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

[COURYHOUSE at aol.com]

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