martin_f._melhus Posted May 31, 1998 Share Posted May 31, 1998 I've been particularly intrigued by the prices of the Congo lenses(http://www.cosmonet.org/~congo/index_e.htm) and the Osaka lenses(dist by Bromwell marketing, see http://www.bromwell.com/bromwell.htm). The reason for this interest is primarily theprice. The Congo 210 mm is listed at $450 right now (with an old list and a falling Yen, this might be too high,) as compared to theRodenstock APO Ronar 240 mm, at $1100 and change. <p> Does anybody out there have direct experience with either of these less expensive lenses? They apparantly lack the APO designation (or at least I couldn't find it listed.) How much of a difference does this make in final image quality? How do these lenses compare with a Rodenstock or Schneider, and how do they compare with each other?The Osaka lenses are available in fewer focal lengths, and seem to cost more (but that may just be the distributor's cut.) <p> Any info appreciated. <p> Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron_shaw Posted June 5, 1998 Share Posted June 5, 1998 I have a friend who has the 150mm (6 element) lens, and his chromes look as good as any. While I dont know if they are the latest in hi tech lens making, they certainly seem good enough, and certainly are more modern and capable than all of the 'classic' lenses everyone loves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ted_brownle Posted June 8, 1998 Share Posted June 8, 1998 I have had a 180mm f/6.3 "Bogen Arcar" lens for 21 years now. It was produced by Yamaziki Optical Company (Congo). It's a Tessar type design, and is quite good if you're aware of it's limitations. It is a 4 element, 3 group lens. A lower number of elements to make reduces the cost. It also has limited coverage. I use my 180 for 4 x 5, although it will barely cover 5 x 7 (I have tried it). Look at the specifications on the web sites; If the lens says it will cover 5 x 7, use it on 4 x 5. Other Tessar formula lenses: Rodenstock APO Ronar, Nikkor-M, Schneider Xenar, Zeiss Tessar. I don't remember the Fujinon as they're not imported to the US. I also have a fairly recent Nikkor-M that is noticeably sharper tnan the older Congo 180. I don't know how the latest Congo lenses are. The bottom line? If you're on a tight budget or have stringent weight requirements (backpacking), these could be good choices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat_raymore Posted June 8, 1998 Share Posted June 8, 1998 Ted, <p> What Nikkor M lens do you have and how would you rate its overall performace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
martin_f._melhus Posted June 12, 1998 Author Share Posted June 12, 1998 I was right about the Yen, by the way. The 210 mm lens, at49,500 Yen, converts to $350.00. Conversion rate as of 6/11/98was 1000 Yen = 7.07 U$D. So knock off 2/7 of the price on theirlist. <p> Regards, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_rasmussen Posted July 1, 1998 Share Posted July 1, 1998 The APO designation is not a guarantee optical superiority. As of late it seems to have become more of a maketing tool by companies looking for a sales edge over their competition. Just because a lens is corrected for three colors at the focal plane, doesn't necessarily mean it has a small secondary spectrum. There are no companies that I know of that will give out secondary spectrum to focal length ratio information. Don't be bothered by the lack of APO designation on the Congo lenses. SR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now