mark_unlisted

For those of us who are artistically challenged but still appreciate the finest

in photographic equipment, here we have "happy snaps with expensive cameras",

or, "how to take a picture with $6,000 of equipment when a $3 disposable camera

would do."<div></div>

Ho much did you find the kit for?

 

I have the lens and am looking to trade it. Mine has a noticable scratch on the lens barrel back near the mount but optically is fine. I have never been convinced it foussed correctly on my M6 and as I just traded off my Noct, am looking to trade this as well. Anyone have a 28 'cron they aren't too attached to?

I don't want to get into the middle of an argument when I don't have a dog in the fight, but I have one observation and one question.

 

First the observation: Unfortunately with electronics, there is such a thing as infant mortality and it has nothing to do with quality control. Some electronics just die early.

 

Now the question: I don't have the cash for an M8 but was thinking about an RD-1 but not the RD-1s. Where did you get your RD-1 and what did it cost?

 

Thanks

Yes. I had a 75mm frame added to my M5. Sherry did mine.

Zeiss lenses plus $800 cash.

Does anyone have this lens? Any results or opinions? I know it won't be as

sharp as the new Asph 'lux but it is a much less complicated design and I was

currious as to how it performs.

I don't shoot 22 any more. I found 4.5mm air pistol to be much more satisfying.

I have the lens. It is very well made and comes with its own special finder with frames for both focal lengths. I love the lens. I also have the 28-35-50 Tri-Elmar and use the Konica Dual about 10x more often. Image performance is close to the TE but not quite the same but it is very difficult to tell under normal shooting circumstances. I have only been able to see slight differences at the edge of the field when I was trying to make an enlargement from a small section. This is one lens I would never sell. Buy one if you ever find it. I paid about $1100 for mine.

Jerry - no harm in asking. The truth is I take lousy pictures - only once in a while do I manage to get something more than an expensive snapshot. But I do spend a lot of time designing optics for telescopes and for me it is interesting to compare the measured performance of one lens VS another for different design approaches.

 

If anyone knows, I would still like to see the V/C curves - particularly for the 50/1.5 Nokton.

Does anyone know where one could find MTF charts for the current series of V/C

lenses? I know this has been asked before but as best I can tell, no one knew

where to look back then. I know Erwin has tested some of these lenses but I

could not find MTF data on his site.

Mountain canyon<div></div>

You forgot spare batteries and perhaps a second charging unit.

Another try to post.<div></div>

I would post another picture but I keep getting this error message.

 

Server Error

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this server.

AOLserver/4.0 on http://www.photo.net

 

 

Any ideas on what to do?

I just bought one from Photovillage. Silver. Gandy has the same price but indicated he would only sell black (when I checked).

 

Build is solid and results are a bit like my 50/2 Hexanon. Not quite as sharp as the 50/2 Summicron but not easy to see the difference. Colors are a bit warmer than other lenses.

 

I carry it on a Bessa T to go hiking. Here is a snap of my 14 year old at f=2.8 and 1/2000. I wanted to shoot at f=2 but the film was too fast for the light. I was interested in what the bokeh looked like. I am going to do this again at f=2 next time I'm out.<div></div>

My wife just informed me that the 40/2.0 Summicron-C is now for sale. I would conservatively rate it as EX++. It has the original cap and hood (which is still soft and flexible). I have never been convinced this lens focusses correctly on my M- bodies but it worked beautiful on my CL bodies when I still had them. Therefore, I cannot stand behind the focussing action of this lens. $250 + S/I from Albuquerque NM.

I just purchased a 50mm f=2.0 Silver Heliar from Rich at PhotoVillage. $550

plus $10 for a rear cap and $25 for two day shipping. Steve at Cameraquest

has the lenses separate from the kit as well but Steve would only sell black

(as of a week ago when I emailed him) while Rich would sell either.

 

No pictures yet, but I am pleased with the heft of the lens and the overall

build quality. The lens extends smoothly and then rotates about 1/5 turn

clockwise (when viewed from the front of the camera) and positively locks into

place. It was well thought out as the index dot for the aperture is pointing

straight up when the lens is locked in place. The sliding barrel also

features a small keyway which does not allow the lens to rotate once you are

collapsing it. This is a nice touch. An old Red Scale Elmar I had with a 1F

would rotate once collapsed and would also lock into the extended position in

any one of three positions. It was not a problem with that Elmar as the

aperture control was on the front of the lens barrel as opposed to the top on

the Heliar.

 

The lens looks great on a silver Bessa T - will probably look fine on my

Silver M-6 as well but I suspect it will look small - sort of like a 40/2.0

Summicron on my M-5.

 

Why did I buy this lens when I already have 6 fixed 50mm lenses and a Tri-

Elmar with a 50mm setting? I ask myself that at times (and God forbid, please

do not ask my wife). My interest in the lens was that it had only 5 elements

in 3 groups, thus only 6 air to glass interfaces - far less than some lenses

although the 50/2.0 ZM-Plannar only has 8 such transitions. I do not recall

the optical design of the latest Summicron. With only two interfaces, the

lens should be capable of higher contrast and be less sensitive to flare, but

then those characteristics depend heavily upon the anti-reflection coatings,

types of glass, general performance of the design and many other factors as

well. I guess I just wanted it.

At least when we are all naked and in hand cuffs, we will no longer have to worry about Muslim terrorists - they would consider the nudity immodest, but I am sure some other group of mal-contents will still find a way to terrorize innocent civilians.

No experience with this lens although I would consider buying it were it not coming from Tiawan - it might be safe, no intent to discredit the seller.

 

I have the 50/1.2 and it is quite light - that is one reason I like it. It is significantly lighter than my Noct, more like my chrome 50 pre Asph lux. I do have focussing difficulties which I cannot explain. It focuses well on my M5 but not on my M6 and both have recent service and every other lens works well on both bodies. I must be doing something I have not accounted for.

How about the difference between a mechanical paper tape reader and an optical paper tape reader. Those were the good old days. Using a PDP-11/45 over a phone line with a teletype and a paper tape reader. We had a massive 8k of RAM and we thought we were screaming. At the site, they had an 88MB hard disk drive. It was about the size of a refrigerator.

No numbers to quote, just an observation and a comment from words in Boward's book. He believed the M5 was twice as sensitive as the M6 because, in his words, it made a direct rather than reflected measurement. The problem with the M5 is that it is impossible to see the match needle system in low light, at least at my age. I formerly loved my M5 but have gained a new appreciation for the M6. I have a black M5, Mint- with M6 frame lines and a recent CLA by Sherry (Jan 05) then a trip back to Sherry to get a broken frame counter fixed (Dec 05). It is for sale if anyone is really interested. Fantastic camera, even fits my hands better than the M6 but I just cannot see the needles anymore.

Can't fully answer your question. I have the 90 pre-Asph Summicron and the 75 Summilux. Wide open, the 75 is sharper than the 90. I have heard that the 90 ASPH-APO is much better. I actually keep thinking of selling the 75 and 90 and buying a 90 Asph as I do not use the 75 much but I never seem able to part with it. I would part with the 90 without hesitation. It is a good lens but just not quite as sharp wide open as I want.

Alexander: You have interpreted the material in the link you posted incorrectly and also missed the critical shape of the light spots near the edge of the field in the image Rob posted.

 

 

Figure 7 in your link (http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/astigmatism.html) probably shows the sagittal focus of an astigmatic imaging system although it is difficult to tell without looking inside and outside of focus. The spots seen in Figure 7 in that link are elongated but not cone shaped. Cone shaped spots with the "point" pointing towards the center of the field would be from coma and they would persist both inside and outside of focus (slightly). Astigmatic spots would change from being elongated radially to being elongated tangentially if you shifted focus. From the one image in Figure 7 of your link, it is hard to tell and the image could have both astigmatism and coma.

 

 

Robs image is different. His spots are elongated tangentially which is a clear indication of astigmatism. The light sources in Rob's image show tangential focus and sagittal defocus - coma will not produce this effect.

 

 

Clear explanations and better examples can be found in the references cited in that link.

 

[1] Eugene Hecht, Optics, 3rd ed., Addison Wesley, 1998.

[2] Born and Wolf, Principles of Optics, 7th ed., Cambridge University Press, 1999.

[3] A.E. Conrady, Applied optics and optical design, part one, Dover Publications, 1985.

 

 

Or go here (http://aberrator.astronomy.net/index.html) and you can download a package which demonstrates common aberrations.

Interesting picture. Can we really say this is coma?

 

First question: What is the shape of the tiny light bulbs? Are they round or are they pear shaped, sort of like the older larger Christmas lights? If pear shaped, some of the lights in the upper left appear pear shaped. However, for many the shape is clearly distorted no matter what they started out as.

 

 

Second: Coma makes a commet shape out of a point source. It would take small round lights and make commets with a dull (rather than pointy) front end. Also, due to the mathematics of third order coma, it would appear as having the brightest and smallest feature pointed towards the center of the field (the optical axis) and the outer edges away from the center would get wider and fainter. The butterflies in this picture do not behave this way.

 

 

The butterflies appear to be elongated tangentially rather than radially. This is a feature of astigmatism (different planes of focus for the tangential VS sagital rays).

 

 

I could not see any clear signs of coma but Rob's image shows definite signs of astigmatism.

Konica 50/1.2 Hexanon in KM mount for $700.