p.9 #1 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Yes, it's supposed to have a very small screw-in hood and mine has one. I think originally the hood was hidden in the backside of the lens under the back cap. Unfortunately the hood blocks easy access to the aperture mechanism, so with this lens I decided to not use the hood and I just keep it in the box. When the hood is not on I can easily use my finger to control the aperture, but with the hood on there's no room to put fingers in and it would be a bit too troublesome to use some kind of stick for reaching the aperture ring.
Apoqualia 28/2-III also has similar usability issue with its hood and with that one I've used the hood and a toothpick to control the apeture but since it was quite inconvenient I just prefer to use my 28/2-II or 28/1.7 instead....Show more →
I found it! It was in the box all along. I must have had the same thoughts initially and just left it there. Haha!
I have not used the hood with it and flare control has been pretty great.
I noticed that MS-Optics lenses seem to work pretty nicely with LM-EA9, even the ones that are not so sharp wide open. They seem to focus confidently. On the other hand my CV 50/2.2 seeems to focus less steadily with LM-EA9 for some reason though it's very sharp from wide open.
p.9 #6 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I noticed that MS-Optics lenses seem to work pretty nicely with LM-EA9, even the ones that are not so sharp wide open. They seem to focus confidently. On the other hand my CV 50/2.2 seeems to focus less steadily with LM-EA9 for some reason though it's very sharp from wide open.
It’s still a mystery how some lenses perform better than others. As you mentioned, some vintage lenses and newer, less-corrected lenses like the MS Optics perform great with the LM-EA9. Not only at the center, but off-center focusing also varies depending on the lens used. Interestingly, lenses I thought would perform worse actually do better. Go figure!
p.9 #10 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Anyone has experience on the Sonnetar 50mm f1.1 ? How does it compare to Sonnetar 50mm f 1.3 Slim. I am curious about this ｆ1.1, being the lightest f1.1 lens. How is the rendering/bokeh, different from the f1.3. Both lens is 5 element in 4 groups as i know.
p.9 #11 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
Anyone has experience on the Sonnetar 50mm f1.1 ? How does it compare to Sonnetar 50mm f 1.3 Slim. I am curious about this ｆ1.1, being the lightest f1.1 lens. How is the rendering/bokeh, different from the f1.3. Both lens is 5 element in 4 groups as i know.
Thanks for your link. I've read Bastian's reviews, very extensive. He prefers the 50mm f1.3 over the ISM 50mm f1.0 and Sonnetar f1.1. I also own the Sonnetar f1.3 which is a nice little lens, but just wonder if there is any upgrade in the quality for build and handling, bokeh, for the sonnetar f1.1. Accoding to the review, the f1.3 has more corner distortion than the f1.1.
Btw, i just met a good 2nd hand copy of Apollon 36mm f1.3 in my city, the selling price is 20% more expensive than the japan retail price. Since it is really difficult to buy a new copy even in Japan, I pulled the trigger. My initial impression that the Apollon is quite dreamy wide open, with bubble bokeh instead of Gaussian blur, comparable to pre-asph 35mm summilux and steel rim rendering.
My only concern for 36mm Apollon + 50mm sonnetar is the build quality, they feel so fragile that i need even more care handling the lens compared to my other manufacturers.
p.9 #13 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
In my opinion the newer MS-Optics lenses are generally more reliable / better in terms of build than the older ones. I've never had any issues with my Apollon and Sonnetar 50/1.3 up to now and they feel solid to me. They have no screws visible on the outside etc. that could easily become lose etc. They are just very lightweight / made of thin metal materials, so that could make them feel fragile, but I don't think they break easily in normal use and mine are still working as well as new after a couple of years of irregular use.
Overall, I've had more reliability concerns with the older MS-Optics lenses, such as Super Triplet Perars. I've had 18 different MS-Optics lenses up to now, currently keeping 15 of them in my set.
I've never had the 50/1.1 so I can't comment on how that compares with 50/1.3 based on personal experience, but 50/1.1 seems to be more eccentric / old style lens modeled after Zunow 50mm f1.1 and I would expect 50/1.3 perform "better" (sharper and with less aberrations) at shared apertures, except for distortion. I'd expect the build of 50/1.1 to be more "industrial" and possibly with more potential to break (e.g. some internal parts becoming loose) than the 50/1.3.
I've been a bit interested in buying 50/1.1 but the 2nd hand prices (usually >200K yen) have kept me from going for it so far... Feels a bit risky at that price level as there's usually no way to tell how good the copy is when buying e.g. from Yahoo Japan Auctions. 2nd hand stores with some possibilty to return if the copy is not good are charging closer to 300K.
p.9 #14 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
My only concern for 36mm Apollon + 50mm sonnetar is the build quality, they feel so fragile that i need even more care handling the lens compared to my other manufacturers.
Yes, that's been my experience. My 28/2 Apoqualia seems sturdy enough, but my 73/1.5 Sonnetar came apart several times until I figured out which screws were coming loose and put a tiny drop of locktite on each one.
p.9 #15 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
bjhurley wrote:
Yes, that's been my experience. My 28/2 Apoqualia seems sturdy enough, but my 73/1.5 Sonnetar came apart several times until I figured out which screws were coming loose and put a tiny drop of locktite on each one.
I also have the feeling that the lens will fall apart when turning the focus. I can hear some sound when shaking the 36mm apollon. May be the screw have been lossen from last user ? I am not sure. My sonnetar 50mm won't hear any wired sound.
p.9 #16 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
I also have the feeling that the lens will fall apart when turning the focus. I can hear some sound when shaking the 36mm apollon. May be the screw have been lossen from last user ? I am not sure. My sonnetar 50mm won't hear any wired sound.
The Apollon is straightforward to disassemble, allowing you to check for any loose components inside. All MS Optics lenses need regular maintenance to ensure screws are tight, as they can loosen over time. Applying blue Loctite to the screws helps secure them in place.
p.9 #18 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Mayasan wrote:
I don't have any repair experience, so i better take exra care on the lens. Since the lens is even half size smaller than the sonnetar 50mm.
Any advice on filter choice ? Apollon has 34mm reverse thread, i think only few brand make 34mm thread.
Good question. I haven't tried a filter on the Apollon myself, but I believe there are a few 34mm filters available. However, finding high-quality glass in this size might be challenging. Do not get the Tiffen or Opteka. They are not great optically.
p.9 #20 · MS-Optics lenses Image and Discussion Thread
Juha Kannisto wrote:
In my opinion the newer MS-Optics lenses are generally more reliable / better in terms of build than the older ones. I've never had any issues with my Apollon and Sonnetar 50/1.3 up to now and they feel solid to me. They have no screws visible on the outside etc. that could easily become lose etc. They are just very lightweight / made of thin metal materials, so that could make them feel fragile, but I don't think they break easily in normal use and mine are still working as well as new after a couple of years of irregular use.
Overall, I've had more reliability concerns with the older MS-Optics lenses, such as Super Triplet Perars. I've had 18 different MS-Optics lenses up to now, currently keeping 15 of them in my set.
I've never had the 50/1.1 so I can't comment on how that compares with 50/1.3 based on personal experience, but 50/1.1 seems to be more eccentric / old style lens modeled after Zunow 50mm f1.1 and I would expect 50/1.3 perform "better" (sharper and with less aberrations) at shared apertures, except for distortion. I'd expect the build of 50/1.1 to be more "industrial" and possibly with more potential to break (e.g. some internal parts becoming loose) than the 50/1.3.
I've been a bit interested in buying 50/1.1 but the 2nd hand prices (usually >200K yen) have kept me from going for it so far... Feels a bit risky at that price level as there's usually no way to tell how good the copy is when buying e.g. from Yahoo Japan Auctions. 2nd hand stores with some possibilty to return if the copy is not good are charging closer to 300K....Show more →
Yes, 50mm f1.1 is very close to leica summilux pricing. I notice that the sonnetar f1.1 has better distortion that's why I am curious to try this nice.
I also notice that you have Apoquria 35mm F1.4, how does it compare to apollon 36mm f1.3 ? except for the min focus distance, do they have any difference?
