[pepperberry farm]

Don't want to break up this discussion, but I picked up some film (ektar, portra, pro ns, and cinestill 50d). Looking forward to trying cinestill.

please - break it up....


(:

[BigMackCam]

please - break it up....

Allow me...

The Rubin-1 37-80 f/2.8 lens I bought was delivered today

I'm happy with it. Cosmetically, on a scale of "junk" to "mint", I'd rate it as "good" - having received some black paint touch-ups to the body over the years. Optical condition is "excellent". Still, it's not the best performer optically, but I knew that before I bought it. The body needs a little bit of additional cleaning (in the grooves of the focus and zoom rings, for example), but it was quite well presented by the seller.

It came with original front and rear caps, generic DKL-to-M42 adapter with generic M42 cap, and the original tripod / strap mount, which I've installed for the second photo below.

Apologies for the quick 'n' dirty photos

[monochrome]

Even more respectfully, the chocolate coating just introduces another factor for thickness variance.
I suspect the shape & dimensions of the basic Leibniz-Keks may be among the most stable of all food items.

The whole point of defining units of measurement is to make measurements reproducible with as little variance or drift as possible.

IIRC the progression of incidents correctly, once stacking Girl Scout Thin Mints was established as a transferable lens length estimation process a certain member proposed the label Standard Measuring Unit (“SMU”). In that post the certain member also proposed acceptance of Alternative Measuring Units (“AMU”), as established.

Leibniz-Keks, it seems to me, are acceptably precise with regard to lens length estimates such that they be certified as an AMU.

So moved.


Now go ask Parallax about polishing his new lens.

[lesmore49]

Allow me...

The Rubin-1 37-80 f/2.8 lens I bought was delivered today

I'm happy with it. Cosmetically, on a scale of "junk" to "mint", I'd rate it as "good" - having received some black paint touch-ups to the body over the years. Optical condition is "excellent". Still, it's not the best performer optically, but I knew that before I bought it. The body needs a little bit of additional cleaning (in the grooves of the focus and zoom rings, for example), but it was quite well presented by the seller.

It came with original front cap, original rear cap, generic DKL-to-M42 adapter with generic M42 cap, and the tripod / strap mount, which I've installed for the second photo below.

Apologies for the quick 'n' dirty photos

Please keep on posting pictures and information on the vintage camera equipment you are collecting, BigMackCam. I'm starting to develop a mild fascination with older lenses.

I'm impressed with your newly acquired Rubinar-1 37-80 f/2.8 lens, particularly that it is an F 2.8.

I'm starting to note the material used in construction of older lenses, whether it's a '60's Takumar or a Made in the USSR lens...or from other countries. I'm not familiar with the hard plastics of yore that seem to be a material that is not seen very much or at all anymore. I don't know enough about plastics to know if older lens bodies with the older plastic materials are as durable as the newer stuff. The older material and lenses seem to be more robust in construction.

Lens caps are another part of older lenses that I'm developing an interest. My old Takumars are metal with the name Asahi Pentax stamped ...and btw, to my eye very good quality and I think better quality than many modern lenses have. My old MTO has a lens cap that appears to be made of the same hard plastic that is used in the lens body.

I have an Old Yashicamat (6X6) that has had it's soft rubbery lens cap replaced by a better, lovely Rollei TLR metal cap. The Rollei double cap is an object to behold..quite beautiful and very well made. On a par with some of my Pentax Limited lens caps, particularly my screw in small Pentax cap of my 40mm Limited.

Les

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-18-2018 at 01:27 PM. Reason: Edited quoted post with correction

[aurele]

Allow me...

The Rubin-1 37-80 f/2.8 lens I bought was delivered today

I'm happy with it. Cosmetically, on a scale of "junk" to "mint", I'd rate it as "good" - having received some black paint touch-ups to the body over the years. Optical condition is "excellent". Still, it's not the best performer optically, but I knew that before I bought it. The body needs a little bit of additional cleaning (in the grooves of the focus and zoom rings, for example), but it was quite well presented by the seller.

It came with original front and rear caps, generic DKL-to-M42 adapter with generic M42 cap, and the original tripod / strap mount, which I've installed for the second photo below.

Apologies for the quick 'n' dirty photos

Question : how does it render ? I know that's not the purpose of buying the lens, but i'm really curious ;-)

[timw4mail]

Allow me...

The Rubin-1 37-80 f/2.8 lens I bought was delivered today

I'm happy with it. Cosmetically, on a scale of "junk" to "mint", I'd rate it as "good" - having received some black paint touch-ups to the body over the years. Optical condition is "excellent". Still, it's not the best performer optically, but I knew that before I bought it. The body needs a little bit of additional cleaning (in the grooves of the focus and zoom rings, for example), but it was quite well presented by the seller.

It came with original front and rear caps, generic DKL-to-M42 adapter with generic M42 cap, and the original tripod / strap mount, which I've installed for the second photo below.

Apologies for the quick 'n' dirty photos

I'm surprised that there are Soviet DKL mount lenses. What cameras would those go on, other than the Kodak Retinas and Voitlander Bessaflexes?

[BigMackCam]

Please keep on posting pictures and information on the vintage camera equipment you are collecting, BigMackCam. I'm starting to develop a mild fascination with older lenses.

Will do! I know there are others on these forums who enjoy vintage lenses, if not exclusively Soviet, and that's primarily why I post. I love looking at other people's lenses, too, so this is one of my favourite threads

I'm impressed with your newly acquired Rubinar-1 37-80 f/2.8 lens, particularly that it is an F 2.8.

Hold that thought... more info to come, below

I'm starting to note the material used in construction of older lenses, whether it's a '60's Takumar or a Made in the USSR lens...or from other countries.
...
The older material and lenses seem to be more robust in construction.
...
Lens caps are another part of older lenses that I'm developing an interest.

The construction quality of older equipment is one of the things I enjoy most about it. A well-looked-after, well-maintained vintage lens should easily outlast any of us...

Question : how does it render ? I know that's not the purpose of buying the lens, but i'm really curious ;-)

Honest answer? IMHO, it's rotten! YMMV, though

In summary:

- Wide open, it's toy-camera-like soft at all focal lengths (but worst at the long end), with weird, busy out-of-focus rendering and highlights (especially at the wide end), and heavy vignetting
- Stopped down to around f/5.6, it's perfectly usable and improves further as you narrow the aperture... but it's never sharp by modern standards, and bokeh is never pretty

Here's a 100% crop at 80mm, f/2.8 (and yes, it really is accurately focused ):



Here's the same shot at around f/4.5 f/5.6 (difficult to tell exactly with the modified adapter I'm using; so I'm working off the difference in ISO setting to estimate aperture):



And here's what the out-of-focus rendering looks like at the wider end, f/2.8. Notice the "bokeh balls" are outlined in white and green, and have a very bright dot in the middle. Also, the stems and twigs aren't evenly blurred - they look extremely busy. Do you remember those "X-ray Specs" you could buy mail order, and from joke shops? The way this lens renders out of focus areas reminds me of those!!



Believe it or not, the berries in the bottom right corner are pretty accurately focused

So, pretty awful really But, as I mentioned previously, I expected that to be the case, based on my research of the lens...

I'm surprised that there are Soviet DKL mount lenses. What cameras would those go on, other than the Kodak Retinas and Voitlander Bessaflexes?

The Zenit-4, 5 & 6 all used the DKL mount, but the flange focal distance is 47.58mm compared to the Kodak / Voigtlander "standard" of 45.7mm. Theoretically, you could use the Soviet DKL lenses on a Bessamatic, but you'd need to move the lens forward by 1.88mm somehow, whilst still retaining a method of operating the diaphragm - which doesn't sound practical. Or, you could accept heavily compromised minimum focus distance...

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 07-18-2018 at 01:04 PM.

[aurele]

Honest answer? IMHO, it's rotten! YMMV, though

I had to ask

You don't get the lens for the sharpness, obviously, you get it because it's a piece of History ! The skills required to calculate and then create this lens, this is what's really impressive !

It's really cool to see this kind of findings here !

[BigMackCam]

I had to ask

You don't get the lens for the sharpness, obviously, you get it because it's a piece of History ! The skills required to calculate and then create this lens, this is what's really impressive !

It's really cool to see this kind of findings here !

Thanks

I'd be fascinated to know how much better the original Voigtlander 36-82/2.8 Zoomar was, on which this Rubin-1 was based. That Voigtlander lens was (apparently) the first production zoom lens for 35mm cameras, and released in 1959... so I'm guessing it wasn't outstanding optically

[WPRESTO]

Thanks

I'd be fascinated to know how much better the original Voigtlander 36-82/2.8 Zoomar was, on which this Rubin-1 was based. That Voigtlander lens was (apparently) the first production zoom lens for 35mm cameras, and released in 1959... so I'm guessing it wasn't outstanding optically

Correct on it being the first zoom for 35mm. As I recall, originally offered permanently attached to a Contaflex-like SLR body. The photo mags were in a tizzy testing it, and some predicted that it opened a new era, but I don't recall their evaluations other than not as good as SFL lenses (duh!).

[IgorZ]

That's a good selection! Do you scan your film? (I'd be interested in the Cinestill results, too)

Yes, I do. I picked up only 120 film though, and my 135 scanner is much better... I am very interested in trying the cinestill. Will post some if there is anything worth posting...

[Boris_Akunin]

My Samyang FE 35/2.8 should arrive today and this arrived yesterday:





With the tiny little Samyang and this beanpole of a lens, I'm well-prepared to demonstrate both the precision and the stackability of the LKU(/LKE).
I will have to procure some more, though...

[UncleVanya]

...I'm well-prepared to demonstrate both the precision and the stackability of the LKU(/LKE).
I will have to procure some more, though...

That last line made me laugh.

[WPRESTO]

My Samyang FE 35/2.8 should arrive today and this arrived yesterday:

Attachment 412483

Attachment 412487

With the tiny little Samyang and this beanpole of a lens, I'm well-prepared to demonstrate both the precision and the stackability of the LKU(/LKE).
I will have to procure some more, though...

New unsold old stock on both those lenses? They look totally pristine.

I notice that the 300mm has a slide-forward lens hood, By far my favorite design for that accessory. Most convenient to use in every way, no competition superior to any and all other designs I've used.

[IgorZ]

Mamiya 180mm f4.5 for the rb67 arrived yesterday. My first thought was "this thing is huge!" My second thought was it is so light. I didn't expect such a big lens to weigh so little. Is it because the focusing is done using bellows so the lens design is simpler?