Tokina Vivitar and Kiron Lenses

G

Guest

My 50mm 1.7 is due to arrive tomorrow (finally) and I am very excited about finally being able to shoot with my new RX.

I have started to look at other lenses. I am mostly interested in getting a wider angle lens something between 21mm and 28mm. Unfortunately right now, the 50mm 1.7 is the only CZ lens I can afford so I am looking at third party wide angle lenses. I have found a lot of listings for Vivitar lenses on Ebay and I have been reading about Tokina lenses and Kiron lenses.

Does anyone have any advice about these brans of have any other suggestions?

Thanks a lot in advance.

Chris
 
G

Guest

I got another suggestion. If you are that short on money, sell your RX, buy a Yashica FX-3 on ebay for $30 and buy a CZ lens. If you think I'm stupid and rude, consider this: I have an Aria and 3 FX-3s and several CZ lenses and I put them to the test. My FX3 with the D21/2.8 gives me 110lpm on Techpan and the D28/2.8 100lpm. If I would upgrade from my $50 tripod this would be even better. If you think the RX could do the same with a $50 wideangle, dream on.
 
G

Guest

For many years my only CZ lenses were the Planars 85 1.4 and 50 1.4. For wide angle, I used a Tamron 28mm 2.5 that sometimes shows on eBay for very little money and gave very good results (for whoever is curious, the Photodo rate of that lens is 3.2 (compared to 3.4 for the CZ 25 2.8 and 4.3 for the CZ 28 2.8). I also used a Vivitar Series 1 28-105 that was OK except for severe vignetting if you tried to use a filter. Someone in this forum trashed this lens, but I was happy with it and loved the range.
For super-wide (which I seldom use), I still use a Sigma 18-35 that I bought 6 years ago.
Berhhard's advice may be wise. In particular, the CZ 28 2.8 is relatively unexpensive. The discussion about lenses always ends in the same way: as the best reason to go Contax is the Zeiss lenses, you shoud get them when you can, and blah, blah...All I can say is that I understand Chris's question, and my own answer was to use third party lenses for yeras.

Juan
 
G

Guest

> [Thank-you for the advice I recieved. I do not feel that I need to= justify purchasing an RX but perhaps if I explain I will get a bette= r response to my question. About three months ago a family friend wa= s cleaning out her basement and found a Durst enlarger that she and h= er husband had purchased in the early 1980's. She knew I was a photo= grapher and offered it to me as a gift. Unfortunately I do not have = any space to set up a dark room and will not likely have space for a = long time so I decided to sell the enlarger. I chose to put the mone= y from the enlarger back into Photo Equippment and decided that since= it is very (VERY) unlikely that I would ever have this much money ag= ain to put into a system in one lump, that I should buy as good a sys= tem as I could. Therefore, I decided on the RX. Of course when I bo= ught the camera I understood full well that the lenses are very expen= sive but I know from my previous outfit (Pentax) that with my style o= f shooting, the lenses in the ra...

If anyone has any other advice about lenses I would really apprciate = it. Thank-you to those who already responded.

Chris Toronto Ontario]
 
G

Guest

Okay, the RX is a very fine camera and I'm sure you will be happy with it. I still wouldn't try to buy a CZ lens. The best bang for the buck is probably buying the 28/2.8 used in excellent condition, KEH has them for $250, adorama has good used prices too. This is not much if you consider how much you will spend in film and development.
 
G

Guest

> Hi Chris in Toronto, I've like the Tamron, Kiron and some of the Vivitar Series One lenses. Burlington Camera has a Series One 28-90 and some Yashica ML and Tamron used. I have some Tamron mixed in with my Zeiss and am very happy with them. I almost got a Kiron 28 f2.0, but just missed it on ebay. If you want more details on Burlington Camera you can email me. Jeff, just outside Toronto. jeff.lorriman@sympatico.ca
 
G

Guest

Hi,

The question of using none Zeiss lenses often crops up. Zeiss do not have the monopoly on quality, but they do have a damn good hold on it with C/Y fit lenses.

There is a school of thought with which I concur that Yashica 'ML'(not YUS or DSB)lenses are almost as good as the Zeiss equivalents.

Some people think that they are actually the same lenses - the best being cherry picked and branded CZ, the others made into Yashicas using lesser bodies such as used o happen with Schneider & Lihof optics. That I am sure is incorrect as there are often disparities between the two lines - element configurations, aperture blades, front lens diameters, etc.

What I can say with the authority of use is that the Yashica ML range of lenses with the exception of the 28 - 200mm zoom, give first class images that are to the untrained eye identical to Zeiss derived images.

I have used Yashica ML 50mm f1.7 & f1.4, 135mm and 200mm and the 28 - 80mm and 80 - 200mm zooms. All are exceptional performers for their money.

When you consider that the 80 - 200mm cost me £50 and the equivalent Vario - Sonnar would be at least $600, then I personally cannot justify to anyone to buy the Carl Zeiss.

Just my two penneth.

Clive
 
G

Guest

Clive those were two of the most sensible posts I have read this week. Your support of Yashica lenses makes me happy. I really wanted to buy a Yashica (or other third party) wide angle lens to hold me until I can afford a CZ. Now that I read your post and do a little more research, I am starting to think that a Yashica wide angle might be all I need especially since I do not shoot wide angle that often anyway.

I also agree with your post about digital vs. film. I am taking Fine Arts at a school that believes firmly in film but not tradition. We scan almost all of our negatives and do extensive digital work but only after shooting the originals with film. I have been reading posts lately that compare digital with poloroid, 110 film, and other photographic 'marvels' of the past. The argument seems reasonable to me although obviously digital will never have a fall out.

I suppose I am still young and I can definately not imagine outliving film. I think film will be around for a few generations yet.

Thanks Clive.

Chris
Toronto Ont. Canada
 
G

Guest

Yashica lenses are a good alternative. The 50/1.4 and 1.7 are excellent. The 28 and 35 are are also OK although the D28/2.8 is hard to beat. The ML24 has also a very good reputation (never had my hands on one) and might actually be a very good alternative to the D25/2.8, which is probably one of the weaker CZ lenses. So despite my fervent post about 3rd party vs CZ lenses, there is nothing wrong with buying the Yashicas I mentioned.
 
G

Guest

Don't forget the rare Yashica ML 21mm.

> excellent. The 28 and 35 are are also OK although the >D28/2.8 is hard to beat. The ML24 has also a very >good reputation
 
Top