|
Post by daveinpasadena on Feb 28, 2008 1:21:49 GMT -5
They are basic, but probably decent lenses that can get the job done. Enjoy using and collecting them. One of the fascinations of collecting SLR lenses for common SLRs like Minolta is that they are seemingly infinite in number and variation.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Feb 21, 2008 0:43:38 GMT -5
Wow. Impressive. These are hard to find and command pretty good $$ when sold. I've used Exakta and Praktina Schacht's with very good results, although at 35mm and 135mm. I think they were one of the German companies playing catchup with Zeiss serving the third party lens market in Europe, but they were undoubtedly top notch by any historical standard.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Feb 21, 2008 11:29:40 GMT -5
Unless they are exceedingly rare, 135mm rangefinder lenses don't command too much money in the second hand market. I think there are several reasons for this. One is that they are not currently popular since many rangefinder bodies do not have integral 135mm finders. This means an external finder is required and that can be tricky to setup correctly at such a long focal lengths. There is also a school of thought which cotends that 135mm is just too long for practical use on a rangefinder (I don't belong to that school). Also, there were a lot of 135mm rangefinder lenses made in the 50's since at that time it was the main path to telephoto capability. Remember that at that time the SLR was not common place and was relatively expensive. Finally, 135mm optical designs are simpler than shorter lenses -- less glass and less exacting tolerances than short lenses -- so they cost less to begin with.
Also, by the way, if you've been sticking mostly to Leica lenses (which are all wonderful) you've been missing a lot of the fun of using and collecting 35mm rangefinders and lenses.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Feb 21, 2008 0:46:48 GMT -5
I can't comment about the 135mm Steinheil Culminar's, they seem pretty common on eBay though. I do know that the 85mm F2.8 was bandied about quite a bit a couple of years ago on RangeFinder Forum as being a great lens, etc. -- that drove up their prices for a while! I can't imagine any lens from Steinheil being if not outstanding, at least very good.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Jul 4, 2007 0:54:50 GMT -5
The difficulty of design and manufacture of refractive optical systems increases non-linearly as an inverse power of the f-ratio. The brightness on the focal plane goes as the square of the inverse f-ratio. This is why F2 is not really considered "fast" while F1.4, seemingly a minor numerical increment, is.
The lens speed (i.e. minimum f-ratio) effectively meters sensitivity to *extended* sources of light, while the effective aperture of the lens measures sensitivity to point sources of light. The effective aperture is the focal length divided by the focal ratio, so 50/1.2 lenses with differing filter sizes have the same light gathering power irrespective of the filter ring size. For ordinary photography it's the minimum f-ratio (speed) that is the key to efficiency, not the lens diameter. Lens diameter and speed are necessarily interrelated however since film size is fixed. This means that if the speed is increased (i.e. f-ratio decreased) yet the focal length kept the same, the only way to achieve this is to increase the lens effective diameter (real lens diameters increase similary). Raw optical glass costs are a function of diameter, also in a non-linear way, thus the "fast" requirement tends to beg larger diameter glass which contributes to cost. The "glass" in question may actually be rather exotic material like fluorite or ED glass to aid in aberration suppression, further impacting expense.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Feb 8, 2008 23:58:29 GMT -5
Dave. Actually I guess the film was Sandisk Ultra II 4 gig card -- ISO 250. In other words, digital. Since it's about trains I snuck out of the digital section. Lens was a 50mm f1.8 Nikkor on a Nikon D300. The main Union Pacific line from Salt Lake City to Portland is less than a block from where I work. Over the past 10 years, I've spent a lot of lunch hours over there shooting with my Soviet gear and film Nikons and more recently with DSLR. Damn! You caught me in the act of praising a digital camera! :-)
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Jan 31, 2008 0:36:00 GMT -5
Rich lovely colors. I wish I had the time to photograph trains. What film did you use?
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Jan 26, 2008 21:35:30 GMT -5
Impressive photos. I take it that these are not standard LTM 39mm lenses, but some proprietary variation?
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Jan 21, 2008 4:50:12 GMT -5
Wayne, I've own or own now an L1, L3, P, VI-L, 7, VT, and various Canon bottom loaders so I have some perspective. The L1 has a cloth shutter, an excellent viewfinder with 35mm and 50mm frames lines and flash sync. It is robust as hell. The VI-L is my favorite, but a good one costs as much as a Leica M3. The shutters all hold up pretty well, cloth or metal. The shutters and rangefinders often need adjustment, but they are easy to work on (by pro techs that is) and on most models the user can fully adjust the rangefinder. The 7 is not as overbuilt, but it's very practical with four sets of frame lines and parallax correction. These models are all highly recommended and well worth the money they command. Anyone out there have the Canon L1 or VL? They were the models with opening backs the preceded the Canon P. The VT was similar but had bottom trigger wind instead of a top lever.. I think most hade cloth shutters. Saw and L1 on Ebay the other day and though about bidding but when the bids went over $400 I thought again. The L1 is a heavier camera than the later P model.
|
|
|
Bessa R
Jan 20, 2008 11:46:42 GMT -5
Post by daveinpasadena on Jan 20, 2008 11:46:42 GMT -5
The J-12 will not work on a Bessa R (intereferences with internal structures). In fact the LTM J-12 will not work with many other bodies, but does happily work on most old bottom loaders like the Leica II/III series (and similar Japanese clones from Canon, Leotax, etc.). Most Bessa R's are in pretty good shape these days since they are fairly new, but there are the occasional problem cameras -- often due to heavy use.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Jul 4, 2007 1:46:58 GMT -5
None are cheap. The M2 and many double stroke M3's are lower-priced. I've seen some of these for as little as $450 if they had cosmetic issues, but worked otherwise. Often twice that if they are pretty. Older Summicron 50's are reasonably priced by Leica standards, but still $200-$300 for a decent one. It's darn nice stuff though, and although I am mired in the LTM and Contax universe, I often think of selling it all and moving to Leica M mount.
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Jan 11, 2007 0:37:27 GMT -5
This is Tyding Guide to Praktica, Praktina, Pentacon, Edixaflex Guide. Published in 1961, 127 pages and in good condition for a 46 y/o paperback. Price: $10 shipped in the USA (Media Mail). Overseas OK, but shipping is extra. Click here for a photo: www.flickr.com/photos/david_in_pasadena/353519876/
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Apr 9, 2007 1:23:56 GMT -5
Sold
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Mar 3, 2007 15:03:35 GMT -5
I still have it. Please email me if anyone needs it (david@ociw.edu)
|
|
|
Post by daveinpasadena on Mar 3, 2007 15:02:43 GMT -5
SOLD -thanks
|
|