|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Aug 24, 2007 6:28:25 GMT -5
Being curious to try out my 'new' Super Paxette II B L, I took it to town with me today and gave it a test in a variety of situations. Lens is a Steinheil Staeble-Werk Katagon 2.8/50. It had a spot of fungus on the outer surface of the front element. I cleaned the fungus with domestic glass cleaner, but I think that some slight damage to the coating remains. I've seen varying results from this lens on the net, from quite interesting to truly awful, so was keen to see what one would do for me. The film was plain old Fuji Superia 200, processed at a Fuji Image Plaza consumer lab. These images are from a CD provided by the lab, so they're scanned from the negs. The prints are more typically Fuji: warm but with very 'loud' greens. Handling-wise, the Braun is better than I thought, though I still tripped that durned shutter twice by accident. Lens sharpness is good at the centre but soft at the edges, even at f8 to f 16, whih is where all these images where made. Flare is evident, maybe as a result of the fungal damage. A hood would not be a luxury for this lens! crop of above. adequately sharp. disappointing flare, even with the sun over my right shoulder I like the saturation here, no filter, no digital manipulation. It won't replace the wonderful Rokkor on my HiMatic 7, but the Katagon isn't as awful as some make out.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Aug 24, 2007 10:54:16 GMT -5
Michael, I'm not familiar with the Katagon lens but your images are certainly OK. The small amount of flare in a couple of your shots could probably be improved with a little manipulation. No..... not a bad lens - or camera - at all IMO.
NZ is a beautiful country.
Walker
|
|
Reiska
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 558
|
Post by Reiska on Aug 31, 2007 9:33:11 GMT -5
I like these pictures as they are. The spring atmosphere and the possible flare are mixing beautifully.
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Aug 31, 2007 16:44:40 GMT -5
I like these pictures as they are. The spring atmosphere and the possible flare are mixing beautifully. Thanks, Reijo, and to Walker & Ron for positive comments. I'll admit that with the low, early spring light I was trying to 'outsmart' the Katagon with some shots. Maybe I can learn to appreciate flare as atmosphere too. The river, by the way, is the Avon, and it is flowing through the Christchurch Botanic Gardens, part of Hagley Park, which is located right beside the city centre. A really handy place to try cameras out. I'm learning to enjoy the Paxette and it has become my camera of choice for the moment. I still keep accidentally tripping that durned shutter though. My fingers are long, and when holding the camera with the usual left hand wrapped arounf the barrel, it is easy to let a finger brush against the shutter release and 'click'. I now have an Enna Tele-Ennalyt 3.5/135 on the way so that I can dive deeper into the strange world of Dr Braun.
|
|
|
Post by bcomber2 on Dec 11, 2007 7:14:22 GMT -5
Just a heads-up re a carl zeiss lens on TM/lenses/other 50mm f2.8 Tessar BTM (Braun Thread Mount - 39mm ) It comes complete with an old Braun paxette body - although only mentioned when buying.
|
|
PeterW
Lifetime Member
Member has Passed
Posts: 3,804
|
Post by PeterW on Dec 11, 2007 16:24:54 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
I've never tried a Katagon lens and don't know its construction, but it was one of Staeble's low-price lenses, so I would imagine it is a simple triplet. When Paxettes first came into the UK in the early 1950s the import restrictions on price meant that none of them were imported with the better class, and more expensive, lenses.
If I remember rightly, early Paxettes weren't rated very highly as performers though some seemed to be better than others. Some people put this down to loose tolerances in machining of the body, but when import restrictions were lifted and Paxettes came in with better lenses most people altered their opinion, so maybe the Katagons were variable in quality.
Yours certainly has a fair amount of flare, but I'm not suggesting that you necessarily have a mediocre example because the flare may be because the fungus you had to clean off the front damaged the coating more than you think. A lens hood may improve matters, but I wouldn't expect too much of a lens that has had fungus attack the coating.
Some people claim to have removed damaged coatings, the older single coatings, successfully using a very mild toothpaste, such as one made for young children, but as all toothpastes, even those for children, are mild abrasives there has to be a risk of damaging the surface of the optical glass. The only cleaner I have used on a lens, apart from non-abrasive window cleaner, is Pond's Cold Cream which, believe it or not, is a very, very mild abrasive. That's how it gets its excellent skin cleansing action, but I imagine it would need quite a lot of elbow grease to remove even a older soft coating.
What would concern me more is that you say the corners of the frame show a lack of sharpness even when stopped down. This isn't typical of even the cheaper triplets from the 1950s, though some show it if stopped right down. Generally, a 2.8 triplet is at its best around f/5.6. Are you sure there isn't any haze on any of the other elements?
Of course, domestic glass cleaner may not have removed the fungus, it may just have made it transparent. The best thing I've found for removing fungus is Dettox Mould and Mildew Remover which gets rid of it and doesn't seem to harm even soft coatings at all. I've removed fungus on several lenses with this. So far it hasn't returned after more than three years. I always wash off the mildew remover afterwards with plain water and after drying follow it with window cleaner. I don't know of a non-abrasive chemical cleaner that will remove lens coating other perhaps than some acids or caustic alkalis which might also attack the optical glass.
BTW 1. There seems to be some sort of translucent mark just over halfway up the first picture which doesn't look like flare. Could it be a process drying fault?
BTW 2. I'm surprised that you link Steinheil with Staeble. Does it actually say Steinheil on the lens? I wasn't aware of any link between the two companies except that they were both in Munich. Steinheil's low-cost triplet was the Cassar.
PeterW
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Dec 14, 2007 20:24:29 GMT -5
Peter, Thanks for the info on the fungus cleaner. You are so right about my confusion of Staeble with Steinheil. The translucent stripe in picture 1 is neither flare nor a drying fault, but a fine mesh netting to prevent tennis balls landing in the neighbours' fish ponds. Everything you say about the Katagon being a low-end lens rings true. The Staeble Color-Ultaralit is a better lens in terms of both ergonomics and performance, having 4 lens elements. There is a Super II L up for grabs on TM fitted with an Ultralit: www.trademe.co.nz/Electronics-photography/Film-cameras/Vintage/auction-131984314.htm
|
|