My
only beef with it is that it's not quite as good at minimum focus as my
old Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8. However, I used to own a Tokina 35-135mm
f/4.5-5.6 lens and is was only okay.
The point is that the lenses from the big three (Sigma, Tokina, and
Tamron) vary widely in their quality from one model to the next. Also, as
mentioned by another poster, the quality can vary pretty drastically from
one sample to the next within the same make and model.
The advice you have received from other posters is sound -- TRY B4 YOU
BUY! Take the lens outside, put some E100VC (or similar film) into your
camera and start shooting. Shoot wide open to see whether there is light
falloff in the corners. Shoot at infinity focus, minimum focus and a
couple of lengths in between. If you can arrange it, shoot a newspaper
page that fills the frame and look at the sharpness of the print and the
uniformity of the brightness. Look at distortion, especially at the
corners. Do this at several apertures including wide open.
Also, look at color. Is it flat when wide open? How does it compare to
the best lenses Pentax has to offer? How does it compare to other lenses
you've tested? Look at flare when shooting close with a flash. I almost
bought a Sigma 18-35mm lens a few years ago until I saw the results of
this test -- slides looked washed out.
Look at the slides with a good 10X loupe to see how the lens performed.
Hope this helps - e-mail if questions.
Peace,
Don
From: "Bandicoot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax Screw Mt
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003
"William D. Tallman" [email protected] wrote
[SNIP]
>
> Well, am I happy to read this!
>
> At some point back in the 80's I wandered into a camera store where an Asahi
> Spotmatic and a lens case was sitting on the counter. Turned out that it
> had just been taken in on trade for something else, and the meter in the
> camera "didn't work". I got it all for $50.00. The two lenses were a 50mm
> 1.4 and a 135mm 3.5. Got the meter adjusted for $10 and have used it in
> preference to "better" gear ever since.
>
> Seemed to me that the lenses were sharp enough, although I never actually
> tested them. Good to know about the 50mm; any comments about the 135mm?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Bill Tallman
>
>
Nice lens - 135 was a real strength of the range, and while the 2.5 and 1.8
were both somewhat better, that is against the background of an already high
standard set by the 3.5. The manual 2.8 is not as good, though the current
AF one is very nice.
The 135mm f3.5 also scores for being very compact, and the built in hood is
nice, if a little small. And, of course, it will take the same size filters
as your 50mm f1.4, whihc is handy. Nice bokeh makes it good as a head and
shoulders portrait lens, as well as it being a good all round short tele.
You can get fuller commentary on these at (is Stan going start giving me
referral fees?) Stan Halpin's site:
http://www.concentric.net/~smhalpin/
Peter
From: "Matt Clara" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Pentax Screw Mt
Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2003
...
> Difficult to tell whether yours is or isn't one of these "SMC by another
> name" lenses unless you have a known sample to compare it to though.
>
> But don't worry, SMC or not, it is a first rate lens.
Hate to say, ditto, but this has been my experience, too. I have a whole
slew of screw-mount single-coated takumars, and while I don't use them much
nowadays, I've not noticed an improvement in sharpness or contrast since
switching to Nikon.
From: "Bandicoot" "insert_handle_here"@techemail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003
As some others have said, not many people will own both. I'm one of the
many: I don't own both...
So I can only opine about Pentax lenses that I know intimately versus the
pictures I've seen taken by other people who use Canon. I hope you can find
someone who can make a real comparison because it would be interesting, but
for what its worth this is my view:
First off, I started using Pentax a long time ago, and loved the lenses. I
used various other cameras at various times, particularly Nikon, but Pentax
lenses were always my favourites (had some Zeiss Contax lenses I liked too)
and Pentax remained my main 35mm system. Two issues are overriding in my
remaining with Pentax: the lenses (most important issue for any system
choice) and the ergonomics. Pentax bodies handle well and I find they have
intuitive control layouts. I also like their relative compactness: I often
use three or more different types of film at a time, and carrying three
Pentax bodies is a lot easier than three comparable Canons or Nikons.
As far as what I like in an image is concerned: in colour I shoot mostly
landscapes, gardens, and plants, plus some wildlife, animal portraits, and
'natural abstracts' - films like Velvia, Provia, Ektachrome E100VS, and (for
lower contrast) the Portra negative films. I like saturated landscapes, but
for the plant and garden work tend to go with a much more muted and lower
contrast approach. In B&W I shoot mostly rather 'gritty' architectural and
industrial landscapes - films like HP5 and Tri-X, but also some of the newer
fine grained films like Fuji Acros. To suit me and this range of subjects
there are some characteristics of lenses that matter more than others:
- Good flare rejection is vital;
- Bokeh must be non-distracting, especially background bokeh for the plant
portrait work;
- Drawing matters a lot for the 'architectural landscapes', but less so in
the natural world;
- Flatness of plane is important for the plant portraits and 'natural
abstracts'
- Sharpness matters for almost everything, and for the landscapes needs to
reach the corners _at the apertures I use_.
- A good sense of 'three dimensionality' really helps with the subjects that
interest me.
What matters less is corner to corner sharpness wide open - the subjects for
which I need corner sharpness don't need wide apertures and vice versa; AF
speed and noise are helpful but not priorities.
To meet these criteria I use primes more than zooms. This means I want
lenses that aren't too heavy or bulky! they need to be robust enough to
survive 'on the road' too.
I use all three of the Limited lenses, and have fixed focal length lenses in
regular use from all the K mount variations: K, M, A, F, and FA. (OK, none
of the FAJ lenses, or the KF) And zooms from all these varaiations too,
though these are used less often. My other most use 35mm system is the
Hasselblad X-Pan, so I have the (Fuji) lenses from that as my main
non-Pentax yard-sticks. I also have an Angenieux zoom that I am very fond
of, a Tamron 300mm f2.8 that I like and a Sigma 135-400 that I tolerate...
The following is based on the lenses I use, so may not apply to the more
consumer oriented lenses, zooms in particular.
So that sets the context for my comments.
My _impression_ is that the Canon L lenses have the edge in corner
sharpness wide open, and in flatness of field _except_ with macro lenses,
where Pentax wins. Canon obviously focuses more quietly, perhaps faster
(though this is body dependent too) and IS is available.
There are a couple of exceptions to this: the Pentax macro lenses are all
sharper - I feel - than their Canon equivalents, and the Pentax 200mm f2.8
FA* also seems to me to beat the Canon even wide open.
I think Pentax bokeh is better than the L lenses - or at least, is more
pleasing to my eye. The limited lenses are especially good in this regard,
but it is a Pentax family characteristic. Longer lenses always tend to have
less attractive bokeh as a rule, and I do find that the Pentax 200 f2.8
FA*'s can be a little unattractive, but only when measured against that of a
50mm, say _for a 200_ it is still very good - the problem is this lens is
so sharp that I often look at the slides and forget they weren't taken with
a 50mm.
I am in no doubt that Pentax's SMC coating is still the best. Flare
rejection is amazing and this also leads to very high contrast and saturated
colours. Everyone else seems to be improving their coatings, and so the
Pentax advantage is less dramatic here than it used to be, but it is still
worthwhile for me. Zeiss T* and Fujinon EBC seem _to me_ to be the next
best.
The final area where I feel Pentax has an edge is in the sense of
three -dimensionality images possess. I'm never quite sure what produces
this effect - accutance and contrast must both be important, but I think it
more complex than just that. Canon images to me seem just a little more
picture-like while I find Pentax 'transports me' better to the scene. This
is probably another very personal thing. The Canon approach seems
archetypically Japanese, while in this respect the Pentax's seem to me more
like German lenses than other Japanese makers (but then, Fuji to some extent
shares this character).
Also very personal: I prefer Pentax's colour rendition, which is saturated
but 'plausible'. This is a characteristic that tends to vary more between
lenses and has changed more over time than some of the other 'family
traits' - but as a generalisation I just happen to like Pentax's colour
choices.
So this is my general impression: Pentax for coating and stopped down
performance, Canon for AF speed and noise and - marginally - for wide open
performance. The other things are, I suspect, very much a matter of
personal preference.
Now, about the Limited lenses. These all seem to have the basic Pentax
character, but with the best aspects somewhat 'more so'. In particular, the
coating seems even better and the sense of three-dimensionality is quite
amazing. Slides taken with the 77mm that I was looking at on the lightbox
the other day looked so three dimensional I caught myself unconsciously
moving my head from side to side to see 'behind' things. This is a hard
thing to describe, but you know it when you see it.
The other thing the Limited lenses do spectacularly well is their control of
comma. This is especially noticeable, of course, in any night scene that
includes light sources, which are rendered more clearly as points - even at
the edges - than with any other lenses I know, and this is a subject area
where the excellent flare control really makes a difference too. Passing
through Las Vegas in February I went down to the strip at night to finish up
a roll of E100VS and took only the three limited lenses with me. I'm amazed
by the results, which are some of the better city night-scenes I've done,
without really trying on this occasion. Certainly, they will be my first
choices for this sort of work in future.
Build of the Limited lenses is excellent too: they are AF lenses that can be
used manually just as easily. (The FA* lenses with focus clutches share
this.) The older manual lenses also have excellent build, though I am not
so taken with some of the more modern AF zooms in this respect. The F* and
FA* lenses, however, are beautifully built. Canon's L build is also
luxurious, but happens to appeal to me less. Besides, I like aperture
rings. Canon lenses seem to be lighter, for equivalent spec., in some cases
though.
With the * lenses, the ones I know well are the 135mm f1.8 A*, 200mm f2.8
FA*, 300mm f4 A*, 300mm f4.5 F* and 600mm f4 F*. I like all of these very
much, especially the 200 which really does produce images you could mistake
for having been taken with a standard lens. (Though not a * lens, the 100mm
f2.8 FA macro is also in this category.) Both the 300s are also spectacular
lenses: very sharp indeed and with some of that striking sense of
three-dimensionality (the F* may be a little better in both of these areas,
but the A* is so easy to hand-hold that it still has its place as well.)
The 85mm f1.4 A* and FA* are frequently cited by others as being truly
outstanding, but I have no experience of these, and I like both my 85mm f1.8
K and 77mm f1.8 Limited that I doubt I'll ever get myself one of the 1.4s.
The * lens I don't have and really want is the 200mm f4 macro - the A* and
FA* versions are each desirable, in their own ways - these lenses are
amongst the sharpest ever made by anyone and handle beautifully too.
In the * area (fast &/or long ED glass) I really don't know the Canon lenses
well enough to make a good comparison, but I have to say that my 600mm
produces images I like better in terms of colour rendition and contrat than
those I've seem from Canon 500 and 600mm lenses. However, IS will be a
totally over-riding factor for many at these sort of lengths.
These comments major on what I like about the Pentax lenses, I suppose,
because it is for the things I like about them that I choose to use them.
Any weaknesses largely fall into areas that don't affect my style of work -
otherwise I wouldn't use them. I guess this goes for any 'personal' review,
but I should make the point: the Pentax lenses I use are without exception
the best _I know of_ for the work I do - if you do different work or have
different taste you may have other choices.... (though I still think that
if more people tried Pentax before they bought into other systems, they
might never switch...)
My (many) pennies' worth,
Peter
http://www.bard-hill.co.uk
From: [email protected] (Lewis Lang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 18 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
Hi Pal:
>Subject: Re: How do Pentax and Canon's top AF lenses compare?
>From: "P�l Jensen" [email protected]
>Date: Fri, Apr 18, 2003
>
>
>"Lewis Lang" [email protected] skrev
>> I have always admired Pentax for its excellent bokeh (as well as its natural
>> color rendition, which I feel is better/more pleasing/life-like than Canon's
>> non-L lenses (especially the non-L zooms). Canon L lenses are second in
>> contrast/color rendition and "depth"/life-like clarity only to Zeiss and Leica
>> (and a few others, but I'll stop the list here...).
>
>Yes, Pentax lenses are more "German" in look and generally (depending on
>taste of course) have a more pleasant look than both Nikon and Canon lenses.
I would say, that at the very least, Pentax bokeh reminds me of Leica bokeh -
but for less money though ;-).
>Many, if not most, of the Pentax FA* lenses, who are mostly designed by
>the
>same legendary lens designer (Mr. Harakawa) as the Pentax Limiteds (the
>43
>and 77 mm), have this look.- In addition to 3D look, Pentax lenses have
>the
>best flare control in busines.
I compared my 28mm/2.8 Distagon T* to a similar Pentax lens pointing it at the
sun and it came out slightly better in the flare control department, but only
just slightly. Otherwise I would agree. I think Zeiss's sharpness in terms of
edge acutance (I haven't measured resolution) is "snappier" which gives the
Zeiss a sort of "paper cut out" look where edges of objects eem to separte
better from their surrounds. The Zeiss lenses do this even better than Leica
lenses, however the Leica lenses tend to have more subtle separation of
tonality/hues than the Zeiss so its a matter of pick your flavor here. Pentax
seems closer to Leica in bokeh and "naturalness" (tonal/hue discrimination)
while closer to Zeiss in the anti-flare department. I believe I remember
pointing my multi-element 28-135/4 Pentax A lens into the sun and getting
virtually no flare - now that's lens coating for you!
Have you shot w/ Canon L (which lenses?) in addition to the Pentax LTD. lenses?
What were there differences in sharpness, contrast, etc.? From what little I
could tell on the web, the 43mm LTD, though reputed to be soft wide open, had a
feeling of clarity similar to a Leica M lens. I am particularly interested in
the top class wide angles and wide angle zooms of both brands as most of my
people work is shot wide (excepting some headshots , of course ;-)).
Thanks.
Regards,
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/home.htm>
From nikon MF mailing list:
From: "Michael E. Berube" [email protected]
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: [Nikon] Nikon versus Sigma lense
If you are considering Sigma lenses and need them for professional work, my
recommendation is to consider only their EX line. I have the 17-35/2.8-4 and
the 24-70/2.8 and are happy enough with their performance. I will likely
replace the 17-35 with the Nikkor equiv. because the variable aperture of the
Sigma version bugs me in low light. I can live with it at the moment because I
got the lens only to have a 24/2.8 effective FL on my D100.
Similarly I recommend that pros and serious amateurs consider Nikon's higher
end glass if they have the budget for it over their lower end (non AF-S) G
line. Much better build and quality. Are the Nikkors better than the third
party pro line offerings? Probably, but for my work they are not the several
hundred $ "better" that they would cost. I'm almost always shooting handheld
on the run. Other than a heavier domke and a lighter wallet, I'm not sure I'd
see a huge difference in my final product to make the considerable extra
expense worth it.
Likewise, If you aren't a serious amateur or a professional photographer, (who
probably make larger enlargements more often and are a bit rougher on their
equipment) you may not notice any difference in any of the big consumer
lines...Tokina, Sigma, Tamron from the Nikkors of equal value.
Be well,
Michael E. B�rub�
www.GoodPhotos.com
From minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003
From: "ericthex700" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of 3rd party lenses
By and large I agree too; the f3.5 35-70 is superb. It's not a one-touch zoom,
though, which is worth bearing in mind practically, so you have to turn a separate
collar to change from 35-50-70 and focus with the fociussing ring, so it's not
the most convenient if you need to zoom in on a subject very quickly. On the
other hand, it's f3,5 through all the focal lengths, which is very useful. The
Sigma one-touch zoom I tested a year or two ago directly against it; apart from
the fact that it's not a constant f3.5 (I've forgotten what - f4.something) and
like most zooms of its kind the barrel tends to get sloppy, quality differences
were not as great as you might expect: overall colour rendition is a little cooler,
and at 35mm there is just noticeable softening of focus at the extreme edges of
the frame. (I have a couple of pics of a brick wall somewhere to demonstrate!)
Not bad, actually, considering you can often get the Sigma for a pittance. I did
this for a friend with very sharp eyes, and she opted for the Minolta seven times
out of twelve looking at a dozen pics of the same subjects taken with each lens,
not knowing which was which. So it was close enough to surprise me!
BTW, it should be "made"; there is still a 35-70mm zoom, but it's not the
constant aperture version, and it's made in China by Centon, and is not as good.
(I'll probably get flamed for this, but it's often repeated that the constant
aperture f3.5 is a Leica, or was made by Minolta for Leica when Minolta had a
hand in a Leica Reflex; however, Leica owners have told me there are significant
differences at least in build, so I've never placed that much credence on the
story. I've never seen any hard evidence that they're the same.)
I'm probably again out of step here, but some third-party lenses are pretty good;
and often cost a lot less than the Minolta equivalent. I had once a Vivitar 70-210
on my Nikon, which was excellent; I have a Cosina 28-70 on my Canon, ditto, and
a 35-135 Sigma I use all the time on my X-700, which is very good. But then, I
can't afford all-Minolta/all-Canon lens line-ups, and I couldn't care less what
other people might think when they see a non-Minolta or non-Canon lens on one of
my cameras.
--- In [email protected], "Jeff Matsler" jeffmatsler@e... wrote:
> I agree wholeheartedly. Don't waste your money on anything less than a
> Minolta. They make a 35-70 that was in conjunction with Leica that sells on
> ebay all the time. Why settle for a Sigma when you can shoot with Leica
> technology for $30 more?
>
> Jeff M
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave" SaalsD@c...
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003
> Subject: Re: [MinMan] Quality of 3rd party lenses
>
>
> > Michael,
> > There is no mf lens out there that is as good as the Minolta 35-70mm
> > f/3.5 for the money. They are common on ebay for way less than $100.00 I
> > have bought them for as little as $39.00 on ebay. I assure you, you will
> > not be dissappointed with this lens if it is in good working and clean
> > condition. Again, no other 3rd party lens can compete with it.
> >
> > Dave Saalsaa
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Michael G. mikegoe@y...
> > To: [email protected]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003
> > Subject: [MinMan] Quality of 3rd party lenses
> >
> >
> > > I'm looking into enlarging my choice of lenses. When possible,
> > > I try to purchase Rokkor lenses but these are not easy to come by and
> > > can be rather costly. I'm looking for opinions on Sigma, Vivitar,
> > > and 5 Star. Ideally, I'm looking to obtain a 35-70mm zoom (or
> > > thereabouts). Celtics were Minoltas attempt at competing with 3rd
> > > party vendors...is their quality still better than say Sigma or 5
> > > Star? I'm sure many lenses (such as the Phoenix 650-1300mm) are only
> > > availble 3rd party as well these days.
> > >
> > > I'm new to this list and I know this can be a very subjective
> > > topic. I'm not shooting pro...but I also don't want to look back in
> > > a few years and say "I wish I had better optics when I shot this
> > > photo..." ..I'd like to do it right the first time...or at least know
> > > I had the opportunity to do it right!
> > >
> > > I appreciate any inputs or discussion.
> > >
> > > Michael G.
From: Lisa Horton [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: I've been Stigma-tized! :)
Date: Fri, 02 May 2003
Well, the lens came. Fancy lens case (tossing aside). Weird finish,
rubbery and glittery, do they make condoms as well? An odd design
feature as well: Besides the normal AF/MF switch, the focussing ring
moves fore and aft, to AF and MF positions. Probably seems more
sensible with some brands other than Canon, I guess. On a film body,
wow, 15mm is really wide! The lens seems to work with all my bodies.
Test pictures seem sharp, a photo of the backyard fence is sharp to
the corners, and distortion seems well controlled.
Bizarre arrangement of permanently fixed lens hood, sleeve that fits
over the lens hood and accepts the lens cap. Kind of strange, but
maybe because of the front element that bulges out considerably.
Seriously, the front element looks almost like a fisheye.
It focusses very close, close enough that if something is too close to
be in focus, there's a good chance it's about to hit the front element
:)
One kind of interesting feature is the focussing ring. It's as smooth
and well damped as a MF lens. Absolutely the best manual focussing
ring on any AF lens I've ever owned. With your eyes closed, you might
think that it WAS a MF lens.
As soon as the weather clears up a bit, I'll get a chance to actually
shoot with it. First some outdoor shots, then later some interiors,
where I'm hoping it will do well.
Lisa
From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003
From: Paul Peranteau [email protected]
Subject: RE: [SLRMan] Miranda cameras
I too chose a Miranda based on that Consumer Reports review. As I recall
the article Nick refers to, Miranda was the only camera rated Excellent.
Canon, Nikon and some others, maybe the Mamiya Sekor, were Very Good. I
bought a Sensomat.
I also heard somewhere that when Japanese optical manufacturers were
looking for what to do after WWII, they decided on cameras, among other
things. They imitated the best they could find: Leitz and Zeiss.
Nikon, supposedly, and maybe Canon imitated Leitz with its emphasis on
sharpness against contrastiness. Miranda imitated Zeiss for more
contrastiness in their lenses. I wonder if anyone else has run across this
piece of apocrypha?
At any rate, there are a few Miranda lenses I think are superb: the 50mm
1.4, the 135 2.8 and the close up "Macron" lenses: the 52mm 2.8 and the
55mm 3.5. The wide angles are okay 35-28-25, all 2.8. The 200- 3.5 I don't
think is more than average. Oh yes, the 105mm 2.8 is also a top lens.
Another problem Miranda may have run into toward the end, maybe, was the
increasing complexity of the lens mount. The E and EC lenses have 3 pins
going back to the camera, and there were little warnings in the DX-3 book
about damaging the camera if you attach the lens with the wrong aperture
position set. With autofocus on the horizon, I think they may have known
they would face the Canon/Nikon problem, whether to try to maintain a
backwards compatibility or wipe the slate clean and start all over with a
new body to lens interface. I don't think they could have survived
economically doing either; they were just too small.
One last thing. Miranda, at the end, made a Miranda TM (also labeled Pallas
TM and Soligor TM). These were 42mm thread mount cameras. The advantage of
this model over other 42mm mount cameras is that they have stop-down
through the lens match-needle metering AND you can use the interchangeable
prisms that Miranda offered for all models (except the DX-3). Nice to be
able to focus in a situation where your chin has no room.
Paul
>Don't think I'm a Miranda basher -- the first SLR I ever handled was my
>father's Sensorex C, which as I recall he bought in about 1970 or '71
>based on a top recommendation from Consumer Reports magazine. It was
>memorable in part because of the unusual star design on the front of the
>pentaprism, which only in the last couple of years I discovered was where
>the meter cell on an earlier model had been (the Automex? Autorex?). So
>apparently they kept the same body tooling.
>
>As for the slim body, I guess I don't see that they're any smaller than
>contemporaneous Pentaxes.
>
>Nick
From manual SLR mailing list:
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003
From: "Abdon Gonzalez" [email protected]
Subject: RE: RE: [SLRMan] Miranda cameras
My experience is that high quality German glass (leitz, zeiss) went for
sharpness, or the ability to resolve detail. Most Japanese glass went for
"Contrast". Now, sharpness is a measurable optical quality, the ability to
resolve detail, often expressed in line-pairs-per-millimeter LPPMM. Contrast
is perceptual, or the separation of detail. A blot of ink on a white paper
can be said to have 100% sharpness, or separation between black and white.
If you take two rolls to the 1-hour photo joint, one shot with German glass
the other with Japanese, the prints from the Japanese lenses might look
sharper up to 4"X6" or even 5"X7". If you blow up the negatives to 8" by 10"
or more, you then begin to notice that the shadows may begin to lack detail,
while on the German side you can still see the lens resolving subtle tones.
If you print your own negatives, you know that the negative is just the
beginning. Printing it requires as many decisions as it took to make it in
the first place. There is where all that detail is a treasure to be
unearthed.
Also, it was not that the allies gave technology to Japan to jumpstart their
economies. after WWII German patents were invalidated as war reparations, to
include all optical patents from Leitz and Zeiss. While the west whisked
away the Carl Zeiss staff, documents and (thank God) the Zeiss lens
collection to the west, Russia stripped the Jena factory, moving the dies
and equipment to Ukraine. There shortly after they began producing once
again prewar Contax and Leicas under the Kiev and Zorky names. The Japanese
simply used the patents that were now available for the taking, nobody had
to give it to them.
Ok, back to the salt mines :(
- Abdon
From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 26 Apr 2003
Subject: Re: I bought a Stigma...
>Subject: Re: I bought a Stigma...
>From: "Scott Elliot" [email protected]
>Date: 4/25/03
>Lisa, your attitude is really curious. There is no reason this lens should
>not give excellent service with your current cameras. Current Sigma lenses
>work perfectly well with current
Sigma makes crap. Always did.
Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer
From: "Scott Elliot" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: I bought a Stigma...
Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2003
Sorry Tony, you are the fool. Canon does not licence their mounts to
anyone. That is what is known as an urban myth. The reason Sigma lenses
have more problems with Canon than other makes is simple. Sigma is the most
successful competitor to Canon for lenses that fit Canon cameras.
It is quite likely that Canon spends as much time reverse engineering Sigma
lenses trying to find ways to make them malfunction on new cameras as Sigma
spends reverse engineering Canon lenses to make lenses that will function on
existing Canon cameras.
There is no Sigma policy limiting any lens to being re-chipped one time
only. I know this from my experience with a Sigma 105 macro lens.
Unfortunately Sigma do not continue to develop new chips for older
discontinued models so there is a risk. Most of the time re-chipping is
just an inconvenience and many Sigma lenses have continued to function
through several Canon model changes.
Finally, it is not Sigma who are screwing their customers, it is Canon. A
new Canon Elan 7 will not do anything that an older and better EOS 3 will
not do. Canon has not added any functions, but some Sigma lenses that
worked perfectly well with the EOS 3 will not work with the Elan 7. Only a
fool would think that Canon did not engineer that to inconvenience their
main competitor.
Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/
"Tony Spadaro" [email protected] wrote
> Are you a complete fool or only a Sigma-fool? THe reason Lisa is worried is
> because Sigma does not license the mount, consequently there is a 50-50
> chance that it will not work with her next Canon body. There is also a 50-50
> chance it will after being re-chipped for the next Canon body not work with
> the one after that, and Sigma only re-chips ONCE MAXIMUM. There is a similar
> problem with Minolta aparently and I've even heard of it cropping up with
> Nikons.
> So the problem is not Canon, but Sigma. Cheapskate management trying their
> best to avoid extra expense and hoping like hell that they will maintain a
> new customer base despite the fact there are not too many people stupid
> enough to buy Sigma again after getting SCREWED by the little bastards once.
...
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003
From: "CTGardener" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Phoenix lenses...clarification
--- In [email protected], "reuben_j_cogburn" bsp36@y... wrote:
> I appreciate all the input to my initial question. There certainly
> has been plenty of commentary. Perhaps I should have rephrased my
> question to something like this: Does the Phoenix 17-35mm lens
> produce and image of sufficient sharpness to interest someone who
> frequently sells their photography?
Hi Reuben,
I can appreciate your predicament ... I live in the NW corner of CT,
a 3-hr. trip to NYC (home of B&H :) and probably at least an hour and
a half from any camera store that stocks much of a selection at all.
I guess that's the price we pay for making internet businesses and
mail-order shops like B&H so popular !
Anyway, your revised question still isn't really any more specific.
What do you mean by "sells their photography" ? Are you pushing the
limits of the sharpest, finest grain 35mm b&w film and selling
limited edition hand printed enlargements ? Or selling to a magazine
for article insets ? Do you need to get those publishable images at
all focal lengths and all f-stops in all lighting conditions ? Galen
Rowell owned some of the best (sharpest) Nikon lenses that he used
for his "fine art" work, but chose lightweight gear like the consumer
35-80 for taking with a lightweight body while running. He called
the results from the 35-80 "publishable" but you can bet they weren't
as "enlargeable" as those from his high end lenses.
A cheaper lens like the Phoenix (pure speculation here !) might have
more compromises than other more expensive lenses ... maybe it's
flare prone, maybe some distortion at the wide end, maybe not too
sharp at the two ends wide open (but are you going to shoot a WA zoom
wide open anyway ?) It's probably capable of really good results at
f5.6-f11. Those are the kinds of things it's really hard to learn
doing research the way you're doing it (and the way I've done it in
the past ... now I'm fortunate enough to have a small collection of
some of Minoltas better lenses that I'm very happy with).
I can tell you which WA zooms I'd buy. I recently bought a used 17-
35G at a "good price" ... but it was still a very expensive lens. If
I hadn't found a good deal, my second choice, based largely on info I
was able to find online, would have been the Tamron 20-40. Used,
they're still nearly $400. My third choice is a lens I used to own -
the old Sigma 21-35. I used to see it available for around $169 from
KEH. I found that lens extremely sharp at both ends and in between.
AF was pitifully slow, but I never actually shot that lens using AF.
It had a permanently attached lens shade that had cutouts at the side
to prevent vignetting, but which made it somewhat flare-prone,
especially shooting verticals. The manual focus ring is very thin
and has to be turned with thumb and one finger through the lens shade
cutouts. The lens shade also prevents the use of Cokin style filters
(rectangular GND, for instance). It takes 77mm filters. It's pretty
big (especially since you can't reverse the shade) and heavy; built
like a brick. It lasted me well over 10 years with the occsaional
bump or scrape, and I'd still be using it if it hadn't bit the dust
when I dropped it from about 4 feet onto a hardwood floor. None of
the glass was damaged, but a few plastic pieces broke and Sigma
doesn't have repair parts for a lens that old. It's in the hands of
a list member who's trying to repair it for fun :)
I use photodo.com as a starting point for estimating whether a lens
is likely to meet my criteria for sharpness ... ignore the raw
numbers and read the charts (if they've tested the lens). The tests
favor flat field lenses (like macro lenses) and do a disservice to
wide angle lenses, though you can just look to see how sharp they are
in the center and expect falloff as the lens isn't focused on the
same plane at the edges. And knowing what ratings are "good enough"
is tough ... it helps if they have mtf charts for other lenses you've
tried. Then you have to do add'l research to find about about flare,
bokeh, durability, vignetting w/filters, AF speed, whatever else may
concern you. Photozone.de is another somewhat useful site. Good
luck with your quest !
- Dennis
From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Sun, 22 Jun 2003
From: "Peter Blaise Monahon [email protected]"
Subject: Re: Phoenix lenses...
> reuben_j_cogburn wrote:
>
> Has anybody had any experience
> with the Phoenix brand (especially
> the 19-35mm)? They seem to run
> about half what the Minolta and Sigma
> lenses go for. This I guess is what
> is causing my concern. Is the
> phoenix under priced or are the
> Minolta and Sigma's just over priced
> (assuming the lenses give comparable
> results)?
> Any input is appreciated...
> chengman1969 cheng_li wrote:
>
> Phoenix is also sold as Cosina, Soligor
> and Voightlander in Europe. From what
> I understand the quality of the lens is
> not consistent, you have people who
> got a 'crappy' version of the lens.
>
> Did you also looked at the Tokina
> 19-35 lens. Here in Europe it costs
> 40 euro more (250 euro versus 210
> euro) and have pretty good reviews.
> See http://www.photozone.de/bindex2.html
> for the previous version of the lens.
> The new version has a plastic barrel
> instead of a metal, but the optics
> isn't changed much.
Hi chengman1969 cheng_li,
May I suggest that if anyone gets a "crappy" lens, it's broken, and
new ones are covered by warranty and will be replaced. There really is
no "crappy" stuff so long as it meets it's manufacturer's
specifications, none of which are "crappy". Just 'cause you don't like
it, or just 'cause you know the difference between two lenses doesn't
make one "crappy" and the other "not crappy". Please, let's drop the
"crappy" comments.
reuben_j_cogburn, I imagine that all the lenses you are looking at
are priced appropriately, and there are not equivalent, but they ALL may
be better, or worse, that is, appropriate or inappropriate, for your own
personal photographic needs and resources, for your own personal current
or chosen photographic skill set. Just 'cause you can compare them
doesn't make either of them right, or wrong, for you.
Historically, just to add my experience - ownership and reading - to
the dust bin here:
My Hoya/Tokina (Japan) 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5 �77mm is apparently make by
Cosina (Japan). I like it, especially the price. It's no Minolta,
though, but that's in the eye of the beholder. It works for me, and any
complaints I may have of images taken through it are NOT because of
limits of the lens's capability. Give me a few more years and a few
more rolls of film, make that a few hundred more rolls of film, through
this lens, and I may eventually be up to it's standards and want
something more capable - such as a faster lens starting at f/2.8 or
better, of a some other criteria that I haven't mastered yet. Until
then, I have a sweet little auto focus 19-35mm to learn on.
Phoenix/Samyang (Korea) are probably NOT available under the Cosina
name since Cosina makes for others, but has absolutely no need to have
others make for them. Yet, who knows how they get marked after they
leave the factory?
Phoenix/Samyang/Vivitar/Soligar/et cetera seem to be a "your name
here" marketing conglomerate for various world markets where each name
still has cache.
Hoya/Tokina and Cosina seem to get along with each other. Cosina
and Hoya/Tokina apparently subcontracted for Vivitar et cetera in the
olden days of heavy metal manual focus. Now, with research and
development needing programming for auto focus lenses, the market has
thinned quite a bit. Vivitar doesn't design their own lenses, and now
buys existing production from the best wholesale price - Samyang/Phoenix
in Korea.
I recommend either buying with a return guarantee, or trying a roll
of film in the store on the dealer's demo, get it processed, and see
what pleases you!
Let us know what you do.
Peter Blaise Monahon - [email protected] -
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
From: Eric Bogaerts [[email protected]]
Sent: Thu 8/21/2003
To: [email protected]
Subject: fast lenses
Bob,
I found a very interesting section on your website in regard to fast
lenses, when you attempt to poo-poo their usefulness because they aren't
sharp wide open. It's kind of funny when there are reasons why very fast
lenses are made, and they aren't really made to satisfy those looking to get
maximum sharpness. They are made for people looking to use available or
extremely low light, or to provide extremely shallow depth of field.
Sometimes it's a matter of getting some form of an image, versus not getting
an image at all, or not wanting or liking the effect of a flash. Sometimes
photographic artists like the "soft" effect of these lenses. You seem to
have a few sentences devoted to discussing isolated depth of field. Perhaps
adding some of the information above, including the sometimes really nice
effects of extremely shallow depth of field (photos might be interesting) of
a 50mm f/1.2 or f/1.0, so that beginner photographers can see the effects
that extremely shallow depth of field offers, in order for them to make up
their own mind. Or, is there a specific viewpoint you are trying to force
with this page? (reference: http://medfmt.8k.com/mf/fast.html)
This kind of goes along the same lines of you promoting third party
lenses, althought it is on the opposite end of the "spectrum". Of course
they are close to or equal in terms of performance to the OEM lenses at mid
apertures. (yes I do know that there are some exceptions - however few -
that equal OEM lens performace without having to be stopped down) In any
case, who wants to shoot at f/8 or f/11 constantly, in order to raise the
lens to OEM performance? Why would someone want to be creatively
straighjacketed? At least the fast lenses, mentioned in the previous
paragraph, can be stopped down to the mid apetures to get a sharp result
which would be at least identical to the third party lens' performance at
mid apetures. Why don't you just promote the purchase of the third party
lens' camera models if someone is going to use the third party glass? I've
never understood the logic of putting an inexpensive Quantray lens onto an
expensive Canon camera. Why not just get a Quantray camera body?
Looking forward to hearing back from you,
Eric
[Ed. note:
In my reply, I noted that the DOF for fast lenses is soooo
shallow as to difficult to use in dim light etc.
Similarly, third party lenses can be used at other f/stops
with good results, but results are often indistinguishable at
the mid-f/stops to diffraction limited stops like f/16 or f/22.
Very few photographers shoot their lenses wide open, which is
where the $$ have been spent optimizing the OEM lenses and fast
lenses. If you do, then fast lenses (and major mfger lenses) may
well be worth the extra $$ to you....]
From: "Mel Gregory" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003
Subject: [Nikon] Re: Nikon digest, Vol 1 #1130 - 8 msgs
> > Here's a review of that lens that may help you to decide,
> > http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/2870afs.htm. I'm not one who thinks
> > that the other lenses that you mentioned are up to Nikon quality. I
> > know that Nikon isn't cheap, but in the long run it's actually cheaper
> > to own Nikon lenses, when you consider their resale value.
> >
> > Carl
I never look at the list price vs. resale value since I more than likely
will buy used lenses and if you buy used, shop wisely, and then later sell
to upgrade I would suspect that the argument of resale is a "red herring".
I bought a Nikkor 60mm 2.8 in mint shape for $275.00, did not use it much
for 3 years and sold it for $270.00. Similarly, I bought a Tokina 300mm f4
for $252 used and sold it for $250 a year later. I could give you
examples of branded and third party lenses coming out even in net costs.
When and if I buy new and I do, my merchant of choice is B&H and even there,
you will take a loss when reselling it later and I will admit, third party
lenses take the biggest % loss but in real dollars, yen, Euros etc, the out
of pocket actual money spent taking pictures is about the same. Buying new
Nikkors just means that you have more money initially out of pocket to get
more later. An example-----I bought a Sigma 17-35mm 2.8/4 for my wife's
Canon EOS digital system--paid $440.00 for it --sold it for $300 and lost
$140.00 from buying new. From a local merchant, I bought a Nikkor 17-35mm
2.8 AFS for a tad over $1600. Used it a few times and did not care for the
range of the lens and sold it several months later for $1200.00 so my out of
pocket was $400.00 plus. I know, you are going to say that the Nikkor
17-35mm is far superior to the Sigma and I will respond that it depends on
the use if it is better for my use and it was not. So even though
percentage wise, Nikkors hold resale better, in actual dollars that is not
often true.
Now having said that, resale value never enters my mind when NAS strikes.
It only enters my mind when after satisfying NAS, I find I never use the
lens or other Nikon gear and then try to sell it. I now firmly believe in
buying used, selling used and having more at less ultimate out of pocket
expense. May not make the camera dealers happy but I give them my money on
other things, believe me I do that!!
Mel
From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 06 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] time to get a real [telephoto] lens.
Date: Mon, 08 May 2000
From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [CONTAX] time to get a real [telephoto] lens.
>From: Oon Chin Hin [email protected]
>Subject: Subject: Re: [CONTAX] time to get a real [telephoto] lens.
>Date: Sun, May 7, 2000, 10:55 PM
>
> Dear Bob,
>
> I think there might be some truth in it, The reflecting mirror lies in the
> center of the lens, therefore blocking a fair part of the rays near the
> axis. So the only light that goes through are on the outer rims and
> therefore this may cause slightly less depth of field. I am however not sure
> about this.
> BTW, spraying water on sunbathing girls is not a good way to pick up chicks
> at the beach.
Date: Sun, 14 May 2000
From: KC Ng [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Tamron Adaptall 2 SP 180mm/F2.5 Lens
From Pentax Mailing List:
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
To:
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: missing lens from list...
I encountered a soligor lens on line today that I did not know
existed, when I checked your list for details I did not see it listed.
figured it might be an oversight?
From: Andrew Fildes [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: 3rd Party Lens List
Andrew
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: catadioptic zoom lens
From: Tony Spadaro [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quantaray lenses?
Chapel Hill artist and photo restorer
http://www.homeusers.prestel.co.uk/magor/tony (Java site)
And a NEW links site
http://tspadaro.homestead.com/TheLinks.html
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: WA Sigma 24mm 2.8 filtermatic
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Kingslake on filters
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] MTO/Rubinar Catadioptric Lenses
>You will note that they offer a Rubinar 500mm f/8 and a Rubinar 1000mm
>f/10. I have both. The 500 is damned good, better than much higher
>priced ones I have compared it to. The 1000mm is not as good, but still
>of high quality and beats out the low priced Japanese 1000.
>
>Note that they also offer a 500mm f/5.6 mirror!!! I don't have one of
>them, but want to get one.
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Cheap Long MF Lenses
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei/Zoom/Telephoto
> From: "carter" [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2001
> Subject: [Rollei] Rollei/Zoom/Telephoto
>
> How common is it for a zoom/telephoto lens to focus past infinity? I have a
> Tamron mirror lens that does this. By design so I am told. I am also looking
> at a Tamron Zoom lens 60-300mm but it also will focus past infinity. Again by
> design according to the users manual.
From: "Jason" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: 50mm lens tests - Older tests comparing Konica, Leica, Canon,
Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus...
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] OT Cosina 20mm lens
> There is another, another a 18-28mm Vivitar also made by Cosina, no idea
> on
> the quality though.
Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2001
From: "ryujin" [email protected]
Subject: Re:: Why use MF instead of AF - was: Lenses for a Hi-matic 7s
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2001
From: cm [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Spiratone Lens
From: cm [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: Spiratone Lens
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Tamron adaptall type?
Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Tamron adaptall type?
> From: "Jack Casner" [email protected]
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2001
> Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Tamron adaptall type?
>
> Bob, have you used more than one sample of the Rubinar? If they're all as
> good as you've noted, this lens would still be a bargain.
>
> Jack C
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: Steve Bartlett [email protected]
Subject: Re: Digest Number 167
2. Sigma 70-300 DL f/4.0-5.6 (14 elements 11 groups, 1 SLD
element)
3. Sigma 70-300 APO Macro f/4.0-5.6 (14 elements 11 groups, 2 SLD
elements)
4. Sigma 70-300 DL Macro Super f/4.0-5.6 (14 elements 10 groups, 1 SLD
element)
5. Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Super f/4.0-5.6. (14 elements 10 groups, 3 SLD
elements)
Steve
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO-1000
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
> Subject: [russiancamera] MTO-1000
>
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone has an MTO-1000 and what they think of it. I am
> wondering about buying a long lens in M42 and wondered what experience anyone
> might have of this one.
>
> Thanks
>
> Andrew Watt
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO-1000
> I was wondering if anyone has an MTO-1000 and what they think of it. I
> am
> wondering about buying a long lens in M42 and wondered what experience
> anyone
> might have of this one.
Kevin
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO-1000
>I was wondering if anyone has an MTO-1000 and what they think of it. I am
>wondering about buying a long lens in M42 and wondered what experience anyone
>might have of this one.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO-1000
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: MTO-1000
Kevin
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: vivitar 400
> I saw (but didn't get a chance to inspect closely) an old manual
> vivitar 400 (didn't get a chance to note the min. aperture) which was
> basically being given away at a local photo dealer. The note said it
> was for F and F2 cameras. Does anyone have any experience with this
> lens? Will it work on my Fe2 or F100?
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2001
From: "Delo, Lance" [email protected]
To: 'Robert Monaghan' [email protected]
Subject: RE: russian lenses pages
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2001
From: Wessel Dreyer [email protected]
Subject: Re: differences between "super" and "not super"
Steve
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: A lens is a smooth wide brush....
http://forums.delphi.com/dir-app/showprofile.asp?uname=PENTAXNUT
Bob,
Subject: A lens is a smooth wide brush....
From: (PENTAXNUT)
To: (PETERKUUS)
DateTime: 2/11/01 12:05:05 PM
Model, class, tested
f1.4
f2
f2.8
f4
f5.6
f8
f11
f16
Elmar 1:47,1955 50mm f3.5
66/26
66/30
59/37
59/37
59/37
59/42
47/42
Canon FD 50mm f1.4 SSC
55/34
62/39
62/49
69/55
69/62
69/62
69/55
62/49
Minolta 50mm f1.4 MC Rokkor
54/43
68/48
68/48
68/54
76/68
84/68
76/68
68/60
SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 No:565** 2/1973
53/30
59/33
67/42
75/53
75/59
75/53
67/53
59/53
SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4 No:651** 2/1974
55/31
69/31
78/35
78/49
87/62
87/69
69/62
69/62
Auto Chinon/ Tomioka 55mm f1.4 NO:306* for Gaf L/ES
45/32
56/40
63/45
63/45
63/45
56/45
56/45
56/45
Leica 50/2 Summicron Reflex for SL2
56/35
63/45
80/50
70/56
70/56
63/56
63/50
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Panagor lenses???
<[email protected]> �crit:
>Anyone hear of Panagor lenses? Were they once made by Vivitar ? Anybody ever
>use a Panagor 90mm f2.5 macro? Just curious to know if they stand up to
>Vivitar's Series 1's and Kiron's primes? BW
>
I been using a panagor 90 2.8 for 10 years now, with a minolta x 700.
I had to choose between this one and a Vivitar 100 or 105 macro, both
second hands I could afford ( about 150 $ ).
magazine ( chasseur d'images, n� 44 , august 1982 to be precise ) ; I
couldn't find any review for the vivitar series 1.
The review said : lack of contrast at full aperture, but excellent
sharpness at 5.6 and further : compares with the best ones on the
market ( the Tamron 90 f2.5 version II wasn't born at that time ) . As
it gives the 1 : 1 direct ( the vivitar was 1:2) , I bought it . I did
and still do a lot of macro, especially orchids as well as some
insects with it. I always found the sharpness awesome.
The lens is heavy ( 500 g ), focusing is hard ( it needs three turns
to go from infinite to 1:1), the contact with the rubber ring is
unpleasant ( I wound a rubber around it ); it leaves you 35 cm from
the body to the subject at 1 : 1. The real full aperture is smaller
than 2.8 : about 4 in fact. Its not a very handy lens, I dont take it
for wandering or portraiting on the street, I use a lighter and more
convenient 135 and a standard for that. I do macro with it, period.
german user saying the coating is really poor, giving a lack of
contrast, and it didn't compare with Tokina 90 2.5 ATX or Tamron 90
2.5. Here, fscd1 claims with a lot of concision it's a cheap end
consumer lens, and more precisely crap.
When I look to the 24 x 30 orchids on my wall, I must admit that we
don't agree about the meaning of the word crap. Maybe i'm not severe
enough, but I honestly can't imagine what else I could expect from a
macro lens. Used with a Manfrotto tripod , no wind, good film ( I use
fuji superia 100 or 200, and velvia 50 ), it is what I call sharp. I
just can't imagine why I should pay 5 times the price for a famous
brand. Now, I never compared it with other third part macros. So, I'm
going to borrow a tamron 90 2.5 or a minolta MD 100 macro and make a
serious comparative test one of these days, just to verify I'm not
blinded by love.
resolution to let you appreciate the sharpness of a picture ? If it's
possible, I could do some of my favorite macros and post them and have
some opinions.
That's my twopence about that good'old ugly lens. If you can try it,
do me a favor and tell me what you think of the results.
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 31 Aug 2001
Subject: Re: Panagor lenses???
[email protected]
Reared back and let loose this authoritative comment regarding a question about
Panagor lenses specifically the 90mm macro 2.5 posted by
"Bill Webster" <[email protected]>
>Cheap end consumer lenses, crap<
I have a a Panagor 90mm 2.8 (not 2.5), don't have the 2.5 so I can't comment on
that lens. I was introduced to it by a friend who is a dentist. Apparently this
lens was sold about ten+ years ago as part of a system specifically marketed to
dentists for close-up work. The rest of the system was I believe, an F3 and a
ring flash that ran off AC. As an amateur photographer my buddy also used this
set-up for "regular" photgraphy as well. He was very pleased with the results
all around - both as a dentist and photographer. I know he used it every day
until a couple of years ago when he went digital, but he still uses it for his
35mm hobby.
lens. Frankly I have not used it very much as a 90mm prime preferring to use a
Nikkor 105/2.5 when I want a lens of that approximate length. As a macro it is
sharp as a tack, it has from what i can tell _ I'm no expert_ "bokeh". It is a
kinda goofy lens as it does extend out when using it as a macro about as long
as a 200-300mm, about 9-10" making not the easiest handler in the world. As far
as build quality it appears to be pretty solidly built with smooth focusing
and good "feel" . Afterall my buddy used his a lot and other than some mild
brassing it still soldiers on.
>From what I understand Panagor and Kiron are the same company, now defunct
that
was an actual lens manufacturer. Vivitar on the other hand is a marketing
company that relies on contract manufacturing. I have been told and have read
elswhere that the Vivitar 90mm is in fact the Kiron/Panagor in slightly
different dress. The Kiron lenses have at least as good a reputation as Tokina
and Sigma as a third partylen company. Legend has it the company was founded by
a bunch of dis-affected Nikon engineers, don't know if that's true, but it
makes a good story.
Ken
From: "Ken Rosenbaum" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Soligor lens any good?
Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001
> > are they compere to Sigma, Vivitar and Tamron lenses. Anybody had used
> > them before or have one?
>
Hi,
I have very fond memories of the first Soligor I ever used. It was back
in 1962 while I was a student at Ohio State. I had saved my pennies and
bought a new Pentax H3v with clip-on meter and 50mm 1.8 Super Takumar. I
became chief photographer of the Daily Lantern, the student paper, and it
was my job to shoot the Ohio State football games for the paper.
Well, let me tell you, a 50mm lens doesn't cut it on the sidelines at
Ohio Stadium. I got some great stuff standing on the end line when the
Buckeyes punched over a run from the 2-yard line, but that was incredibly
limiting. For me, not the team.
But I digress. I had very little money left for anything, let alone a
decent telephoto for the sport I was shooting. The photo equipment cabinet
in the school paper's office had a nice collection of Rollei 2 1/4 gear, but
nothing I could really use. A pal let me use his Leica rangefinder and 135
lens once, and while I was thrilled with that, it still wasn't enough.
Soligor to the rescue. I laugh when I think about it now, but I came up
with $34.50 for a 180mm Soligor f3.5 pre-set lens, plus a few dollars more
for a 2x convertor that fit between the lens and the M42 adapter for my
Pentax.
This was for a mail-order deal from some N.Y. outfit whose name escapes
me now, but 47th Street Photo rings a familiar bell.
Back to the Soligor. I laughed, I cried, I screwed on the lens, then
screwed on the convertor, then back again, all the while running up and down
the sidelines with this cumbersome rig on either side of Woody Hayes.
It was indeed a fun time. I was using the speedy 160 Tri-X of the day,
pushing it to unrememorable ASA numbers so I could use at least 1/250 or
1/500 of a second speeds, then developing some of the film in Rodinal
injected with a syringe. Brings back some memories for me. Anyone else?
To continue, the most amazing thing of all was that the photos turned
out incredibly sharp. Contrast wasn't great on less-than-sunny days, but the
negs (that I still have) were remarkable. Even with the convertor, believe
it or not, giving me an even slower, pre-set contraption, I got great
results that looked perfect when published. The Associated Press bought a
couple of them, and I assure you that was a big thrill for a hungry student.
In the 1990s, I acquired another Soligor. This one was for a daughter's
first decent camera, a Pentax K1000 with normal lens. This Soligor was a
cheapie, although I can't rember the price. However little I spent for it, I
probably overpaid. It was a dual-focal length, as I recall, with 85mm and
135mm settings. It was uniformly soft with little contrast. When it was
stolen, the only tears shed were most likely by the schmuck who took it when
he realized what crap he had picked up.
My original Pentax and Soligor pre-set outfit from my college days were
lost in a fire years ago. I do not now shoot with Soligors simply because I
can afford better equipment. If the lens I bought in the 1990s is indicative
of Soligor quality today, save your money.
Sorry I rambled a bit with my post. I hope you enjoyed reading my
Soligor reminiscence.
Ken
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Thu, 1 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Topcon Uni
I have been using a Topcon Uni and Unirex since they were first introduced in
Japan.
Later, the camera was offered in the U.S. as the Beseler Auto 100 or
something like that.
I think that they are do a fine job, all things considered.
The torque required on the film advance lever is a bit higher that on most of
the other SLR's I own, but this is the way the camera normally works.
I don't know if I would try to lubricate anything in hopes of reducing the
amount of torque it takes to wind and cock. The wrong oil in the wrong places
can wreak havoc on a camera by migrating to places where there should be no
oil of any type..
I did purchase everything they had in the store for the Topcon Uni at that
time. That included the microscope attachment, fine focus magnifying
eyepiece. 2X telextender aux. lens by Kenko, 50mm (standard with the camera),
35mm, 100mm and 200mm lenses, a right-angle viewer, which is nice when using
the camera on a microscope. And there are probably a few other gadgets that
I've forgotten about over the years.
The camera served me well when I was doing a lot of work with integrated
circuit design and fabrication and needed good, clean 8in x 10in B&W prints.
After over 30 years, the camera still works like new, and I still use it.
Later I purchased a Topcon Unirex, but for some reason never used it as much
as I did the Topcon Uni.
Just thought you'd like to hear from a person who got a great deal of use out
of his Topcon Uni.
Good Luck With Your Uni.
Roland F. Harriston
From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: compatible lenses?
Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2001
[email protected] wrote:
>
> Decent Pentax Takumar lenses go pretty cheaply on Ebay and there usually
> are plenty of them. Say $20 for a 50mm f1.4; $30 for a 135/f3.5;
> $25-$35 for a 35mm/f3.5; $35-$45 for a 28mm/f3.5. These are among the
> best lenses you can buy for an M42 mount camera.
My recent experience with Pentax Super Takumar and Super-Multi-Coated
Takumar lenses with the M42 mount is that they are among the best lenses
you can buy for *almost any* 35mm SLR.
And I don't easily offer praise. g>
--
Best regards,
Anthony Polson
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina 50mm F3.5 "Heliar"?!
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina 50mm F3.5 "Heliar"?!
>
> I thing most Cosina products are marketed under other brand names, e.g.
> the cheap, non-AF Canon and Nikon SLRs, many consumer grade zoom lenses
> for Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Minolta. And they sell through mailorder/chain
> stores with own labels, e.g. Foto Quelle ("Revue", mostly made by
> Chinon) and Foto Porst ("Edixa", "Exakta"), which all utilise formerly
> prominent brand names.
>
> HP
>
Right idea but wrong brands. Cosina makes non-AF cameras for almost
everyone but Canon. There is no non-AF Canon SLR at this time. This is
due to the electrically driven diaphragms in Canon lenses. Likewise
they don't make any lenses for Canon, although they do make Canon mount
lenses for several companies. Their lenses are commonly seen here under
the Vivitar name.
Bob
To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang
Charles Monroe at [email protected] wrote:
> I've lately seen a lot of Phoenix/Samyang lens
> on e*ay of various focal lengths. Are these any
> good, or maybe better put - how well do they
> compare to Zuiko?
They're good designs often sloppily assembled. But the worst of
them is probably better than Zuiko.
Bob
To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang
Mark Overton at [email protected] wrote:
> Isn't Zuiko made by Olympus? If so, did you mean that the *best* of
> them (Phoenix/Samyang) is probably *worse* than Zuiko? Or am I
> missing something here?
Zuiko is Olympus's brand name for lenses, and they consistently tested
worst of all lenses tested. I did mean that the worst Samyang was probably
better than Zuiko.
Bob
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang
On 14 Jan, Bob Shell wrote:
>, Mark Overton at [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Isn't Zuiko made by Olympus? If so, did you mean that the *best* of
>> them (Phoenix/Samyang) is probably *worse* than Zuiko? Or am I
>> missing something here?
>
>
> Zuiko is Olympus's brand name for lenses, and they consistently tested
> worst of all lenses tested. I did mean that the worst Samyang was
> probably better than Zuiko.
Bob, I'd be most interested to see your justification for this fairly
radical statement - it's certainly inconsistent with either my own
30 years of experience with a very wide range of Zuiko lenses, or with
any other information that I've seen in the past. (which isn't to say
that all Olympus lenses were all equally good performers - like most
manufacturers, they had good and "less good" designs).
However lenses branded "Zuiko" (as distinct from just "Olympus") were,
in my experience, generally very good to excellent. You may find it
interesting to take a look at:
http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests
Rgds,
--
Richard Lindner [email protected] +61 (0)419 556 560
What a long, strange trip it's been
To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang
Eric Maquiling at [email protected] wrote:
> I thought Olympus Zuiko lenses were very good? Just didn't marketed well.
> I used to know a lot of Olympus SLR diehards.
They were the worst lenses ever marketed by a camera maker. I'm speaking of
the ones for the OM system.
Bob
To: [email protected]>
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Phoenix/Samyang
[email protected] at [email protected] wrote:
> Bob, I'd be most interested to see your justification for this fairly
> radical statement -
Actual lab tests. Now let's drop this, because this doesn't belong here.
Ask me off list if you want more info.
Bob
From: "Alberto Lui" [email protected]>
To: "Robert Monaghan" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Kiron 28-200 zoom
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2001
Hi Bob,
I was looking for a travel lens, I found the zoom on a magazine here in
Italy and I knew your page on the 28-210 and your opinion on Kiron lenses.
It was quite cheap, the seller sounded a good honest person and I was
curious. So, I bought it pig in a poke and now I'm waiting for it.
I've been told it's a 28-200 3.5/5.6 , 1:4 macro at 200mm, 2,5 mt. minimum
focusing distance, filter size 72mm, weight ~ 700-800 gr. These
characteristics let me hope the zoom is not too different from his ancestor
28-210.
About the Kiron presence on the today's market, I hoped to have news from
you. ;-)
The seller told me he bought the zoom on '97 and it was new(?).
I made a little partial research and I found Kiron was on the market in
Italy until '91 at least, but it was out on '96. To my knowledge, today's
there is no Italian importer of Kiron products and the absence of news on
the net about recent lenses let me suspect Kiron is still out of the market.
OK, thank you for your attention, I'll be pleased to send you any further
information. Best compliments for your very interesting web pages.
Regards.
Al
Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2001
From: William Hann [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Press coverage of the Third Party Lenses site
Hi
Just to let you know that the Third Party Lenses Resources site has
been mentioned in the latest edition of the Free Pint Newsletter
at http://www.freepint.com/issues/020801.htm> in an article about
finding photography resources on the Web.
Thanks
William
William Hann BSc MIInfSc
Managing Editor, Free Pint http://www.freepint.com/>
"Helping 40,000 people use the Web for their work"
e: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002
From: Martin Trautmann [email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: third party lenses
Hi Robert,
do you spend any further time on the excellent compilation of information,
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/third/ ?
I built a list of AF lenses, while during this collection I found
numerous MF data as well.
Now I wonder where to obtain from, compare with and correct this
information.
Do you have any further material, other than listed on your pages?
Do you plan do spend some more effort here?
Kind regards
Martin Trautmann
http://home.arcor.de/objektive/
--
Martin Trautmann tel:++49-761-5035732
Wildtalstr. 45 fax:++49-89-2443-13836
D-79108 Freiburg mailto:[email protected]
Subject: Re: No third-party tilt-shift lenses?
From: [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002
> So why don't third party manufacturers offer tilt-shift lenses?
Just too small a market. Canon and Nikon need to round out the system
offerings for pro photographers and include in their product lines lenses
that don't really sell enough to be profitable but do make the breadth of
the system appealing to pro photographers. It is this breadth of line that
has made these the two top names in 35mm photography for pros. A pro may
never need or buy a PC lens but he knows it is there right along with the
600mm f4 telephoto and fisheye lens that he may also never need or buy.
There is comfort in a broad, well supported system. Canon and Nikon know
this well. Good shooting.
Fred
Maplewood Photography
To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2001
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Topcon Unirex with mirrow up
[email protected] writes:
> I wouldn't touch them with a 10 foot pole - if you find one that works, grab
> it then get the link lubed with Zeiss lube - they made (in the '60's)
I have been using a Uni 100 and a Unirex ever since I purchased them in Japan
when they first came out. Never had a failures or problems with them. I have
all of the lenses, microscope attachment, viewfinder magnifier, etc. etc. I
used to use them a lot when I worked in the microchip fabrication industry. I
had the Uni attached to an Olympus metallurgical microscope and got really
good results. I still use them for normal photography.
They are good cameras if you don't abuse them.
Roland F. Harriston
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002
From: Martin Trautmann [email protected]>
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>
Subject: Re: third party lenses
Robert Monaghan wrote:
> Wow! Nifty and massive effort ;-) I tried to convert to HTML using Excel
> several times, but the sheer size of the conversion evidently locked up
> Excel ;-)
Yeah, that's true.
What I do recommend instead: export it as tab delimited text, then convert
this manually to a table.
A simple replacement of every tab by /td>td> does the main job, than
adding to every line a /tr>tr>td> does the next step, then adding
table> before and after.
That's the way I built the AF table, including (or creating) links to the
images. Excel itself is a major bug, exporting html links, especially with
name tags (as they are used within my glossaries).
> again, congrats on your big project and results to date, and many thanks
> for sharing these interesting results with us!
What I do is nothing, compared to your major work.
My knowledge is very limited, just collecting data from various sources.
And you're right about the companies - I consulted Sigma, Tamron and
Tokina for old data. It's hard to believe how little information they
kept.
Thus external sources are a major guarantee for quality :-(
Joining efforts may be the best way to go :-)
Kind regards
Martin
From: [email protected] (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 20 Oct 2001
Subject: Nothing Screams AMATEUR Like a Third-party Lens
Food for thought:
Nothing Screams AMATEUR Like a Third-party Lens
Yep, that's the title on a new Canon ad campaign, pushing "genuine" canon
lenses. Included in the ad copy are other gems like "And no third-party lens
can give you the features of a Canon EOS lens."
Honestly, can't they do better than that? Really, if you translate the
headline, doesn't it mean "Third-party lens manufacturers are seriously cutting
into our sales with products that perform as well but cost less."??
First of all, Canon is insulting every amateur photographer by implying that
there is something inferior or wrong with being an amateur photographer. If a
person is an amateur photographer, what's wrong with that? The vast majority
of photographers ARE amateurs.
Second of all, the headline is false. There are many, many third-party
lenses out there that can hold their own or even outperform Canon lenses, and
at a lower cost. Every manufactuer has a great spread of lenses at different
quality levels and cost. Frankly, I think manufacturers like Sigma and Tokina
provide a much higher value than typical Canon lenses, if you consider cost vs.
performance.
Third, the whole campaign trades on the apparent techno-envy of many amateur
photographers who haven't figured out that pro equipment doesn't mean pro
photographs. Of course, big manufacturers like Canon and Nikon have been
playing this card for years, trying to convice amateurs that they will shoot
just like the pros if they just buy the EOS 1v or similar equipment. We have
Annika1980 and EOS1vfan to dispel that myth forever.
I'd recommend Canon put their money where there mouth is and offer to sell
equivalent Canon lenses at the same price as competitor's lenses. I think
you'd find that most amateurs would line up to buy Canon lenses for Sigma
prices. But I can coin my own headline to cover the probability of that
happening: "Pigs Fly and Hell Freezes Over as Canon Drops Lens Prices to Match
Competitors"
From: [email protected] (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 21 Oct 2001
Subject: Re: Nothing Screams AMATEUR Like a Third-party Lens
>>Canon has balls the size of Volkswagons to say that, though, since
they got established by making third party lenses themselves to fit
Leica bodies.
And even funnier, since in the beginning Nikon made the lenses for them.
From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001
From: "Marko B." [email protected]>
Subject: New Sigma lenses!
15-30 and 20-40!
That 20-40 looks interesting on paper. I wonder how will it do in practice
and how much will it cost. 15-30 is light only 615g. I wonder how heavy
the 20-40/2.8 will be (no info on sigma web pega yet).
Too bad you can't remove the hood from that 15-30 :(
m.
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2001
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Lens brand opinions
Have to rate them based on your own needs. I have lenses from all three. I
rate Sigma best because I only use their pro lenses and they are superb.
On the otherhand I stay away from their consumer lenses because of quality
control. I like most of the lenses from Tokina but I rate their
performance lower in the sizes I like Sigma for. But the construction is
better and some of their lenses are really good. I rate Tamron 3rd theses
days (they were my 1st choice years ago) because they don't do as much in
the pro area as the other 2 makers. But I rate their consumer lenses as
the best of the three and I have several currently in my collection
(including one of the new 24-135 ones). I also rate them good because of
the Adaptall/2 lens system which allows me the ability to add pro lenses
to even my old Pentax screwmount collection.
If my focus was different I'd rate the order different.
Kent Gittings
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: Ulrich Olaf [email protected]
Subject: Re: Quality of older MC vs. MD
Susan [email protected] wrote:
> I need some advice on which version of
> a lens to keep. [...] Is the optical
> quality of the older MC any better or
> worse than the newer MD?
In my experience, the old MC lenses were one heck of sharp
lenses already; the newer MD lenses are hardly better, or only
slightly so. At least as far as resolution, distortion, and
vignetting are concerned. However, there's one field in which
the newer lenses are better: flare control due to improved
coating.
Though the MC lenses' multi-coating was very good at its time,
the coatings yet have improved with the MD lenses. With many
lenses (particularly wide-angle) you sometimes can see the
difference in the viewfinder. Aim at the sun, then move the
camera so the sun approaches the egde of the viewfinder and see
what happens to flare and ghosting when the sun just gets
outside the viewfinder. With many MD lenses, flare is
significantly less than with the respective MC lens.
I do own several MC and MD Rokkor lenses which I both use
often and deliberately. If I buy more lenses I prefer MD Rokkor
versions generally but MC Rokkors are fine also.
Susan further wrote:
> Then there is the older Rokkor-X MD's
> and the newer, smaller MD's. Which of
> those are better? Size and weight are
> not really an issue, I just want to keep
> the best one optically.
Personally, I consider the early MD lenses the most desirable
Minolta lenses overall. Their coating usually is better than
the older MC lenses'; their mechanics is better than the newer
3rd-generation MD lenses'. The latter -- with orange-colour
feet distance scales, aperture ring tabs, and no Rokkor name --
have a lot of plastic in their barrels (still, they are very
good optically).
I don't know if the latest MD lenses are better than the earl-
ier MD Rokkor lenses. Some of the latest ones got re-designed
optics and are smaller than their predecessors. I somehow got
the impression that with these lenses, Minolta silently intro-
duced the concept of consumer and pro-grade lenses. The simpler
optics, like 50 mm f/1.7, 28 mm f/2.8, 35-70 mm f/3.5-4.8 etc
are rather flimsy and trashy while the more sophisticated
lenses, like 135 mm f/2, 85 mm f/2, 28 mm f/2, 20 mm f/2.8 etc
are very good, with not so much plastic (if any).
With the earlier lens lines (MD Rokkor and MC Rokkor), there
was no difference in the build quality of the slower and faster
lenses. An MD Rokkor 28 mm f/3.5, for example, was as carefully
and precisely built as its bigger brother, the MD Rokkor 28 mm
f/2. Both were trusty, heavy chunks of brass and glass, no
plastic inside. I believe with the latest MD (non-Rokkor,
orange feet scale) line, this is no longer the case.
Susan finally wrote:
> Also, I have an MC 28 1:2.5 and a
> MD Rokkor-X 28 1:2.8 and want to keep
> one. I figure I should keep the 2.5
> for that extra bit of speed.
That extra bit of speed is worth 1/3rd of an f-stop which is
hardly worth considering. I'd recommend to keep the MD Rokkor.
Only if you plan to use it mostly indoors then maybe the
slightly faster MC 28 mm f/2.5 will make a preferable
difference. If in doubt then why don't you make a few test
shots in order to directly compare them one to the other?
If you really need speed then better sell both and get a MC or
MD Rokkor 28 mm f/2. These, however, have the disadvantage of a
rotating filter thread. Or you get the latest MD 28 mm f/2;
this one is built fairly good despite being a non-Rokkor, and it
has a non-rotating filter thread despite employing floating
focusing (BTW, this one does have a rotating front element but
still the filter thread rotates not).
Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
[email protected]>
[email protected]
From minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001
From: Ulrich Olaf [email protected]
Subject: Re: MD lenses
Someone called [email protected] wrote:
> Are these still being made?
The manual-focus Minolta Rokkor lens line-up once had approx.
50 different lenses, from 7.5 mm Fish-eye to 1,600 mm
catadioptric super telephoto lens. Most of those are
discontinued today. Some live on with a new mount and barrel,
as AF lens. Only half a woeful dozen MD lenses are still made:
MD 28 mm f/2.8
MD 50 mm f/1.7
MD Macro 50 mm f/3.5
MD Macro 100 mm f/4
MD Zoom 35-70 mm f/3.5-4.8
MD Zoom 70-210 mm f/4.5-5.6
Any other MD lens (and MC lenses, too) must be searched for in
the pre-owned market.
Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)
[email protected]
[Ed. note: Important Warning on using Ricoh "P" lenses with Pentax AF Mounts...!!!]
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002
From: "Gerald W. Crum" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Pentax K mount compatibility.
I read Grover's comments with some interest, but there are other
incompatibilities. Ricoh used a different electrical contact scheme than
Pentax for manual focus lenses on program mode cameras. If a lens or
multiplier with the Ricoh "P" dedication is used on a Pentax AF mount (body
or a multiplier) the pin for the Ricoh dedication drops into the hole in the
mount for the drive lug and locks the lens to the mount. I have run into
this on third party lenses which had the combined KRP (or KPR) mount with
both kinds of dedication, with Ricoh "P" lenses on Pentax AF mounts, and
with Tamron Adaptall mounts with the Ricoh "P" dedication.
Either surgery or brute force is needed to get them apart. If the lens to
mount fit is a little sloppy, sometimes a thin piece of plastic can be slid
in and worked around enough to break it loose. In another case, a lot of
torque on the mount sheared off the Ricoh pin and freed the mount. But then
the lens lacked the "P" dedication.
If you are tempted to use a third party K mount lens on your AF Pentax, be
sure it does not have the Ricoh dedication.
Jerry Crum