RE: OT: Yashica MF lenses
But isn't Xenotar the same as the Planar only made by Schneider? ukasz - 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 .
Re: OT: Yashica MF lenses
I'm just now going through the Xenotar-Planar machinations wrt a possible Rolleiflex purchase. These pages may be of some interest. http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001CtQ http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/Rollei-9.html £ukasz Kacperczyk wrote: But isn't Xenotar the same as the Planar only made by Schneider? -- Shel Belinkoff mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - 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 .
Re: OT: Yashica MF lenses
Sunday, April 07, 2002, 1:46:54 PM, ukasz wrote: K But isn't Xenotar the same as the Planar only made by Schneider? K ukasz Well, It's like saying all Tessars are the same... While the original Tessar was f/6.8, later tweaked to get f/4.5 and even f/2.8, all by changing the diopter strengths and spacing of the various elements. So now, some tessars are simply much better than others. Also, remember that it can be complicated by using strange glass types, like rare-earth Lanthanum glass, to improve the element refraction index. IIRC Kodak used such glass in some Tessar formula lenses Ektars, and one USSR made Tessar used La glass too, to improve it a lot. A planar is similar, the original Planar developed by Rudolph soemitime in 1890s evolved into different planars... the Zeiss one, the Zeiss Jena Biometar (which has different split element into group. Some say the Biometar 2.8/80 is better than the Planar 2.8/80...). The Xenotar, etc... All might be derived from the same old Rudolph's Planar, but vary slightly or more. And the Russian lenses, most of the Helioses are Leitz Summilux copies IIRC, but more or less tweaked... As well as almost all 1.4/50 lenses are of quite generic gaussian design, but they can differ a lot in quality between manufacturers. 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 .
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 .
Re: OT: Yashica MF lenses
Thanks. I was just curious about them. The comments on R Monagha's site are positive abuot the original rollei (zeiss) mutars, somewhat pos about the tele for Y and somewhat neg about the wide for Y. BTW, I have seen several Rollefielxes (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 .
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 .
Re: OT: Yashica MF lenses
Hi, Frantisek, I have no personal experience with them, but I read somewhere that the Yashica auxilliary lenses are not sharp at all, and not really usable by any serious photographer for that reason. regards, frank Frantisek Vlcek wrote: Hi, I remember there are several Yashica TLR users out here, holding up bravely against the brutal onslaught of the so-called Brotherhood of Bloat Thunder (mirror slap) ;-) Would you happen to know anything about the mutar-like add-on lenses (from Yashica or other manufact.)? The wideangle and tele attachments. Are they useful? What about adapting a generic 0.42x or 0.75x attachment lens to it? -- The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true. -J. Robert Oppenheimer - 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 .
RE: OT: Yashica MF lenses
I'm no expert and I don't even like these cameras (the few I handled, including one in 'like new' condition, were very loud compared to my old Roleiflex Automat - I'm not talking about the shutter but the film advance and shutter cocking), but I guess by adding a lens to the one fixed on the camera you would lose a lot of light (a simmilar add on to Yashica Electro is f/8 if I'm not mistaken). I doubt it would be easy to focus looking through such a lens. But then again - I'm no expert and have no experience with these add-on lenses, so I may be totally wrong. Just my two cents. ukasz - 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 .
