stephen_morris3

This seems interesting: Letsminox

The marina shot on Cloudfront clearly shows some decentring or lens tilt BTW. The lefthand edge is smeared compared to the right.

I don't know what Cloudfront is but thanks for real feedback. I thought you might be right about the lens being de-centered, since it's basically double-face-taped to an LM-to-E-mount focusing helicoid adapter. However, I don't see any way to check for that in the photo I posted. Everything on the left side is further away than the right, so there's no way to compare. I don't see any smearing but I want to check to see that when I re-mount it more permanently.

Maybe be specific and add a link or two to where exactly we can find examples?

Maybe use a little imagination, as I suggested before? Typing in the names of cameras and lenses is what led me here in the first place.

So making an honest post about the status of a thread is agressive? You could have just started a new thread, you know. It's odd, too, that you posted about this over a year after my original post....it's almost as though you're looking for conflict.

I don't know about aggressive but I objectively see someone posting unfriendly stuff--almost bullying. I'm just responding to that instead of being a doormat. And, why should I start a new post? I did a general internet search about this camera and this came up. It makes total sense to comment in context, regardless the age--as I keep pointing out. If that is the unwritten rule in this group, then maybe y'all should set up some automatic system for deleting a thread after a certain interval, right? Again, WHAT'S ODD about posting a comment even 10 years later? Delete your post if you don't want comments later than you somehow think appropriate! Me looking for conflict? No! Just looking for information and a reasonable discussion without running into trolls who constantly comment about old threads. The thread speaks for itself. Just re-read it. Perhaps you're part of the jerk clique looking for trouble yourself?

Oh dear...I wonder who's the jerk?

It seems exceeding clear if you read the posts above. Do you think trying to brow-beat those who make honest posts or comments--however old the thread is--anything but being a jerk?

 

This was taken this summer with an H Coral 45mm/1.9 from a 1959 Aires Viscount on Sony A7R3. The camera cost me less than $5. Sure, this is cheating because it's shot at the lens' optimum aperture. I also have photos taken wide open, and--except for depth-of-focus--performs just as well--like a Summicron. Its bokeh is creamy and IMO better than a Summicron and as good as a Planar. Distortion and spherical aberrations are well under control--like the champs. It also tends to give that almost 3D pop I really dig. Because I'm curious about the evolution of lenses, I've found stories about why some vintage lenses are much better than others. The H Coral was made by a company called Showa Koki who dropped out of consumer optics and went to supplying the highest level of scientific, industrial and IT optics. Their grandchild is Showa Optronics. There's a world of photo phun out there for those who can work a screwdriver and have an open mind and a willingness to learn.

 

What I learned is that it's pretty much a wild goose chase.

 

A search for 'Yashica Electro 35' threw up many, many pictures of the camera itself, plus a few pictures taken on film with intact cameras, which I admit had some very nice shots among them. What I didn't find was any trace of pictures taken with a digital camera using just the lens from an Electro 35.

 

And even if I had found any; what can you tell about a lens from a tiny Flickr thumbnail?

Yawn! I wrote search the lenses, not the cameras. Maybe apply a little imagination to your searching? Flickr's resolution isn't all that bad; sufficient for me to make some evaluation of what a lens is capable of. There are also some very detailed reviews and testing of most of the lenses that I've converted or lenses I've used common adapters with. But it's probably just as well to keep the vintage lens conversation "secret" on the down-low. Love all your positive contributions here!

And how many 50mm Planar clones does any single photographer need?

As many as I can get my hands on at a bargain! I'm a recycler-reseller. As I wrote earlier, search for the lenses I listed (an other converted lenses) on Flickr. You might learn something.

You have to remember that the double-gauss formula for a 40 to 58mm lens of f/2 (and wider) is as near to an industry standard as you're likely to find in camera optics, and the same design is still in widespread production today. It's therefore not surprising that the performance of all those lenses is very similar. However, differences are there. You just have to look slightly harder to see them.

Good advice. Just so you know, I do look harder to see, as most here do, I'd suppose.

Pentax too got a lot of praise for their Takumar and Super-Takumar SLR lenses, back in the film era, but all the non-50mm Taks and Super-Taks that I've tried on a Sony a6000 have been pretty awful.

The two Super Takumar 50s I tried were spectacular but I haven't tried any non-50s. I suppose I'll be careful when any come up, although I've read and seen fantastic photos by such. As you point out, there are 100s of great vintage lenses. Just a matter of sorting. These "old" discussions have been really helpful in that process.

Practically any standard lens will perform well at f/5.6 ~ f/8, but the wide-open performance varies drastically, and that's where sample variation shows up most as well.

No kidding? So, you're assuming I don't compare lenses wide open?

Yawn!

I'm sure anyone that's interested could dig up all the info about the company from an extended Googling session, or a search of business registers.

 

How about some pictures taken with the actual camera, to show just how sharp the lens was? Or a mini-review of its handling, reliability, rangefinder accuracy, viewfinder visibility, etc, etc.

 

Or will that be coming up in another 15 years?

Yawn yourself! So what if the original posters are not around! Does that change the validity of the information of opinions? Seems like there's a jerk or two lurking. Why not troll on FB where all the others are? Shaming someone for posting in an "old" thread? Send us to the gallows!

Since this thread has been brought back from the dead.

 

It's my experience that sample variation of the same nominal lens can have a greater effect than that between makes.

 

For example: I had two Canonet cameras - old style with underslung leverwind and fly's eye meter window. Their supposedly identical 45mm f/1.9 lenses were like chalk and cheese. One was superbly sharp while the other was worse than mediocre. The duff lens appeared no different from the good one, and both looked physically like new and with no signs of damage or misuse.

 

So asking about lens quality between makes and models of mass-produced cameras is a bit pointless in my opinion. Obviously, higher-priced cameras will (hopefully) have tighter quality control and use a better lens design/construction in the first place, but for cameras aimed squarely at the middle of the market, the design of lens is pretty moot. Because it's very much pot luck, together with the history and physical condition of the lens that'll determine its image quality. Not whether it was made by Yashica, Canon, Olympus, Mamiya or whoever.

 

I knew I could count on a comment about resurrecting an "old thread". And I always answer that threads like this about vintage equipment are almost timeless; they're reference works and have helped me a lot as such.

 

You obviously have had the opposite experience compared to me. So far, I've converted Yashica DX 35mm/1.8 (Electro 35 CC), DX 45mm/1.7 (Electro 35 GT), Schneider Robot-Xenon 40mm/1.9 (Robot Star 25), Zeiss-Opton Tessar T 75mm/3.5 (Zeiss-Ikon Ikonta-M), Beauty-S 45mm/1.9 (Beauty Lightomatic), H Coral 45mm/1.9 (Aires Viscount), Minoxar 35mm/2.8 (Minox 35 GT-E), Schneider Xenar 38mm/2.8 (Kodak Instamatic 500) and more. I am getting nothing but great results. At least I like them.

 

I respectfully disagree about comparisons being pointless. I find the lenses to be very consistent with their reputations. A Yashica Tomioka lens (of their premium series) is always a top-performing Tomioka. The Coral lens from a 1959 fixed-lens rangefinder is at least as good a performer as my Leitz Summicron 50. I don't think any major camera maker was sloppy with their lenses. They built their reputations on the performance of their lenses. Yashica, Canon, Konica, Minolta, Olympus, Fujica, maybe others, were praised for their laser-sharp compact camera lenses. Nor do I suspect spy-camera maker Robot cut any corners on the quality/sharpness of the lenses they used. I'm finding the Schneider Xenon can keep up with my Leitz Macro Elmarit 60 regarding resolution--and with 15 aperture blades!

 

Note, I only extract lenses from non-functioning cameras.

 

Check out other the masochists on Flickr who get amazing manual-focus performance for peanuts. Just search the name of the lenses and you will see. Some are converting lens as an enterprise. My Summicron-killing Coral costs me a whopping $5. Because of the quality, I'm having a hard time moving over to modern auto-focus lenses on my Sony A7R3.

I might be misunderstanding what equipment we're talking about. You took a non-interchangable lens from a Yashica rangefinder and somehow attached it to your Sony?

Yep!

Confessions of a camera butcher: I've been very impressed with Tomioka lenses and bought a Yashica Electro GX, hoping it wouldn't work. It almost did and I wasted about half a roll. Now it is my favorite general-carry lens with my Sony A7R3 since I MacGyver-rigged it to a reverse-filter adapter. This from a recent trip to Gotland, Sweden.

 

You realise that the last post here was 15 years ago?

What's wrong with that? Isn't such information somewhat timeless? I'm still looking for and collecting Aires cameras--especially the Showa Koki lenses. Never understood this old post shaming.

The Canon EF "Black Beauty" seems the smoothest to me (ball bearings?). Of others I've tried, I think the Nikon FE is pretty close, as are all the heavy-metal Leicaflexes, Minolta XD-7/11 and Konica Autoreflex T3n. I haven't yet tried a Nikon F2, Alpa Reflex or Leica M-series.

 

Tested with B/W. Velvia 50 or Ektar 100 next?

 

This with the H Coral 45mm/1.9 at f:4:

(Let's see if I can get this right:)

 

This taken in April this year (2019) with H Coral 45mm/1.9 on Sony A7 at f:1.9:

 

 

This taken in April this year (2019) with H Coral 45mm/1.9 on Sony A7 at f:4:

This taken in April this year (2019) with H Coral 45mm/1.9 on Sony A7 at f:1.9:

 

Nothing at all wrong with posting to an old post so long as people are aware that the original poster is possibly long gone

It's hard to have meaningful discussion with someone who's not there.

Good point. I suppose the dates on posts give a good clue as to the age. The information is often still very relevant and meaningful. When I search for photo gear, this forum often comes up. I regard this and other such fora as useful reference points. It looks like Facebook--which I'm staying away from--has taken away from such fora and reduced them to small cliques.

Could just be me, but I find this sort of post roughly equivalent to someone bragging about how well some rich guy is doing since he got a transplant of a stolen kidney from the black market. It does render nice colors, though.

That would be a typical nouveau riche. Such a person certainly would have the poor taste to brag when his rich friend's mega-$$$ new kidney fails and his $10 black market kidney works like a charm. Every once in a while, a $10 saddle can work really well on a $3,000 horse. In my ridiculous cheapness, I'm running nothing but $10 saddles (cheap vintage manual-focus lenses) on my Sony A7R III horse. I've yet to use a modern, autofocus lens on my A7 or A7R III. Any recommendations on a good, new prime lens?

Another "irrelevant" post with a photo using the H Coral 45mm/1.9 on Sony A7