General MF lens discussion

For anybody that may be interested, I have made a listing for my Leica 35-70/4 ROM.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=651700

-Kyle

KenjiS wrote in post #7391162
I'm hungry and i want to order the Zeiss 1.4 i found

Thanks >.>

someone put one up in the sell forum. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=651642

Cotmweasel wrote in post #7391435
someone put one up in the sell forum. https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=651642

%#$@!

I found one brand new in box at ebay including the hard lens hood and all the accessories for $400..but the mount adapter and everything for $275...

This forum makes my credit cards sad

Planars don't float my boat. It takes a Distagon or a Sonnar to get me excited.

foxbat wrote in post #7394274
Planars don't float my boat. It takes a Distagon or a Sonnar to get me excited.

So a question, I know why Planar and Sonnar are called such (Planar for its flat plane reproduction characteristic and Sonnar from "Sonne" meaning sun) But whats Distagon mean?

KenjiS wrote in post #7395224
So a question, I know why Planar and Sonnar are called such (Planar for its flat plane reproduction characteristic and Sonnar from "Sonne" meaning sun) But whats Distagon mean?

It means a DISTortion-free lens mAking big dollars GONe from your wallet.

Actually, this was the model name that Zeiss Oberkochen assigned to their rectilinear wide angle lenses when they were unable to wrest the Flektogon name from the remains of the original factory in East Germany. That whole story is fascinating, by the way. The Distagons are a newer design than the Flektogon.

Zeiss Oberkochen also was able to keep the Planar name, and Zeiss Jena adopted the Biometar name for lenses of the same basic formula. They both made Sonnars, though they might have just been called "s" depending on where in the world they were sold. My 135/3.5 Jena Sonnar is just called S, but my 180/2.8 Jena Sonnar is marked "Sonnar". They were both made in the same factory at about the same time (in the 80's). Before the Planar designs succeeded them, they also both made Tessars. (The Planar requires lens coatings to work acceptably, and the Tessar did not.)

Rick "who'd rather have a Distagon than a Flektogon, and an Jena Sonnar over an Oberkochen Sonnar" Denney

Nice, Rick!

KenjiS wrote in post #7395224
So a question, I know why Planar and Sonnar are called such (Planar for its flat plane reproduction characteristic and Sonnar from "Sonne" meaning sun) But whats Distagon mean?

From:
http://www.cinematechn​ic.com …_cinematography​_lens.html

"When wide angle views go to extremes and beg the control via an SLR viewfinder, which means that the back focal distance has to be much larger than the focal length, a retrofous design called Distagon® is the right choice."

The retrofocus is the defining feature I believe.

perryge wrote in post #7409203
The retrofocus is the defining feature I believe.

Vis-a-vis the symmetrical Zeiss wide-angle lens, which is a Biogon. All modern wide-angle lenses (except some for view cameras) are retrofocus, including the Flektogon from the Jena factory, in order to fit in from of a mirror box. The Hasselblad SWC had a Biogon, but no mirror. Some of the old rangefinder wides are not retrofocus, possibly including the newer Voigtlander models, but they cannot be used with an SLR.

Funny enough, the Sonnar was intended as a normal lens, and was the first really fast normal for the Contax rangefinder (at f/1.5). But in normal focal lengths it also cannot fit in front of a mirror box, and that's why we only see them in short telephotos.

Rick "caught in a web of mirror-box design compromises" Denney

Do any of you actually use these lenses? All I see is talk about how sharp they are, then occasional snapshots with 100% crops, showing how sharp they are. There are only a few posts at the beginning that have photos with any thought put into them and the thread is 10 pages long...

mazdaspeed wrote in post #7412247
Do any of you actually use these lenses? All I see is talk about how sharp they are, then occasional snapshots with 100% crops, showing how sharp they are. There are only a few posts at the beginning that have photos with any thought put into them and the thread is 10 pages long...

Yes we most definitely do. Admittedly, I use my Ls more for serious work (when I need AF and auto aperture), and the 85L for most of what I shoot, but I suspect many people have not noticed this thread yet, since I've seen some wonderful shots made by lots of folk using MF glass. I'm booked to shoot every week in studio and my Sigma 50 is now for sale because I prefer my $25 Pentacon. When the weather gets better and I get out to shoot some landscapes and street, I assure you my bag will consist of the 5D + three manual focus primes.

I use mine (especially the 35 1.4, the micro and the new 50 1.2). I would more if the weather were better.

My nikon AF setup is heavy...all the lenses including the 14-24 are very weighty...so I've pretty much decided that while they are the main ones I'll use for work...I'm going to test out the 35 and the 50 mf to see if they'll make nice walkabout lenses. (IF it would only stop raining, I'd have tried them out before now). They are so light...obviously they wouldn't work for the discreet "shooting from the hip" that I see many do around here for urban things...but I still think they'd be very viable for street shooting.

very nice kitcanon


I was just surfing fleabay and saw this...
35 f2

Bjorn gives it a 4 for everything except infrared...so at $20 it's a pretty good buy. (and I don't have any connections with the seller...I'm just the high priestess of TMS...LOL :lol

LOL we got moved for talking too much.

sorry