I just received Argus 4 with above lens. What is the composition , designer of that lens ? Any diagram is welcome also.
Thank you,
Umut
Thank you,
Umut
Cintar f:2.8 50mm , Any information ?
-
A
- Thread starter Mustafa Umut Sarac
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: 126 Film
- Started by wjlapier
-
For Sale Black Paint Nikon FE2
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
For Sale Nikon Z 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 VR S Excellent Condition
- Started by Daniel_Buck
-
For Sale Leica M10 24MP Black Body Only
- Started by nateo200
-
Sold Ilford HP5 Plus 400 4x5 Film
- Started by Barlow
Forum statistics
I think it's just your basic Cooke triplet.
I had long time ago Argus C3 with 50mm Cintar f3.5. Stopped to f8 it was pretty good and sharp - not "wow" sharp, but pretty good. I guess f2.8 version can be only better.
OP
OP
Thank you Richard and MDR from beatiful SF and Vienna.
Umut
Umut
OP
OP
Thank you Darko , pm on the way.
If it is really a Cooke Triplet, I could only expect that the 2.8 would be worse off than the 3.5, as they would have to make compromises to make it work at 2.8 at the expense of performance at smaller apertures.
The first top-of-the-line Kodak Instamatics (700, 704, 800, 804) had 2.8 triplets (Ektanon) in lieu of the highly-appraised Ektars (Tessars). It hurt not only the performance of those models, but did huge harm to the whole Instamatic concept, as Anti-Instamatic zealots quickly assailed the Instamatic cassette itself (despite the fact that a less-expensive Instamatic, the German-made, match-needle 500, which did have a Schneider Xenar, produced superb images).
Note that it is not in all cases that the 2.8 version of a particular camera is a compromise with relation to the 3.5 model. The Stereo Realist came in 2.8 and 3.5 versions - but the 2.8 was a vastly superior camera, worth five times as much as a 3.5 on the used market in the 1990s. The half-stop improvement was trivial, the difference was that the 2.8 had Tessars whereas the 3.5 had Cooke triplets that were not sharp when wide open and gave dark corners when closed down,
The first top-of-the-line Kodak Instamatics (700, 704, 800, 804) had 2.8 triplets (Ektanon) in lieu of the highly-appraised Ektars (Tessars). It hurt not only the performance of those models, but did huge harm to the whole Instamatic concept, as Anti-Instamatic zealots quickly assailed the Instamatic cassette itself (despite the fact that a less-expensive Instamatic, the German-made, match-needle 500, which did have a Schneider Xenar, produced superb images).
Note that it is not in all cases that the 2.8 version of a particular camera is a compromise with relation to the 3.5 model. The Stereo Realist came in 2.8 and 3.5 versions - but the 2.8 was a vastly superior camera, worth five times as much as a 3.5 on the used market in the 1990s. The half-stop improvement was trivial, the difference was that the 2.8 had Tessars whereas the 3.5 had Cooke triplets that were not sharp when wide open and gave dark corners when closed down,
As I recall the Argus C44 came with a Cintegon 50mm, in either f2.8 or f2 The 2.8 was four or five elements, the f2 probably 6. Both were well regarded. A triplet faster than f3.5 is really pushing the envelope, as I recall. I still marvel at how many C 3s were sold, and that they seem to be in some demand today.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |