Posted 21 July 2017 - 01:29 AM
Hum 2000.00 for a 3 element manual coupled 97f3.1 lens. Do they toss in a opus or better yet an otus for free ?
Posted 21 July 2017 - 06:44 AM
Lens market looks more and more like Las Vegas casino floor: You want to loose penny or dollar, or a grand... just hit hard.
Posted 21 July 2017 - 07:17 AM
And don't you love the compelling story of each lens design? Did I say Las Vegas? Wrong... its more like soap opera.
Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:06 AM
I just wait until they hire one of the whisky poets to wax about black berry shimmering shadows, clotted cream like highlights and café au lait like skin tones,,,
Well,97/3.1. Nice try. It's just soooo limitied to a 102/2.9, bokehwise. I mean, the bokeh at 1.56 m might be alright, but these crazy circles at 2.18 m - out of discussion. Too bad guys, you just missed my very important needs.
Posted 21 July 2017 - 02:00 PM
How many stabilized 90mm Tamrons you can buy for the price of this thing?
Posted 21 July 2017 - 08:28 PM
When I read the name "Glaukar" of this lens the word "Gaukler"
(german for juggler) immediately came to my mind.
The brass (?) construction looks awesome though.
PS: And frankly folks ... since its a triplet ... it less than
700e/$ per lens-element .... a real bargain methinks.
Posted 26 July 2017 - 03:34 PM
I also find it somewhat annoying that some nobodys go around digging up and expropriating the names of long defunct brands that (probably) used to be considered good in some old times, in order to latch onto some lingering respect for that brand. Of course, I'm aware that if the name wasn't protected by law it's fair game by now, AND strictly speaking - say - the Voigtlander lenses made today have little to do with the Voigtländers of yore, but at least that brand went to a company that is a decent optic manufacturer in its own right, AND has been doing this thing for years, proving their worth through a fair amount of shed sweat, blood and tears. This (and the "Meyer-Optik" scam) looks like a blatant quick cash-grab done by some upstarts nestled in Kickstarter - who, of course, may initiate a self-sustaining reaction by sparking enough "brand (fake) recognition" to get their thing going from an economic standpoint. But selling (?) the vastly overpriced stuff that is really in no man's land - NEITHER the straight replicas of highly prized vintage glass (as the modern process and coatings may probably take away some of that "legendary" image rendition, not to speak of the format differences), NOR a decently modern construction - looks, well, as combining the worst of both worlds. Again, at grossly inflated prices. So, to paraphrase a popular sentence, what's to like here?
Posted 26 July 2017 - 08:01 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users