nehemiahphoto
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
rscheffler wrote:
I think this is supposedly a reason for the JCH ~30% markup because they say they check each lens before sending them out to customers. From what I have read, the chance of a DOA MS lens may be greater than average.
Their lenses also aren't aiming to be APO-Summicron levels of performance. This 36mm is probably a good example of what he does - lenses with interesting wide open character that doesn't depend on precision assembly, where aberrations are controlled by stopping down. At least this is what I've gleaned from online reviews and samples. I do think he makes interesting lenses and this 36/1.3 is certainly one of them. But for me at least, I know they won't be daily drivers. And knowing how infrequently I end up bringing along my 'character' lenses, have been hesitant to give them a try.
What I find appealing about this 36/1.3 is that it's more extreme than the 35 Lux pre-ASPH, can be toned down at f/2, while still retaining some glowy character.
I've also long pondered the 28/2 just for its compactness and wide open character as an alternative to the sharp, modern look of current 28s....Show more →
I ordered a 28/2ii from JCH...took it out of the box and it didn't even mount appropriately on my Ikon--it rattled around, and wouldn't even lock, like the rear casing was the wrong size for the mount. When I returned it, he was less than pleased, which I thought was ridiculous.
@fredmiranda Build quality is horrible and not at all up to the price. I have owned 5 separate lenses. One 28mm, mentioned above, didn't even mount appropriately. The 73 Sonnetar was good, till about 2 years in when the whole thing started to come loosen--I tightened the screws in back and it's been good since. The same happened with my 35/1.4. The 28/2ii I had didn't have a filter thread or anyway to mount a filter, same with the 24mm. The 35/1.4 Apoqualia shares the same ergo as this new 36/1.3, which is too say it's poor but usable and quite good for MS-Optical standards, as opposed to several of his other recent lenses. Of the 4 lenses I have tried across 2 different M240's and a Zeiss Ikon, none have been accurate WO. My 73mm is adjustable somewhat with the "coma" ring with optimizing focus at a set distance, but it's less than ideal or super precise (on top of that that lens already has FS). I have noticed as well that the grease he uses tends to seize up at just below freezing. I used to live in Utah and when in mountains, the 73 Sonnetar became very stiff and hard to focus, borderline inoperable.
His lenses very wildly, I would say they are generally optically poor WO (think of them as miniaturized and RF'ed vintage glass still in production with polycarbonate/plastic build). The selling points are very small size, large aperture, RF and wonderful unique signatures when most lenses are very ho-hum. If you don't like much character, stopping down "cures" that. The selling points are not IQ, build quality, ergonomics or price. Despite their considerable foibles, they are really their own little world--small batches, tons of personality, something novel and refreshing, pleasantly unpredictable, easy to carry, fun to use when not being overtly frustrating/you're not expecting it to function like refined lens ergonomically or optically. I still use them, and maintain in active interests in his work.
|
