OT: lenses (Was: Front Panels - PDP8 and PDP 11

Marco Gariboldi mgariboldi at gmail.com
Thu Mar 10 21:31:39 CST 2016

2016-03-11 4:25 GMT+01:00 <COURYHOUSE at aol.com>:

> Hasselblad  did not use  tessar.  tesar was  a  good  lens  but certainly
> not the hi end
> ed#

Incorrect.  There were various, like the *Tele-Tessar*, which appeared for

(By the way, your messages usually end up in my spam bin.  Just so you

 - MG

> In a message dated 3/10/2016 8:01:07 P.M. US Mountain Standard Time,
> mgariboldi at gmail.com writes:
> 2016-03-10 16:59 GMT+01:00 Zane Healy  <healyzh at aracnet.com>:
> >
> > > On Mar 9, 2016, at 11:37  PM, Paul Anderson <useddec at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >  Popular or Modern Photography 20 or 30 years ago had an article on the
>  10
> > > best lens ever made. I think Zeiss made 3 of them, and they  were the
> only
> > > company with more than one.
> >
> > One of  my all time favorite lenses is the Hasselblad 80mm f/2.8 Planar C
> > lens  made by Zeiss.  Even their low-end Tessar lenses are  awesome.
> >
> Anything made for Hasselblad could hardly be called  'low-end'.  (A bit
> like
> a 'low-end' SGI, there was basically never  such a thing... certainly not
> in
> terms of original cost.)
> The only  truly low-end Carl Zeiss optics are probably the *Pentacon*
> series, made by  the post-WW II Carl Zeiss Jena branch of the GDR.
> Take a look at  the Sony a7 series of bodies, people are using RTS lenses
> on
> >  them.  You can put almost anything on them, and they’re a full  frame
> > sensor.  I know that the wider lenses might have some  fringing issues at
> > the edges.
> Which (affordable) lens  *doesn't* have imperfect edges, especially
> completely analog lenses without  any in-camera digital correction.  (This
> can also be done afterwards,  if one knows the possible distortion values.)
> The Sony a7-series aren't  exactly cheap.  More affordable and rather good,
> too, are µ4/3  cameras, especially in conjunction with a focal reducer, if
> the crop is too  much of an obstruction.  I gain an extra stop of light, on
> top of  reducing the crop, with my M42/Praktica thread mount lenses.   My
> thorium-coated Asahi Pentax Super-Takumar 1.4/50's maximum diaphragm  is
> effectively widened to an impressive ƒ/1.  On top of that I have  in-body
> image stabilization, good high ISO handling and other features, all  at the
> fraction of the cost.  On top of that, I can exchange my lenses  with my
> dedicated µ4/3 Super 16 digital film camera.
> >  I’ve started looking seriously at the a7 series, as it would allow me
> to
> > use a lot of lenses I have, that I can currently only use on 35mm  film
> > bodies.
> >
> Nothing prevents you from using a full  frame lens on a smaller (e.g.
> APS-C)
> sensor body.  The crop isn't  always a negative, sometimes it can change a
> mediocre tele-photo prime into  an excellent one.
> > Since I started shooting more than just  Nikon, it’s a lot harder to find
> > Nikon lenses I really like.  The  only AF lens I really like is the
> Nikkor
> > 50mm f/1.4G, at f/5.6 it can  compete with my 50mm Summicron.
> >
> At ƒ/5.6 only?  Well,  that's rough...
> - MG

More information about the cctalk mailing list