lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 25, 2013 3:37:54 GMT -5
Copied from a discussion on MF Lenses ages ago, there is a more up to date list, but I'll have to go and look for it. Rio Rioc's list 17xxxxxx --- Soligor WA 28/2.8 -- N/pre-AI, Tokina 28xxxxx ---- Soligor C/D 135/2.8 -- N/AI, Komine 38xxxxxxxx - Soligor C/D DualFocal 85+135/4.5 -- MD, Sun? 38xxxxxxxx - Soligor C/D Zoom Macro 28-80/3.5-4.5 -- N/AI, Sun? A1x... and A4x... -- Yashica C/Y 50's -- Komura? (my Yashinon M42 50's are numeric) C2xxxxx --- Super-Lentar 25/3.5 -- M42,  C3xxxxx --- Focal 200/3.5 -- M42, C6xxxxx --- Chinon 45/2.8 -- PK-M, H2xxxxx --- Super-Lentar 21/3.8 -- M42, Tokina H6xxxxx --- Hanimex 135/2.8 -- M42, Komine? (my other Hani's are numeric) K8xxxxxxx - Focal 135/2.8 -- KAR, L6xxxxx --- Toyo 5-Star 28/2.8 -- PK-M, Pancolart I'd say M code lenses are made by Miranda within 1963 to 1976 as described here: camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Miranda \ "It is said that the Miranda company set up its own lens factory in 1963 (earlier lenses were supplied by various manufacturers, except for the first Supreme). The company returned to the Japanese market in autumn 1964,[13] but the US importer Allied Impex gradually took control, and fully owned the company by the late 1960s. The Sensorex model was released in 1967, with TTL exposure metering. It is said that a new factory was opened outside Tokyo in 1970 or perhaps 1971. In 1971, the company introduced the Sensorex EE with shutter-priority automatic exposure and a new set of viewfinders. Upgraded as the EE-2 in 1976, it would be the last Miranda with interchangeable viewfinder. In 1972, the company released its only non-SLR camera, the Sensoret compact rangefinder. In 1975, it made an attempt at a compact SLR with fixed prism and electronically controlled shutter, called the Miranda dx-3. Neither of these met with great success, and the Miranda company went bankrupt on December 10, 1976 and stopped camera production the same month." \par \par Serials starting with "M" and branded Soligor (followed by 6 digits) one could assume first two digits were years of production. This could also be valid for some "H" prefix like this (Tokina, Sun, Hanimex, Lentar) 2.8/135mm: |
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 24, 2013 17:17:03 GMT -5
Its probably with the bloody spring that shot out of the film door hinge of may Yaschica, the big black hole that eats tiny parts  Mickey's idea is a good one, a lot of the screws are stainless / brass and non magnetic. |
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 24, 2013 5:31:02 GMT -5
They are rebranded lenses, some good, some bad, some just plain ugly! some are even very good. Which is why some of us spend so much time trying to identify the maker. I've got a lot of Soligors, I need to get them out and help identify these.
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 23, 2013 18:40:03 GMT -5
What camera do you need an adapter for ?
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 22, 2013 19:25:48 GMT -5
The best thing about flickr is - was ? - the social aspect. Once you become active in some groups, post comments on other peoples pictures, and post regularly, people comment on yours and soon you have a good network of photographers you like and share interests with. So that was good, it certainly helped me develop as a photographer.
but that is all changing, the CEO Marissa Mayer is on record as saying that flickr is too concentrated on words, her vision is one of a picture hosting site for people using mobile devices who want to send them instantly to other applications - she's chasing the facebook / instagram market and nothing is going to get in her way, certainly not photographers that want to display and present their pictures in a good way, that leaves unused pixels on the screen! and then talk about the pictures, that's a waste of bandwidth that someone can use to host a picture of a teenagers breakfast for her bestest friend to see!
All the changes to flickr are made to cater for that group of people, and the changes are deliberately engineered to make it difficult for photographers.
Sadly, some of us have been using flickr for nearly 10 years and developed a large group of contacts that we socialize with on flickr through our love of photography. And it's nice to see the statistics - they've gone as well - which tell us how many people have looked at our pictures that day. I've been averaging just over 300 views a day ( my best day was about 3,700 ) which I was very pleased with, even though some of my contacts were hitting close to 10,000 a day. The stat's drilled down to each individual image, and that was important to show if other people liked it.
It's gone, overnight a service many of us paid for has been ruined, all in the name of chasing advertisers that want the facebook demographic.
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 22, 2013 5:31:52 GMT -5
but they have ruined the site, and ripped off the people who had paid for the Pro level previously. The display of images is dreadful, they are bunched together with no white space, unless you use the view option which then displays the image on black ( no option to change )and puts the information and titles etc under the picture so you have to scroll down. What used to be clear and easy is now muddled and laborious. The official forum has about 20,000 complaints in the first day, and even now, 2 days later there is no response from anyone at flickr / yahoo.
They have redesigned the site to suit hand held devices such as smart phones, and enable prominent advertising. They simply have stopped caring about photographers who used and liked the site to show off their images, all they want is the smart phone user who posts throwaway pictures of themselves. We already have that kind of service in Facebook and other similar sites, but yahoo feel compelled to compete, so the photographers are out of the equation.
There's a general exodus to Ipernity, which is where I'll be going. Flickr have blown it.
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 21, 2013 18:26:35 GMT -5
I've got a few Russian's, and like them a lot. My Zorki 4K is good, the only criticism I have is the focusing patch is a bit vague. Once I'd set the lens register, it worked very well. The Kiev I like a lot, but I'm only on the first roll through it and haven't seen any results yet, but I bought a dead Contax for the Sonnar 50 and externally at least there is little to choose in the quality of each of them. The Kiev has a great focus patch as well, although I have another Kiev with a non moving patch.
The two FED 4's are still unused, but they do seem to be a cheaper build that the Zorki and Kiev. The Zenit's are a mixed bunch, I think I've 4 or 5 different ones, but they all work. Any 'quality and reliability' was due to the basic engineering method of "is that likely to break? if it is make it twice as thick!"
The quality was certainly suspect, but if the lottery of buying a Russian camera falls your way they are excellent.
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 20, 2013 13:56:23 GMT -5
That's a keeper! Well worth restoring and servicing.
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 16, 2013 3:58:15 GMT -5
 Fungus. by Mudplugga, on Flickr Nasty lens fungus etching. This is a big macro of the damage done to a lens element by the acid etching of fungus. The element has been cleaned using the tried and effective method of plastering it with cold cream then washing with Zippo lighter fuel, which cleaned the fungus off very effectively. But if the fungus has been there a long time this kind damage will remain, the fungus secretes an acid that eats into the glass and damages it beyond repair. This element is so bad it barely passes light, the lens is scrap. The main body of the fungus was on the most damaged part of the element, but the remaining surface, both sides, had the lighter damage which resembles the frosted glass for bathroom windows. The etching of the element was deep enough to feel with my fingertips. Also, this was the only element in the lens that had any fungus at all, the other elements were perfect. But I'm not too broken hearted, it was a junk Sigma zoom that was a freebie. The macro was done using the Sony NEX5, a Pentax PK fit Miranda 75-200 Macro zoom that does a genuine 1:1 macro, and then I put a Zeiss Tessar 50mm reversed on the front of the Miranda, I have no idea what the final macro magnification is but it was big. |
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 16, 2013 3:09:50 GMT -5
I'm finding cheap and decent usable Nettar and Perkeo cameras in charity shops and yard sales regularly. The Nettar I use is in just about perfect condition and cost me £5 ( UK Pound )  I'm very pleased with it. I also have a Mamiya C3 Pro' which I rarely use because it is so big and slow to use, I love it, but once the camera, lenses and accessories and sturdy tripod are in a backpack my wife just refuses to carry it. Go for a Nettar or similar, it fits in a coat pocket and takes great pictures. |
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 13, 2013 17:58:11 GMT -5
OM 30 - no seal on the catch end, OM 1, there's a film in it.
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 12, 2013 16:37:29 GMT -5
I think that at that kind of magnification a tripod is useful, which is where I think your picture loses some sharpness, it's through shake and not through missed focus or any fault of the lens. But, it does show what you and that lens can do. That Tamron was one from their regular lens range, and one of their best sellers for good reason - it's a sharp lens, especially in the center. I like the older Tamrons and I've got one of these that is fungused, and it still takes decent pictures. I haven't done anything with it because it's also a bit battered and it cost me nothing. I like tubes, they're simple and effective for close focus and macro, but the camera does need to be rigid.  The bokeh from the lens is very nice and creamy, it suits close work as the background is not distracting at larger apertures. |
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 12, 2013 15:13:42 GMT -5
I have no biological background at all, I'm an engineer, but I have a friend who is a mycologist and is studying ways to isolate bacteria and fungi that 'eat' materials that are considered waste and non biodegrable such as plastics. After baffling me with science he gave me the simple explanation that some fungi are closely related to lichen, and they excrete enzymes that dissolve the material they settle on to get at the nutrients they need. I think that's the simple explanation anyway, we were having this discussion over a few beers !
|
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 12, 2013 13:10:47 GMT -5
My view is that the mold spores are in the air, and it's more about the storage of lenses rather than the risk of infection from another infected lens - or the fungus returning to a cleaned lens. I have many lenses that have had fungus which I've cleaned and it hasn't returned. Some were cleaned over 5 or 6 years ago and not one has become reinfected. Many years ago when I didn't have time to use my equipment for a few years I stored it all in a metal cabinet that was under the stairs of the house where I thought they would be safe. Every lens was badly fungused on just about every element when I took them out, most were totally ruined by the fungus etching the glass. The problem was, the cabinet was the ideal place for the spores to flourish and become the dreaded fungus, it was cool, slightly damp ( it's a very old house with no modern damp proofing or ventilation ) and it was dark, the metal cabinet made it worse because it produced condensation. Absolutely perfect for the fungus. Now I store my lenses in my den, where I have dehumidifiers keeping the moisture below 40%, it's heated during the winter, well ventilated, the lenses are in opaque plastic storage boxes with the lens caps off to allow UV light to get in the lenses. I haven't had one lens, in well over 100 lenses now, infected or reinfected since I adopted this regime. I will even buy a lightly infected lens at a cheaper price with a view to cleaning it with no worries now. And I don't store infected lenses in a different place either, because I believe that I have created an environment where the spores can't flourish into fungus. The best prevention is using the lens, get the UV light on the glass, then keep them as dry as possible. The storage boxes I use are not airtight either, I like the dehumidified room air to circulate as this greatly reduces the possibility of condensation forming inside the containers. There is a school of thought that air tight containers should be used, especially in high humidity / tropical climates. Which is probably OK as long as a lot of dessicant is in the boxes to mop up any moisture caused by condensation  Box two Long lenses. Explore 352. by Mudplugga, on Flickr  Box one small lenses. by Mudplugga, on Flickr These are superb storage boxes, really strong and adaptable, from the 'Really Useful Box Company' www.reallyusefulproducts.co.uk/uk/html/onlineshop/fullrange_rub.phpI use the 21 Liter boxes with the removable divided trays. |
|
lloydy
Lifetime Member
Posts: 506
|
Post by lloydy on May 11, 2013 14:34:55 GMT -5
I've cleaned worse fungus than that with cold cream, the stuff women use to remove make up and keep their hands soft. It works really well, just plaster it on the lens, leave it for a while and wash off with Zippo lighter fuel or warm water and dish soap.
I've tried the hydrogen peroxide as well, and that works perfectly well. But my my wife doesn't use it, but she does use cold cream.
That amount of fungus probably hasn't etched the glass and won't affect the picture quality noticably. I've got two of those Rokkor 50 1.4's and I love them, so sharp and lovely colours, it's a great lens.
|
|
I'm very pleased with it.