Juha Kannisto wrote:
I measured the closest focus distance from sensor plane on my copy of the lens with my Rayqual adapter and I'm getting 41.5 cm wide open, and the distance seems to be slightly more (around 42-43cm) when stopping down to f2 and f2.8 prior to focusing. This is based on checking sharpest focus based on peaking & magnification with the camera sitting on a table and with a book standing in the middle of the table as a focusing target (central point focusing).
There's no visible gap on my copy when rotated to the closest focusing position. I suppose there's some copy-based variation regarding this. I haven't felt restricted by the close-focusing capability on my lens although I've used it mostly with my non-helicoid Rayqual adapter, but I have a few helicoid adapters as well....Show more →
If your copy has a screw-hole in the same position, it would be interesting to know if it rotates further relative to that than my copy.
Mine seems to rotate less looking at the position of the screw on your copy.
My Apollon closest minimum focus distance is 0.46 meter and it does indeed become more if I stop down.
I just checked mine, and it definitely extends a bit more when going down to 0.35m (look at the focus stick position). I also added a photo showing the small gap it creates when you reach the close-focus hard stop.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just checked mine, and it definitely extends a bit more when going down to 0.35m (look at the focus stick position). I also added a photo showing the small gap it creates when you reach the close-focus hard stop.
The difference in the rotation/extension is striking indeed.
I don’t have that small gap in that part of the lens due to the fact that it extends less but there is a bigger one before that on the under side lens so I think it shouldn’t be more of an issue.
Sonnar-7 wrote:
The difference in the rotation/extension is striking indeed.
I don’t have that small gap in that part of the lens due to the fact that it extends less but there is a bigger one before that on the under side lens so I think it shouldn’t be more of an issue.
Yep. On my copy, the small square hole on top is perfectly centered with the lens, but on yours and Juha's, it is shifted to the left.
My thoughts is that MS Optics wanted to cover that gap shown in my images to avoid issues.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Yep. On my copy, the small square hole on top is perfectly centered with the lens, but on yours and Juha's, it is shifted to the left.
My thoughts is that MS Optics wanted to cover that gap shown in my images to avoid issues.
I did send Kamii a mail and he told me there were some variations in the lenses beyond the value of the engraved markings.
Yes, after Kamii answered me about the possible variations, I continued on evoking the fact that even though I had that thought too, the difference first seemed to be enough to wonder if there was an issue with the lens.
He did tell me that he still thought the difference between my copy and others(0.45meter against 0.35)was still acceptable among the variations but that he was more than willing to take a look and inspect the lens if I sent it back.
For now I’m hesitant, it’s a bit of an hassle for a lens that works otherwise quite great. If the 0.3 meter had not been pushed forward in the description, I wouldn’t have noticed any issue.
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I only know of this video that has some comparisons:
Thanks, Juha.
Here's a screenshot from the video showing the lenses side by side.
It also looks like the reviewer's Apollon is decentered. I've included a screenshot at f/2 showing that the sides aren't symmetrical. Wide open would look even worse but he didn't post that.
I've been curious about the aperture markings on the Apollon.
The engraved aperture sequence on the barrel goes:
1.3 → dot → dot → 2 → dot → 2.8 → 4 → 5.6 → 8 → dot → 16 (see image below)
Here is what I found based on actual shutter speeds I tested: (T-stop measurement)
• Wide open (marked f/1.3) lines up with the first dot after 1.3. In practice, it behaves more like f/1.4 (1.38) due to the lens' real light transmission. (confirmed by the Apollon user manual)
• The next dot between f/1.3 and f/2 corresponds to roughly f/1.6. (1.56)
• The dot between f/2 and f/2.8 measures exactly f/2. For reference, the lens' f/2 marking actually behaves closer to f/1.8 (1.75) in practice, while f/2.8 is f/2.5.
• The dot between f/8 and f/16 is f/10 based on my T-stop measurements.
The 35/1.4 Apoqualia has clearer aperture markings, but it actually starts around f/1.47 and is closer to a 36mm (according to the manual). So in practice, it's more like a 36/1.5 lens rather than a true 35/1.4.
"The 35/1.4 Apoqualia has clearer aperture markings, but it actually starts around f/1.47 and is closer to a 36mm (according to the manual). So in practice, it's more like a 36/1.5 lens rather than a true 35/1.4."
This doesn't surprise me. The 50/1.3 is actually f1.39 on the sheet. Some of my pancake Perars are darker than the nameplate as well.
I greatly prefer using MS lenses with TTL metering, not just for the vagaries of the markings, but some apertures are loser than others and can wander a little (design of the particular lens matters too here). And then finally I prefer AE so I don't have to play with the aperture as much (some designs are very annoying to adjust often as I'm sure you know).
hudsonCAD wrote:
"The 35/1.4 Apoqualia has clearer aperture markings, but it actually starts around f/1.47 and is closer to a 36mm (according to the manual). So in practice, it's more like a 36/1.5 lens rather than a true 35/1.4."
This doesn't surprise me. The 50/1.3 is actually f1.39 on the sheet. Some of my pancake Perars are darker than the nameplate as well.
I greatly prefer using MS lenses with TTL metering, not just for the vagaries of the markings, but some apertures are loser than others and can wander a little (design of the particular lens matters too here). And then finally I prefer AE so I don't have to play with the aperture as much (some designs are very annoying to adjust often as I'm sure you know)....Show more →
It's actually nice that we get the exact focal length and aperture for these lenses, since most manufacturers tend to round the numbers to make them sound better. MS Optics does this too, but they are more transparent about it in their technical notes. The surprising part is that both the Apollon and Apoqualia are very close in focal length, which can essentially be approximated to 36mm. The Apollon is faster even though it's smaller.
tommmi wrote:
Is the number on the lens a unique "serial number"?
Just wondering, because I happen to have Apollon with "No. 036 S"
That's pretty funny. Yes, they should have unique serial numbers. My own copy is 236 S. The image I shared is just something I found online when I wanted to illustrate the aperture (you probably bought it from the store), and I honestly don't remember the source. Also, my version has a silver metal focusing stick, while this one looks like it has a black anodized finish.
This is a teardown of my copy, and you can see the serial number in the article here:
tommmi wrote:
Mine indeed has black anodized focusing stick.
It becomes pretty easily loose. Do you have the same problem?
Yes, and the solution I found is to use Loctite Blue 242 threadlocker. It holds everything in place and prevents it from loosening, but it is not a permanent bond and can still be undone later with normal tools.
tommmi wrote:
Is the number on the lens a unique "serial number"?
Just wondering, because I happen to have Apollon with "No. 036 S"
Kamerastore (Finnish shop and a very good one) seems to use a photo of the 036 S as a model photo of this lens on their site even though they have no stock. Did you get yours from them by any chance? I guess you might have since you are also a Finn
I have the 020 Black of MS-Optics Elnomaxim 55/1.2 and that one seems to have been famous in the internet before I got it 2nd hand from Map Camera. It was used in model photos when the lens was coming out and I also saw it in a blog post of a previous owner.
I've also noticed some eBay sellers or fake shops using lens photos from other sites in their sales pages. Some eBay sellers have listings copied from Map Camera at much higher prices when Map has a lens in stock. I guess they plan to buy from Map in case anybody bought from their listing... I've seen one lens I bought from Map in such listings too. It remained on some suspicious listings for a while even after I already had it...
Juha Kannisto wrote:
Kamerastore (Finnish shop and a very good one) seems to use a photo of the 036 S as a model photo of this lens on their site even though they have no stock. Did you get yours from them by any chance? I guess you might have since you are also a Finn
Yup! Kamerastore might be the best store to buy and sell camera gear, not only for Finns but for all. They have quite a variety of stuff and the circulation of gear is quite lively. You gotta visit the site frequently so you don't miss unique gems
