|
| Accept Cookies | Customize | Refuse Cookies |
Rolubich www.juzaphoto.com/p/Rolubich  |
The following opinions have been automatically translated with Microsoft Translator. | Jupiter-37A 135mm f/3.5 Pros: mechanical construction - sharpness - bokeh - 12-blade diaphragm Cons: Flare Opinion: Excellent and cheap lens built very well; the main quality is in my opinion a very good blur, the main defect is a very strong tendency to produce flare as soon as there are strong lights in the frame (you don't need direct sunlight, but also for example a certain portion of light gray sky in the frame produces a visible haze), and mine is the MC version. Good sharpness already at TA, excellent at f/5.6. Be careful when buying the oil on the reeds (very frequent) because I have an idea that it worsens the internal reflections and therefore the flare. Highly recommended. sent on September 18, 2024 |
 | Zenitar ME1 MC 50mm f/1.7 Pros: Construction, diaphragm sharpness from f/2.8 onwards, blurred Cons: Contrast and sharpness rather low at TA and f/2, not really small and light compared to similar targetss, open diaphragms very flare even without light in the frame but lateral. Opinion: Great lens in my opinion overall (lens used only for some testing on Sony A7RIII). The construction is excellent and the blurry (mine is the 6-slat version) also, on average better than another 50mm. At TA and f/2 the general contrast is very low (for internal reflections I think) and the resolve is also quite subdued; at f/2.8 it definitely changes face, the contrast is fully recovered and the resolution is very close to the maximum (which is reached at f/5.6 and is very high). The uniformity up close suffers a little but at infinity it seems better: at f/8/11 you have images with excellent quality even at the edges / corners. sent on December 26, 2020 |
 | Zeiss Jena Tessar 50mm f/2.8 Pros: Construction, lens and historical scheme, color quality, blurry, low cost Cons: Yield to TA Opinion: Historic CZJ lens with equally historic Tessar optical scheme. Mine is the aluminum version with 12-bladed diaphragm, multilayer coating ("red T") and M42 attachment. At TA it has a rather weak resolution and contrast but it is still very usable even on dense sensors, and then the low contrast to TA can also be considered an advantage. At f/4 it improves a lot and at f/5.6 excellent resolution and contrast, this in the center. It suffers a bit in the peripheral areas, like all the goals of the era that I tried, but at f/11 achieves a good uniformity on the whole image and you can also take landscape photos with good results. Beautiful colors and good blurred, especially in comparison with another 50mm vintage. Moderate vignette and almost no distortion. We add the very low cost and easy availability and I do not know what you can ask for more. sent on May 10, 2020 |
 | Meyer Gorlitz Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 Pros: Sharpness in the center, blurry (may not like it), cost Cons: Sharpness outside the center, construction Opinion: Objective with a three-lens scheme, excellent resolution even at TA but with low contrast, already at f/4 the contrast improves a lot; unfortunately just outside the center the yield drops a lot and even closing a lot recovers little. Probably the simple scheme did not allow more. I would not recommend it as 50mm generic, much less for landscapes, but for photos with subject in the center, taking advantage of its characteristic bubble bokeh soap, can give particular images and be a lens worth buying, also because it is a few tens of euros. The construction is a little less curated than other objectives of the time, my first specimen was decidedly poor optically although it had no sign of damage, there are probably specimens very below the standard, which can explain the different opinions present on this page. sent on May 06, 2020 |
 | Nikon 105mm f/2.5 Ai-S Pros: Optical quality, weight and size, mechanical construction, versatility Cons: Nobody Opinion: Great goal, his reputation to be one of the best goals achieved by Nikon is in my opinion deserved. Very sharp and also solvent on dense sensors, excellent colors, contrast and blurry. Very valid for both portraits and landscapes, ta and closed. You can also choose between the AIS version that has 7 straight slats (best for the more defined stars of light points in focus) or the optically identical versions Ai, K and PC that have 7 curved slats (better for blurring out-of-focus light points), what more can you ask for? sent on April 26, 2020 |
 | Zeiss Jena Triotar 135mm f/4 Pros: Blurred, sharp enthincenter Cons: Length, uniformity Opinion: Great blurred to all diaphragms, perhaps the greatest value of this goal. The sharpness, rated on 42MP sensor, is quite good at f/4, increases quite a lot to f/5.6 and reaches the maximum at f/8 with a remarkable solver power, especially considering age and number of lenses. I do not consider it a serious defect but it is not particularly uniform, outside the center the performance drops quite quickly (probably with three lenses only the blanket is really short), but at f/11 the uniformity is good. Very low distortion and even vignette, barely visible at f/4. Zero flare from internal reflections (i.e. that typical, lighter central area with closed diaphragms if there are bright, even not very strong, areas in the field), but mine is the T version with anti-reflective coating. Mine had the focus dial almost blocked and it seems (from what is on the net) that it is a fairly frequent thing, so be careful for the purchase. Overall a very pleasant and very valid lens that can give satisfaction even with sensors with many MPs, not to mention the charm of the three lenses. sent on July 14, 2019 |
JuzaPhoto contains affiliate links from Amazon and Ebay and JuzaPhoto earn a commission in case of purchase through affiliate links.May Beauty Be Everywhere Around Me
