Silly me - Raptars, Wollensaks - IMHO not very good.MikeS said:You say your 127mm lenses suck wide open. I guess the next question is: What 127mm lenses do you have?
-Mike
Camera won't work with 135.David A. Goldfarb said:And if a 135 Caltar II-N isn't in the budget, consider a 135 Symmar convertible.
Look, I am not disrespecting the lens. I said mine suck, and they do. Maybe yours are better. There are variations among lenses, you know, some because age/condition. Mine don't deserve to be on a 4x5. It's a waste of film. Soft as heck, plenty of flare, poor cross-frame rez/falloff. If I want soft, I know where I can get better soft. If I want bokeh, I know where to find better bokeh. It is not in the 127 Wollensaks I have.JiminKyiv said:Dangerous question - define 'suck'. What is it in particular about them that you don't like? Is it a sharpness fall-off issue? I lurked around here before I started posting, and learned here about those lenses and Bokeh, so none of them were designed to be really sharp near the edges.
Is it a contrast issue instead? What would you like to see different?
And it can also be terrible. I have one, ex-MoD, that's very flary and soft at all apertures. A bust, but for only $10 I can't complain much.JG Motamedi said:if you can deal with an uncoated lens, the 5" f/4 Ross WA Xpres is (or can be) amazing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?