|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 4, 2012 16:46:15 GMT -5
This is a local find not ebay. I just could not resist it. The case is in just as good condition too. Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 4, 2012 18:31:27 GMT -5
Bob, a proper lens where the distance from the lens to the film plane is what it says on the "tin".
|
|
photax
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1,915
|
Post by photax on Jun 5, 2012 15:05:30 GMT -5
Bob, This one seems to be a real good lens. Have fun ! MIK
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 5, 2012 15:51:52 GMT -5
The kicker is that it was priced at $9.99.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 5, 2012 16:04:06 GMT -5
That's the sort of thing that many sellers here, particularly that stall in the market, would want £30 for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2012 17:09:25 GMT -5
Looks like an RF lens. Does it have the Contax mount?
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 5, 2012 18:35:51 GMT -5
Wayne
Yea, it is a rangefinder lens but in Leica thread mount.
Dave
Buy all the Nikon rangefinder lenses you can in that condition for 30 pounds. I did a quick check on eboy and just about gagged. I have one for my S2 so may be I can trade it for a couple of good straight razors.
Bob
|
|
daveh
Lifetime Member
Posts: 4,696
|
Post by daveh on Jun 5, 2012 23:07:31 GMT -5
Bob, if I saw it at £30 I would buy it. It's just that everything offered for sale here seems significantly more than you, or especially MIK, seem to be able to find.
|
|
|
Post by grenouille on Jun 6, 2012 2:46:48 GMT -5
I still have to find something like it at that price and over here its like looking for a needle in a haystack, good one Bob
Hye
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 6, 2012 5:05:17 GMT -5
Dave
Don't worry it is just as rare here too, maybe once in a decade I run into something like this. OTH our friend MIK certainly has the touch for finding good stuff on a regular basis. The prices do seem to be higher on your side of the pond though.
Hye
Thanks, I was not seriously looking for camera gear and that seems when things like this happen.
Bob
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2012 16:16:10 GMT -5
The 135mm lenses never were quite as popular for RFs as for SLRs for some reason. Back when they were relatively new they didn't fetch the kind of prices the 35mm WA lenses commanded. RFs always seemed to me to be more WA than telephoto cameras.
W.
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on Jun 8, 2012 3:18:58 GMT -5
I think that 135mm lenses were more difficult to focus accurately on RF cameras.
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 8, 2012 5:40:37 GMT -5
Wayne
Yea, 135 was not as popular as the wides for RF users back in the day and even today for those that still using RFs. It might have something to do with the reason Rachel suggested and I never found the small 135 frame lines much fun either. I don't think optical quality of 135s was much of an issue. Today's relatively higher prices are collector driven, I think, with condition of the item being one factor. Condition being the same you would still likely pay more for wides today especially the fast ones. From a strictly using standpoint though, it is still possible to build a RF kit set up fairly cheaply using beater condition items. That is the norm even with current production used items where fine condition usually rates some form of premium.
Bob
|
|
mickeyobe
Lifetime Member
Resident President
Posts: 7,280
|
Post by mickeyobe on Jun 8, 2012 6:50:19 GMT -5
I think that 135mm lenses were more difficult to focus accurately on RF cameras. I am not denying this as I was almost always a SLR user. However, it seems to me that a RF with its mechanical focusing be it a superimposed or split image would be more exact than a ground glass image that relies entirely upon the photographer's eye sight and judgement under conditions that are sometimes far from ideal. Mickey
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jun 8, 2012 7:25:21 GMT -5
Mickey
You would certainly think that the mechanical focusing of a rangefinder would be more accurate than that of an SLR. I think it generally is especially with wides. You still need to have a sharp view of the RF patch and that can be a challenge if you don't have 20/20 vision and no way of adjusting the diopter. If you don't place your eye correctly directly behind the patch and are slightly off to one side it can cause a softer focus. The RF being mechanical can be bumped out of adjustment by the camera impacting something or being dropped in-transit while being shipped. The shipping bit happened twice to me. Not much fun finding out only after you get you photos back. There is also such a thing as the base length of the RF mechanism itself which limits accurate focusing at longer focal lengths. Leicas and their clones have a shorter base length than the Contax/Kiev and as a consequence the 135 is about the upper limit for Leicas. The Contax is easier to focus a 135 with. Seems ever system has it's pluses and minuses even AF. Been bitten by all of them at one time or another.
Bob
|
|