greg_buchanon

The market dictates fair value? That's nonsense, this market is unpredictable and wholly incalculable because of complex human variables involving values. Way too sophisticated because it relies on no set standards and only assumed artificially created values. People are easily manipulated and values often altered with orchestrated efforts purposefully done, People unqualified to begin with (who appointed them?) set standards other people just naturally assume they should follow, and since so many people insist on following so easily? They of course are demanding to be taken in the first place so they don't have to think...Fair Market Value, the one that inflates things without reason and the people just allow it without question - Fair to who?

The MC W.Rokkor 28 2.5 metal knurl (watch the yellow) slap a skylight 1b on it for color, leave it off for b&w gives you a totally unique lens for landscapes, and a great portrait lens on M4/3 if you ever adapt? They should be sharp and have excellent resolution, or find another sample. Mine looks great on my SRT101. An MC-X 28 2.8 looks like it was invented to look good on a black body XE-7..... 24's are expensive and probably worth it because the Minolta 24 is stellar, so consider a zoom in the 28-85 range for your needs....you can't go wrong with most 28-85's and it covers your needs and more?

nudge defending a 1.4 as if it's slower, therefore viewed inadequate and as if the only practical use for wide-open is speed and light only, DOF and the control or isolation happens to be a major reason to some people unless you read threads where these one-upmanship and insecurity issues reveal themselves best? 1.2 lenses are rated soft by 75% of the comments who in fact have no concept of razor thin DOF and focus isolation to begin with. Defending the 1.4 nFD over feelings of being inadequate to a 1.2 doesn't serve them justice, or make the 1.2 what it never was either.......nFD 50 1.4 is the only lens any manufacture ever created to be the standard bearer for color throughout their entire product line, which makes any Canon 1.2 subordinate to this one? Reference lens... they call it at Canon, says a lot for me.

Too bad, I have both the SSC 35 2 convex and the FL 35 2.5. Both render differently and like all FL lenses the 35 2.5 as more film appeal in appearances. The BL mount is the best, nothing is reliably firmer or tighter in a locking mechanism, people generally manage to complain about the Breech Lock as if mentioning this feature frees them from the embarrassment? Nothing embarrassing about a BL to me, they lock out light and mount lenses firmly better than any other mounts. The single coating is one expensive coating that seems to be capable of withstanding nuclear contamination in some cases, not to mention 50 years of reliable consistent service? So 15 years later, I have seen them rise in popularity only to wane again.... they refuse to die. The 35 and the 28 3.5 have outstanding resolution and make excellent landscape values in crop factor and m4/3 applications. The FL 35 2.5 and SSC 35 2 (convex not concave) only have one thing in common, their focal lengths and nothing else, which is why I own both

<p>Digging up bones:</p> <p>Tomioka and Yashica had separate lens manufacturing facilities under the Yashica flag (1969) or later Kyocera flag (1983). The Tomoika facility had a license agreement with Zeiss that included Zeiss tooling and personnel, to make lenses for select Japanese cameras including Yashica (Contax) but not limited to them. It's not factually clear how to differentiate a Tomioka lens from a Yashica lens and only speculation surrounds this, not fact. I believe to answer the question "factually" you would have to have access to the records otherwise any answers are speculation only. <br /> "ML" is the general key to figure out what the widely accepted better or more desirable of all Yashica 35mm lenses that were offered by Yashica. Whether Tomioka or Yashica manufactured one or the other has no real factual evidence to support such a claim. What's held as a belief or commonly accepted is of course still called an assumption, even if it's an educated guess.</p> <p> </p>

<p>9 years later a search for a mint sample must be even more difficult? I've read reviews of the 25-50mm from 4 recognizable well known sources. Not one of them mirrors the other. I owned 2 samples. In the mirrorless world or when compactness is more necessary if not down right practical the 25-50 is a loser, bigger, heavy, bulkier, and it's age is starting to show as they are becoming sloppy mechanical wise with age, wear, and tear. I don't believe in personal opinions regarding IQ. I find it disturbing when one of these reviewers claims some "magical presence" regarding the images rendered because far too many people accept these comments as factual and repeat or ehco it as fact as if they know or own one. To me that's more about personal fondness and less about real world practical use. The 25-50 is sharp but not as sharp as a inexpensive Nikkor 28mm F3.5. An old CZ Jena Flektogon 25mm has tremendous close up ability if you need a wide angle for that.<br> If you desire no glare, then get a inexpensive Nikkor 28mm F3.5 a pocket lens and you don't need a hood. Of course the CRC 28 2.8 is faster and focuses closer, but for street scenes in the evening and at night in this higher performing ISO world today "faster" is almost irrelevant and what really matters is glare and flair control of which the old 28 3.5 is a champion<br> <br />I would carry a Nikkor 28 f3.5 and just about about any 50mm 1.7/1.8 (all pocket sized) or use just one only along with my feets to zoom it and get better results with less issues. But if I'm lazy, and I am at 61 years old, I'd hands down pick the 28-50 and never look back at a 25-50 ...which is a very nice lens btw and no doubt sharp at 25mm. But when I'm not lazy, Nikkor's 28 3.5, 35 F2 (if it wasn't a glare/ghost monster,) and a 50 1.8 will achieve better results. Also a used 25-50 with all that massive internal stuff and alignments inside, reminds me of a one of those guys juggling and spinning plates all at once? Whew is that easily misaligned over 35 years of life...ya think? Consider how old a 25-50 was when reviewed and factor that in, because at my age I guarantee something other then my age and skin has changed....and that's my opinions. <br> Try finding a mint 25-50 and if you do there must be a reason it is mint and has not been used so much. I found a 28-50 mint with a hk-12 and I'm quite pleased and maybe there was some reason it was not used, I'm so pleased off went the 25-50 to a new home and quickly so...it's a load </p> <div></div>

<p>Currrent KEH/BGN pricing for (Mar 2015); a Non-AI 24mm N.C BGN version is $126 and a N.C. AI (?) 24mm f2.8 advertised in excellent at $199......</p> <p>"<em>Current KEH/BGN pricing for an NC (non-AI) is $89, and an NC AI is $99" </em>posted 12 years ago</p> <p> </p>

<p>I came across this, therefore it's reasonable to assume others will as well.<br /> That is an Asahiflex IIb it's the same as a Tower 23 but it has a 2.4 lens instead of the 3.5 58mm and I think the Tower 24 has an M42 mount instead of M37..... (I'm not certain, but the Tower 22 came with the same lens, too so M42 and M37?)<br> <br /> That 2.4 is the only Heliar type lens (5 elements in 3 groups) ever for an SLR and also the fastest Heliar design..... it is extremely nice for close up imaging and portraits...it's down right amazing actually<br> <br /> Asahi Takumar also had a 58mm F2 but it is unique in another way, it was a Zeiss Sonar design...the widest Sonar angle ever for an SLR and the only Sonar for an SLR I know of<br> <br /> Most of the rest like most SLR lenses are based on Gaussians.</p> <p>My career in becoming an impulse driven hoarder with an obvious delusion over this history as if it matters or has anthropological meaning or significance is due to discovering a Tower 23 at a Pawn Shop near the dawn of time, I traded some beads and a 4 good blankets and it all just plummeted downhill from there on.</p>

<p>Cheap? The Sony a3000 (ILCE-3000) fits cheap better than anything going. As cheap as it is though? It delivers better IQ than my D300s 20m to 12m of course. Often $249 and even less, add Rainbow Imaging's $10 adapters of choice and I don't see anything competing for cheap with this. Coupled with an old Zeiss 58/2 Biotar ($40) ...well let's just say I've paid far, far, far, far more for far less than what this can do. Pancolar 50mm, Pentacon 50mm, Auto Sears, Mamiya 50mm 1.4, Yashinon 50 1.4, Domiplan 50mm, are you getting a hint here? I have about 50 more......sense a pattern? It is so cheap that it's not worth repairing if it breaks down, cheaper to buy a new one. Who ever heard of a trend like that one before?</p>