|
|
Post by landsknechte on Jan 6, 2007 18:52:08 GMT -5
Picked up an Agfa Optima IIs at the local fleamarket for $5 this afternoon. Obviously haven't had a chance to look at any test shots from it, but I was curious if anyone had any experience with the Color-Apotar 45/2.8.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 6, 2007 22:33:02 GMT -5
No experience with that lens, but I just tried out a Super Silette L with a Color-Solinar 50/2.8 and was not disappointed. Be sure and post your commenets on it when tou get a chance.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Jan 7, 2007 19:01:09 GMT -5
The Apotar was Agfa's 3 element design and was the one put in most of it's late 50s & early 60s designs. The Solinar was reserved for its more expensive cameras.
There were lots of these "workmanlike" 3 element lenses sold in the period - Cassars, Reomars, Pantars, Radionars, Ennagons, Baldanars Lanthars - doubtless you can add others. Always on the cheaper models (with the probable exception of Zeiss -Contina & Viogtlander Vitos which put three element lenses in quite expensiveversions)
Like most of its ilk, as long as you don't try it wide open at f2.8 or f3.5, you will probably not notice the difference between it and the results from your "Quality" camera!
Proof? Well I have taken a Baldessa with a its Baldanar on several holidays and I can't see the difference in the results between those taken on my Nikon! (OK, I am elderly and the faculties are fading, but honestly they are very, very similar)
Just don't try it wide open, in poor light or into the sun!
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by Just Plain Curt on Jan 7, 2007 20:27:39 GMT -5
I'd have to say Paul said it to a T. Nice old Agfas capable of good results but not at their best wide open. I have a Selecta, Optima 1A X3, Optima IIS, Memar, Silette LK, Agfamatic 1A X3, Optima 1 X3, Optima 335 Sensor, Ansco Memar X2, Optima 500 Sensor, Silette SLE, Silette SL, Silette x3, as well as several folding Speedex, Venturas, and Regents. Plenty of Apotars and Solinars both capable and decent lenses. I think you'll really enjoy yours. For the price I grab every one I can lay my mitts on.
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 7, 2007 20:52:14 GMT -5
I have a feeling that what Paul said about it not being too far off your quality kit is true from the very few photos that I took. The Color-Solinar is not too bad wide open at 2.8 though. I tried and just missed the focus on his eyes at 2.8 I think. Still I would not think twice about using it wide open if I had too. Bob  |
|
|
|
Post by paulatukcamera on Jan 8, 2007 5:19:59 GMT -5
Bob, just a small correction - the Solinar was a four element Tessar type construction. As I believe that many of the Japanese designs of the early 1960s were also based upon this lens, then what you have is an example of the best "all rounder" in the business!
Even at f2.8, the Solinar in my first 35mm camera was a good performer. I did take a lot of Agfa transparencies with it as a 17 year old, so I must really dig them out and publish.
I think discussions on lens performance are always overrated. For the last fifty years or so, 35mm cameras have produced excellent results. Put even a humble Retinette or Silette on a tripod, focused accurately with a fine grain film in reasonable daylight and I think even the perfectionists would say "that's top class"
The problem is real life. Most happy snappers can't hold the camera steady, let alone focus! Automatic focusing has been a boon for Mr & Mrs Average and the rise & rise of the single lens reflex has also eased focusing problems for the enthusiasts.
I have always thought that the rangefinder camera is not only simpler than an SLR in a mechanical sense, but actually delivers a sharper average picture because there is less "jar" at the moment of taking. So I tend to select 1/60 - 1/125 as a norm on a rangefinder, and 1/125 - 1/250 on an SLR.
The other fault of most rangefinders of the period suffer from is inaccurate focusing because of age/bad treatment. The accuracy in use is also impaired because the double image has faded.
My advice is - get yourself a good Werra with the clearest rangefinder in the business + a Tessar lens. I don't think you can get a better combination in a small camera. The dearer models also give a choice of wide angle & portrait lens.
The above recommendation is given in the true spirit of acknowledging a better design. Me? I'll stick to my Retina 111C - and Baldessa 1B - put it down to irrationality!
Paul
|
|
|
|
Post by nikonbob on Jan 8, 2007 7:46:42 GMT -5
Paul
Thanks for the additional info on the Solinar. I agree that lens discussions for modern 35mm cameras made in the last 50 or so years is overrated except for the extremely picky. Most are good enough and some better. I am afraid that it was my fault in the focussing dept. as the VF patch is decent and I was moving my body back and forth at closest focus to try and get it. I have a pre war Elmar 50/3.5 that was cleaned/adjusted and just knocks my socks off with how it still can perform today even when used with the squinty RF/VF of a IIIc. Yeah, Tessars have stood the test of time. AF is good but it leaves me cold and uninvolved with the camera and the act of taking a photo. Then again I like muzzle loader rifles for the same reason.
Bob
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on Jan 8, 2007 10:45:52 GMT -5
Paul: I think you've hit on something that could deserve a thread of its own! I couldn't agree more that a lot of "lens performance" issues are basically the snob appeal generated by good marketing. I'll be the first to admit that there are lenses out there that deserve their rarified status, because they are truly precision quality instruments (and I'd love to have some of them). What I sometimes find irritating are the people who look down their noses at some of the "lesser" lenses, because they are, well...lesser. They don't have quite the same corner sharpness as the best-of-the-best, for instance, and that becomes an issue -- when, in truth, most of the ones making the issue couldn't tell the difference if someone didn't tell them it was there.  |
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Jan 8, 2007 16:45:49 GMT -5
I've an Agnar on an Isolette 1, and a Pantar on a Zeiss Ikon Contina. These are working cameras. Not the current state-of-the-art that a photo-journalist would need for his job, but the sort of camera that a family man would save up for months for, to take photographs of his most treasured possessions - his family. A touch of fuzz at the outside edges when fully open? Who cares! You can crop with your eyes too.....
Regards - John
|
|
