Search results

I had the chance to buy one but was put off by the size!

I meant that the Pentax-M 35/2 (ca. 1977) is universally reputed to be lower performing than the older K 35/2. And it was lower performing than the Nikkor-O 35/2 (1967) i had. And most likely my Canon FD 35/2 concave version (1971) is better, everybody raves about that one (i've yet to test it)...

I'd say that the glass type would be a more important factor. A special type glass over regular optical glass (also used in good lenses) might be orders of magnitude more expensive. The Leica glass 900403, their so called APO glass consists of no fewer than a dozen different ingredients...

They never claim those films are ISO 3200. Their datasheets clearly state the real ISO speed.

I think it had nothing to do with glass types, but a lot to do with the Olympus OM system. Small lenses were the new fad and it's evident how Nikon, Canon and Pentax started reducing their lenses from the mid 70s onwards. Most Nikkor AI (1977) lenses feature reduced size. All Canon New FD (1979)...

APUG is pronounced "breengh codachroum bak pleeze"

Well, the Nikon F was essentially what Nikon got afte copying the best features of the preceding cameras: Motor (praktina), interchangeable viewfinders and screens (exakta), instant return mirror (pentax, zunow, wray), etc. And it didn't hurt that it was created extremely reliable.

WANT!! It looks fantastic!!

Well, I guess the debate about the "most rugged F" is settled then?

Including Nikon cameras!

You pronounce it the modern way: "ADOX" ( "ah dox")

This is a very interesting observation, thanks. I wonder if Richard Haw's web page has sample images with the K version? Since I own the 35/3.5 and 35/2.8 PC-nikkors i never felt the need for the non-shifting lenses. And I have the AI 35/2.0 which I think is great. On Canon i have the FD...

Yes I love Pentax lenses. But the 35/3.5 design by Pentax is very different to the ones depicted and predates all of them. It traces back its lineage to one of the Voigltlander 35mm lenses for the Bessamatic. Of course the 35/3.5 S-T and SMCT lenses are very good and compact. Interestingly it...

Many many lenses were patented and some designs were unique to some manufacturers. Quality assurance is very important, of course.

Flint and Crown glass are glass families and most photo lenses use glasses from both families. There are very cheap flint glasses and expensive flint glasses. As for petri lenses, what i've read on the net is often glowing reviews for the lenses on their RFs and the lenses for their classic...

Smaller version:

The attached image explains the evolution, please take a look. Source of the Nikkor images: Marco Cavina (great italian blogger) Source of the Canon images: Canon catalogs. Have you found more lenses that follows these configurations? I've seen some Minolta 35mm lenses that also use the 5/5...

Hi, sorry for the clickbaity title, but I want to show two interesting things. 1. The tale of the 35mm compact manual focus lenses. These lenses seemed to have gone through many redesigns; in the case of Nikon the 35/2.8 went through 4 optical versions, in the case of Canon, through two optical...

PS: For example the common Nikkor-S 50/1.4 You can see there are many flint glasses used (common glasses) And then two glasses of high index and moderate dispersion: LAK8, LAK12, and the "propiertary" glass. Source: Marco Cavina

Source? It makes no sense, sorry. All manufacturers use or have used Flint glasses, those are common glasses. And all major manufacturers have used special types of glass, including high refraction index + low dispersion. Even on their normal lenses. I'm surprised by you making such a...

Not really a secret; any manufacurer can use high refraction index* glass, they just buy it from their suppliers. It's just more expensive. * it really means glass with high refraction index but normal dispersion. Because glass with high refraction index and high dispersion is cheap.

Petri has horrible build quality but their lenses almost always get good reviews from their users. It's probably a swell lens.

The internal electronics of the FE are almost exactly the same as the EL2, so sounds like marketing. Agree.

Well the FE and the FM are amongst Nikon's less reliable cameras, but I still love my FE. I did have some intermittent failures with my previous FE. My current FE looks mint, let's see how it fares.

Me too. He has been hugely influential on most fashion photographers. You can't take away that from him!!

But we're talking about optical quality... I also have some Canon New FD lenses that at first look appear cheap, weight extremely light and are mostly plastic. They are also of very high optical performance. When i mean "quality inspection" i mean making sure that the optical quality is OK.

I have seen this one before and love it. Great example!

The Rollei-manufactured lenses are good and i think i read this was done with a quality inspection process which involved the Carl Zeiss people. The famed (and hyped) 40/2.8 HFT Sonnar was only manufactured by Rollei!

This is what I meant with information that is not available. And these matters are the most important ones -- I mean probably if you want to create E6 color slide of 64 speed with the quality of the late 1970s, probably most of the necessary knowledge is published out there. But to create...

Trying to get sharp pictures at f2.8 is pointless without a rangefinder. I owned a Rollei 35 (original) and that Tessar lens was damn sharp at f8, like, extremely, extremely sharp. Can't imagine the Sonnar being any better,, forum opinion will tell you contradicting things, and an optical...