Re: Vs: OT: Yashica MF lenses
Sunday, April 07, 2002, 8:03:20 PM, Raimo wrote: RK Russian (and Soviet) lenses are mostly copies of Zeiss designs. RK All the best! RK Raimo RK Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho Certainly not all. There are quite many of them which are genuine inhouse designs IMHO. Also, many lenses from many manufacturers are just derived from earlier lenses, as are the USSR (not copies, derived). Like most primes, etc. It's the tweaking that makes a perfect lens often not a completely new design. Most 50 primes are very similar gaussian lenses, etc... The same for fabled 35/3.5 SMC which is the simplest wideangle possible, a simple Tessar with large negative element up front, completely same design as several cheapest 3rd party 35mm lenses out there. It's the tweaking that makes it good. And in the USSR, the Maksutov catadioptric design was made, too, which is among the best for mirror lenses. Well, I got on a little cardbox soap here ;-) Good light, Frantisek Vlcek - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
Vs: OT: Yashica MF lenses
Yes - the Zeiss Planar is the most prestigious, but optically the best is Schneider Xenotar - and it is cheaper. Yes, I have owned Rolleiflexes with both lenses. I have to agree about the screen (and split-image rangefinder). All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Frantisek Vlcek [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: gfen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 06. huhtikuuta 2002 22:29 Aihe: Re: OT: Yashica MF lenses sip BTW, I have seen several Rolleiflexes (I have and used some older ones, prewar) but Yashicas are clearly better in their focusing screen. Yes, Planar is better than Tessar design by many degrees, but so is the price. If I bought a Rollei (a 2.8 Planar tempts me, in such a small box. Although I love the early, smaller Standard Rolleiflex '35), I would have the screen changed to a beattie/microprism. The original screen really sucks (sorry Wendy, but it's been long time somebody used this word g). Why did Franke und Heidecke they put such stupid screen on otherwise great camera ?!? Frantisek - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
