A lens worthy of the new M6

[Huss]

The lomo Minitar has so much pincushion distortion, it has pincouch distortion.

 

[Huss]

Leica M7, Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8, C200

 

[Huss]

Size reference for my 35mm lenses - ok the Lomo is 32mm, but you get the idea

 

[Yashica]

The TTA 28mm f5.6 is tiny. And honestly a very good lens. It may look like a Leica Summaron 28m 5.6 on the outside, but the optical formula is very modern and very different.
Yes, it is not as tiny as the body cap Minitar, but the next tiniest thing. Kinda.

Nice colors. The 7Artisans 28mm F5.6 is from the lens body less cute, but optically sharper. I was stressing TTA last year for a black TTA 28/5.6 serveral times, and they always said they consider it...lol, but i don't own any M-Mount Leica, sad but true. I have the 7Artisans 35/1.4 Wen, because i got it 50% off, so very cheap, and new, straight from Aliexpress 2022...and according to Erick Photo, it's sharper, better microcontrast, than the TTArtisans 35/1.4 ASPH...but i know that since the videos on YT... damn Huss, that's a fine collection of 35mm lenses ! I'd love to own at least the Zeiss and Voigtländer lenses...the Zeiss would be my dream lens, i know the reviews....i am shooting C/Y Contax lenses since the early 90s...i liked the cheap Fujifilm C200, but the "new" one is just the clone of Kodak Gold 200, a film i never liked really...that much.

 

[Huss]

..I liked the cheap Fujifilm C200, but the "new" one is just the clone of Kodak Gold 200, a film i never liked really...that much.

My fresh new Fuji 200 says made in Japan on the box so it is not a Kodak clone.

For a short while the made in USA Fuji 200 was repackaged Kodak.

 

[Yashica]

Hi Huss,

interesting news. Yes, i've had seen this here at DPR, it was also being featured at Emulsive:

Fujifilm C200 is Kodak Gold 200 Film in disguise

 

[Huss]

Hi Huss,

interesting news. Yes, i've had seen this here at DPR, it was also being featured at Emulsive:

Fujifilm C200 is Kodak Gold 200 Film in disguise

That was January 2022, when it may have been the case. That was then, this is now.
As you can see from my pic.

 

[madNbad]

Are you going to keep the Minitar? The results look pretty good and at least I know the sun will return to the west coast at some point.

 

[Huss]

The results on film are much better than I had anticipated. Maybe I got lucky and this is a lemon, i.e. the one optically good lens that made it through the cracks.
My previous Minitar that I had a few years back wasn’t this good - I sold that one because it was silver and I have no idea why I bought a silver one. The Minitar lens in my since sold Lomo LC-A wasn’t this good either.
Of course ‘good’ is a relative term, and this is relative for a Lomo Minitar lens.

I just need to decide whether I am ok for the min aperture being f11, not f22 as marked. In the grand scheme of things it doesn’t matter since f11 is the min aperture I use on all my lenses, it’s more of the principal of it!

But much better having inaccurate aperture settings than crap optics.

 

[Huss]

 

[Timmyjoe]

Those optics look really good Huss, especially for something out of LOMO. I'd say it's a keeper.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Huss]

Those optics look really good Huss, especially for something out of LOMO. I'd say it's a keeper.

Best,
-Tim

Hey Tim!


Nice to 'see' you again! The optics are really good from center to 2/3 of the way out on all sides. The rest is lens 'character'...
It is a really fun lens to use and I think would be excellent for 'street' as it makes the camera tiny - basically it is like not having a lens on it - so it can be hidden away in a moment.
Pictures where the subject content/context is more important than the lens 'quality'.

 

[etn]

Your Leicas are real beauties <3 Congratulations!

 

[ic-racer]

The posted images look different than the ones posted here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1801258/0
Is that the same lens? What happened to the zoomy blurry corners?

 

[Huss]

The posted images look different than the ones posted here: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1801258/0
Is that the same lens? What happened to the zoomy blurry corners?

The ones you are referring to were taken with my digital Leica - an M10r - which is why I referred to that post, with out posting them here as this is a film forum.

As I mentioned, this lens works waaaaay better on film. Like many of the original Voigtlander wides.

 

[Huss]

Leica M7, Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8, Ektar 100

 

[Huss]

Lomo Minitar 32 2.8 on an M10r vs M7 w Ektar. Obviously not same lighting as taken on different days, but still fun to do:

M10r



M7

 

[Huss]

M7, Lomo Minitar, Ektar 100

 

[madNbad]

So, the lens has good optics but a wonky aperture scale. On the MP/M6 you can just dial it until the center confirmation light glows and even easier with the M7. You could buy a case of them for the cost of the Steel Rim reissue. Love the Chevelle, looks like it's been parked at the beach since 1968.

 

[Huss]

Another reminder of the size difference for those upset about its optical qualities.

 

[Huss]

So, the lens has good optics but a wonky aperture scale. On the MP/M6 you can just dial it until the center confirmation light glows and even easier with the M7. You could buy a case of them for the cost of the Steel Rim reissue. Love the Chevelle, looks like it's been parked at the beach since 1968.

Yeah, it's a non issue as long as you use a body with a built in meter.

 

[Huss]

Leica M7, Lomo Minitar 32mm 2.8, Ektar 100
Pincouch distortion corrected in LR

 

[David Reynolds]

Huss I'm amazed at the quality of your images no matter what camera and/or lens you have used

 

[Sirius Glass]

Huss I'm amazed at the quality of your images no matter what camera and/or lens you have used

It is all about what he sees.

 

[Huss]

Huss I'm amazed at the quality of your images no matter what camera and/or lens you have used

Thank you David, that is very kind of you!