Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Optics Theory -

Optics Theory - This forum is aimed towards the TECHNICAL side of photographic OPTICS THEORY. There will be some overlap by camera/manufacturer, but this forum is for the heavy duty tech discussions. This is NOT the place to discuss a specific lens or lens line, do that in the appropriate forum. This is the forum to discuss optics or lenses in general, to learn about the tech behind the lenses and images. IF you have a question about a specific lens, post it in the forum about that type of camera, NOT HERE.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Raid's 35/40mm flare test: Analysis
Old 05-12-2007   #1
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
Raid's 35/40mm flare test: Analysis

I selected some of Raid's test pictures and did some post-processing
to allow easier comparison. I am trying to compare flare/micro-contrast,
sharpness and bokeh; After selecting only the lenses that are f2.8
or faster, I first automatically adjusted contrast (to eliminate
possible differences in exposure due to camera choice and lens
transmission loss - some lenses are older than others),
and then selected three areas in the pictures:


  1. the candle flames on the lower right to look at flare in more detail
    (blue circles). In particular: how well are the shapes of the candle
    flames resolved
  2. the writing on the DVD box on the table (green circles). Note that this
    is slightly off the focus point (the matchstick on the horse), so lack of
    readability of the writing doesn't necessarily imply that the lens is not
    sharp, but tells you more how thick the focal plane is.
  3. an area in the glass doors of the curio in the background, where
    light sources are reflected (red circle above).

Here are the results:

===========================================

Flare and sharpness comparison of f1.[45] lenses:



Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905475-O.jpg

===========================================

Flare and sharpness comparison of f2 lenses:



Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905649-O.jpg

===========================================

Flare and sharpness comparison of f2.8 lenses:



Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905516-O.jpg

===========================================

Bokeh comparison of f1.[45] lenses:



Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905306-O.jpg

===========================================

Bokeh comparison of f2 lenses:



Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905367-O.jpg

===========================================

Bokeh comparison of f2.8 lenses:



Larger version of this picture:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/photos/151905324-O.jpg

===========================================

You can also browse the above 6 pictures on smugmug directly,
via this gallery:

http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2836741

For the moment I will hold back my own conclusions, see for yourself
and tell us what you think.

Best,

Roland.

Last edited by ferider : 05-12-2007 at 13:28.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #2
aizan
Registered User
 
aizan's Avatar
 
aizan is offline
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Torrance, CA
Age: 35
Posts: 3,899
roland is da man!
__________________
Ugly Cameras
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #3
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
I am looking forward to people here adding their comments.
I will add my comments later on.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #4
Bryce
Registered User
 
Bryce's Avatar
 
Bryce is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,041
Maybe a comparison of the corners of the frames would show a significant difference between the more modern lenses?
I don't see many real losers here, nor really obvious winners.
One thing I have noticed in comparing these frames, there is a just noticeable difference between the SC and MC versions of the Nokton 40mm. To me, it seems like the MC version would be a better choice by a very small margin; if you want flare it is easy enough to get. I'm thinking 30 seconds worth of elbow grease, some steel wool and a cheap old filter.
On the whole, at least from this series, it would be pretty difficult to say which lens shot which image. The pre- 1970 lenses all show more widespread flare; other differences are quite subtle to my eye.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #5
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
I just noticed that when you browse the gallery directly via smugmug, you will be able to see much more detail.

Anyways, here are a few starting points for discussion:

- I agree the differences are very subtle, maybe due to low resolution, or not looking all the way out to the picture boundary. That by itself is a strong statement, since we are dealing with lenses between US 250 and $3000 value on the used market, sometimes used on a digital camera with crop factor. I would have a hard time identifying any lens (except for obvious DOF differences when shot wide open) from an on-line example picture, say if Raid posted another quizz.
- I am not sure if there is even little difference between MC and SC Nokton. What is seen above could be lens sample differences.
- The one lens that struck me as great is the Canon 35/1.5. Struck me so bad that I wish I had one. Before, I read mixed reports on this lens, but it is obviously very good, with more contrast than even the MC Nokton, wide open (I believe the Canon is single coated?)
- the 40 Summicron-C and CLE Rokkor have better bokeh than both 35 Summicrons ?

Any more ? Cheers,

Roland.

Last edited by ferider : 05-12-2007 at 17:58.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #6
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Bryce,

I see differences between the modern lenses too. The original full sized images reveal quite a lot about the lenses. The bare bulb portion of the image can show you how resistant to flare a lens is. The small highlights in the cabinet glass windows give a hint of bokeh behavior.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #7
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
There is a big difference between the Summaron 3.5 and 2.8 lenses. The Summaron 2.8 came out very strong, competing with the Summicron. As Roland said above, we have some expensive lenses here. Take also into account that the lens design of a 35mm lens allows for more optical performance than, say, a 21mm lens. The Elmar and the Summaron 3.5 may be poor examples in the test start-up.

I have a feeling that the only true differences will be in "flavor" or a lens. I have started today the portrait session, so maybe soon there will added information on how each lens renders a human face.


Raid

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #8
Joerg
Dilettant
 
Joerg's Avatar
 
Joerg is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Newton, MA
Posts: 508
R & R,

Wow what a body of work.
Not easy to pass judgment, we are talking subtle differences (except flare).

Thanks for all the work!!

Ciao

Joerg
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #9
Bryce
Registered User
 
Bryce's Avatar
 
Bryce is offline
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,041
Raid-
Human faces would be a very good test.
I find Leica's lens naming scheme very confusing. I had been assuming that both the Summaron lenses are older models and probably single coated, and maybe hazed internally. Is this not true?
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #10
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryce
Raid-
Human faces would be a very good test.
I find Leica's lens naming scheme very confusing. I had been assuming that both the Summaron lenses are older models and probably single coated, and maybe hazed internally. Is this not true?
Bryce: The Summaron 3.5 is quite old but the Elmar 3.5 is even older. The Summaron 2.8 came before the Summicron. I will inspect the Sumamron 3.5 for internal haze (it is my lens).

Raid
  Reply With Quote

That Canon 35/1.5 rocks ...
Old 05-12-2007   #11
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
That Canon 35/1.5 rocks ...

Thanks Joerg !

One more .... (no contrast modification of the original).


Last edited by ferider : 05-12-2007 at 19:11.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #12
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Roland:What do you look for in the candlelight portions to reach an assessment?
Is it the halo for the candle light or the candles themselves or the crystal vase in the backgroundor all?
Why?

Sorry for putting you on the spot.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #13
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid
Roland:What do you look for in the candlelight portions to reach an assessment?
Is it the halo for the candle light or the candles themselves or the crystal vase in the backgroundor all?
Why?

Sorry for putting you on the spot.

Raid
Just a feeling, Raid, very subjective.

I like when the shape of the flame is nicely isolated from the flare,
a steep "Edge Spread Function". This is typical for Leitz lenses
(they are designed for this), but even more pronounced in
the Canon lens above.

Roland.

Last edited by ferider : 05-12-2007 at 19:17.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-12-2007   #14
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Roland,
I see the vase being better defined with other lenses though.

So this means that another Canon 1.5 is a star; we recently had the Canon 50mm/1.5 being rediscovered by many people here. I wonder whether it is the Sonnar forumula that is giving the edge to these lenses.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #15
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
On request of Magus a crop into the lightbulb:

The fast lenses wide open:



And including more lenses at f2:



Best,

Roland.

Last edited by ferider : 05-13-2007 at 08:10.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #16
foto_fool
Registered User
 
foto_fool is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 733
Thanks Raid & Roland:

It should no longer surprise me how well the 40mm lenses perform, but it does. Detail rendition, boke, flare resistance, and to a leser extent, contrast are quite good. I'm looking forward to seeing how the Canon 35mm/1.5 does in the portait comparison - VERY impressive here!

- John
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #17
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
John,

Thanks for your support. I was getting nervous that input is rather limited so far, and we need all the encouragements to continue with the testing process. There are now comments on the test in two separate RF threads, so make sure to take a look at both of them. The more recent close-ups by Roland revealed that the Canon 35mm/1.5 does not do that well wide open in the flare test with the bare light bulb.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #18
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
 
Marc-A.'s Avatar
 
Marc-A. is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Paris (France)
Age: 39
Posts: 1,176
It seems to me that there are less differences between 35mm lenses than between 50mm lenses. Am I wrong? If we put aside the early Leitz lenses (Elmar and Summaron SM), and the Canon 1.8 & 2, I can't see huge differences. As to sharpness and flare control, the CV lenses appear to be outstanding performers for the price: the Nokton 40 (any version) seems one of the very best, as does the CV PII, and the Skopar Classic 2.5 seems a bit superior to the Ultron 1.7. Would you agree?
I'm not particularly impressed by Leitz lenses, except for the Summilux 1.4 which is the best one.
__________________
My Flickr

My PBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #19
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
 
Marc-A.'s Avatar
 
Marc-A. is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Paris (France)
Age: 39
Posts: 1,176
Oh I forgot: THANK YOU VERY MUCH RAID for the test, AND FERIDER for the comments!! GREAT WORK!
__________________
My Flickr

My PBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #20
Roel
Registered User
 
Roel's Avatar
 
Roel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid
John,

Thanks for your support. I was getting nervous that input is rather limited so far, and we need all the encouragements to continue with the testing process. There are now comments on the test in two separate RF threads, so make sure to take a look at both of them. The more recent close-ups by Roland revealed that the Canon 35mm/1.5 does not do that well wide open in the flare test with the bare light bulb.

Raid
Raid and Roland,

Your work and effort is incredible. Please please continue. Got to admit that sometimes the differences or so small that I have to look more than a few times to see them. Perhaps that why the response is/was somewhat limited. We are still analising ourselves.. Anyhow, can't wait to see the next pictures and am very curious what this will bring forward! Must say that I like how the VC 40 is doing so far! I decided for it in stead of the Summaron 2.8. Mmm, let's wait and see if that was really smart..
Great test gentlemen!!

Thanks, Roel
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #21
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marc-A.
It seems to me that there are less differences between 35mm lenses than between 50mm lenses. Am I wrong? If we put aside the early Leitz lenses (Elmar and Summaron SM), and the Canon 1.8 & 2, I can't see huge differences. As to sharpness and flare control, the CV lenses appear to be outstanding performers for the price: the Nokton 40 (any version) seems one of the very best, as does the CV PII, and the Skopar Classic 2.5 seems a bit superior to the Ultron 1.7. Would you agree?
I'm not particularly impressed by Leitz lenses, except for the Summilux 1.4 which is the best one.
Marc: We don't have in the test the fourth version Summicron and also not the Summicron ASPH. The CV lenses came to me mainly like new in the box [which looks brand new]. Several of the Leitz lenses here are old.


Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #22
Rafael
Mandlerian
 
Rafael's Avatar
 
Rafael is offline
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,272
A big thank you to Raid and Roland. You guys have put a tonne of work into this. And the results are very interesting. Is there any explanation for the very different performance of the Canon 35/1.5 with the light bulb and with the candles? Is the difference simply due to the sizes and shapes of the different light sources? Both seem to be relatively centered in the frame.
__________________
~ Marc ~
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #23
Marc-A.
I Shoot Film
 
Marc-A.'s Avatar
 
Marc-A. is offline
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Paris (France)
Age: 39
Posts: 1,176
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid
Marc: We don't have in the test the fourth version Summicron and also not the Summicron ASPH. The CV lenses came to me mainly like new in the box [which looks brand new]. Several of the Leitz lenses here are old.


Raid
Good point Raid. But at this stage, my conclusion is that there are a lot a very good to excellent 35mm lenses. Even if the CV are like new, and even if Leitz lenses are pretty old, I still stick to my remark: CV lenses are amazing (I should add this information in order to explain my interest in the CV lenses performance: I just order a Skopar Classic from Stephen Gandy ... and I'm eager to test it! ).
I'm looking forward to the Summicron ASPH test; but that Summilux is really impressive.
Best,
Marc
__________________
My Flickr

My PBase
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #24
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Marc: I wish we had a Summicron ASPH, but we don't.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-13-2007   #25
Rico
Registered User
 
Rico's Avatar
 
Rico is offline
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Chicago, IL, USA
Posts: 925
Roland, thanks for the clippings! High-mag detail can be enjoyed without the bandwidth burden.

Raid, thanks again for the work! The test scene reveals many optical properties.

One technical observation: I notice there are variations in focus between lenses. For a given lens, the exact plane is suggested by the sharpness of detail in the table cloth. This has less effect on our conclusions about flare and bokeh, but more effect on sharpness and contrast of particular items that we presume are in focus (e.g. DVD box).
__________________

Rico Tudor. Leica M4, IIIb, 28, 35, 50, 90, 135, 280. Contax T, RTS; Canon; Nikon; Profoto
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2007   #26
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Rico: I did my best to focus correctly on the match stick. Errors are always possible.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2007   #27
psvensson
Registered User
 
psvensson is offline
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 14
The CV 40s seems to be focused well behind the book - look at the crystal. Having had (and kept) a few CV lenses, I know the fault might be with them rather than the operator.
__________________
M3 SS, Hexanon 50/2, Heliar 50/3.5, M-Rokkor 90/4
Bessa T & Bessa T101, Hexanon 28/2.8
Konica Auto S2
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2007   #28
anhtu
Registered User
 
anhtu's Avatar
 
anhtu is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 48
Thanks for all your efforts Raid. A fun test!
__________________
- anhtu

"Huh? How come the flash didn't go off?"
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2007   #29
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
I did a focus test when I tested the 50mm lenses, and not a single lens was off target. This time, Roland and I agreed not to waste time on a focus test. For the flare test it is not as important, but with the portrait test it would be important that the focus be right. I hope that it was me and not the CV lens that was off.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2007   #30
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
I think the focus is OK, Raid. The text I show is slightly in front
of the focal plane (the matchstick) and slightly out of focus.
Even at the same f stop some lenses have thinner DOF than
others.

Also, check the DOF marks on the 40 Nokton. The lens is extremely
short throw, there is no mark for f2 or f1.4 (like on the typical
50mm lens). So focus errors can happen easily.

Roland.
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-14-2007   #31
Joe Mondello
Resu Deretsiger
 
Joe Mondello's Avatar
 
Joe Mondello is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Manhattan
Age: 66
Posts: 566
R&R you guys rock! (well you ARE "R'n'R after all!) ;-)

Really interesting comparison. Amazing that you could do it and wonderful that you did it so well.

I like my CV lenses more and more as I use them and more and more as I see test results like these. I think Mr. K has done an amazing thing with these new lenses and i for one am grateful!

great work all around.
__________________
--
Cheers,
Joe

40mm Nokton 1.4, 28mm Ultron 1.9, 15mm Super Wide Heliar Asph 4.5, 75mm Color Heliar 2.5, 1963 50mm Summicron DR 2.0, 35mm Summaron 3.5 with eyes, 1931 Leica I(c) Standard w/ 50mm 3.5 Elmar, I miss my stolen double stroke M3
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-15-2007   #32
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Mondello
R&R you guys rock! (well you ARE "R'n'R after all!) ;-)

Really interesting comparison. Amazing that you could do it and wonderful that you did it so well.

I like my CV lenses more and more as I use them and more and more as I see test results like these. I think Mr. K has done an amazing thing with these new lenses and i for one am grateful!

great work all around.

Thanks, Joe. Both Roland and I have done similar lens testing before, and most of what is need is a sense for details and keeping order when doing such testing. Mr. K should send a couple of free lenses to me and Roland! Sales will go up.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2007   #33
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
I have now uploaded 24 images to Roland's smugmug site for his further refining of the results. It is my daughter Dana sitting in her room beside the window. I used Fuji NPS160.The window light sometimes changed suddenly, so bear with me. Here is one shot by a certain Canon 35mm lens.

Raid

  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2007   #34
ferider
Registered User
 
ferider's Avatar
 
ferider is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 11,122
Nice Raid.

I want to analyze these and upcoming pictures in one shot,
I guess I wait for your next uploads (and then can do the
analysis on Sat morning again) ?

Best,

Roland.

PS: Here is a direct link to the gallery: http://ferider.smugmug.com/gallery/2856302
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2007   #35
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Will do, Roland. I can upload the rest of the images next.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2007   #36
like2fiddle
Curious
 
like2fiddle's Avatar
 
like2fiddle is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: The hills of Vermont
Age: 56
Posts: 617
Thanks again for all this work guys.

Raid, did I see in another post that the light was somewhat variable in the portrait shots? sun/clouds perhaps?
__________________
Roger

WTB: 12526 rectangular hood

To the rocks, even the trees are just passing through...
John Stokes, the Tracking Project


My Flickr


  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2007   #37
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
I have uploaded all portrait images. Coming weekend if the weather allows it, I will wrap things up with a bokeh test.

I got an idea a few minutes ago; film and developing and scanning is costly for such tests. Maybe the local Ritz Camera store can be convinced to sponsor me in return for me mentioning that Ritz did the scanning? Is this "kosher" here?


Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-16-2007   #38
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by like2fiddle
Thanks again for all this work guys.

Raid, did I see in another post that the light was somewhat variable in the portrait shots? sun/clouds perhaps?
Roger,

It was hard enough to keep Dana still on the chair, and if I had each frame taken another meter reading, it would have been useless. Still, images came out beautiful.

A lens that may have been not doing great in the flare test still may be great for a portrait, so give lenses a chance ... and don't go by brand names.

Raid
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2007   #39
Roel
Registered User
 
Roel's Avatar
 
Roel is offline
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by raid
Roger,

It was hard enough to keep Dana still on the chair, and if I had each frame taken another meter reading, it would have been useless. Still, images came out beautiful.

A lens that may have been not doing great in the flare test still may be great for a portrait, so give lenses a chance ... and don't go by brand names.

Raid
Hi Raid,

It seems that for instance the Elmar is still having trouble with the light/flare, even with these portraits. I would be interested to see what this lens could do with a hood. Could it then keep up with the rest or not? Not to frustrate your test setup. But if you have some time/frames available..

Thanx again for your efforts. It is really educational.

Roel
  Reply With Quote

Old 05-17-2007   #40
raid
Dad Photographer
 
raid's Avatar
 
raid is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 27,347
Roel,

It seems that the Elmar and the Summaron 35mm/3.5 [mine] need to be cleaned. I have one more battery of testing for bokeh. I will try to squeeze in some extra shots for the Elmar with hood.

Raid
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Lynx 14 Flare Reduction Rec... NickTrop Yashica RF 11 12-01-2006 13:30
My 50 1.8 exhibits flare markbrennan Canon Leica Screw Mount Film Rangefinders 7 12-01-2005 12:22
I finally could test my Heliar 15mm + my jupiter 8 laurentvenet Voigtlander Lenses and Images 2 12-05-2004 07:39



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:55.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.