In 1971 when I bought my first serious camera (Edixaflex) I bought a
Hanimex 135/3.5 preset lens for it. As I recall, it was a pretty good
lens that I used for years, even adapting it to my Rollei SL-35 before
buying the Zeiss 135 that went with that camera. I doubt I could find
any slides taken with it from back then, but I do not recall any really
bad images. Perhaps I got a good sample sample that "slipped by their
quality control"?
Aram
Aram Langhans
(Semi) Retired Science Teacher
& Unemployed photographer
“The Human Genome Project has proved Darwin more right than Darwin himself
would ever have dared dream.” James D. Watson
On 4/27/2017 3:15 PM, David Young wrote:
Good afternoon, Douglas!
Thanks for the tip about the Makinon & Hanimex lenses. I did some digging
and the result was a new entry in my "Brief History of..." It seems that the
Makina Optical Co (1967 to the early 1980's), of Tokyo, made the Rexanon
lenses -amongst others.
What was really interesting was the trivia I dug up.
According to the stories I've found, the company started manufacturing in a
garage and employed part time housewives for assembly work. Their lenses are
well built (the Rexatar feels lovely in the hand, focusing is smooth and it's
nicely finished) but they are known to have inconsistent quality control (to
say the least) and are famous for alignment issues (which would explain the
chromatic aberration in the sample I have).
Apparently one or two of their models are well regarded. The rest are pretty
much like my 200/3.3.
Thanks again, for that pearl of wisdom!
David.
--
David Young - Photographer
Logan Lake,BC, CANADA
Website: www.furnfeather.ca
Gallery: The Creative Co. Merritt, BC.
E-book: http://tinyurl.com/ABHoP
Hi David,------
Almost identical to a Hanimex and Makinon 200 mm f3.3.
Yours, and these, were very probably built (very badly)
and sold very cheaply by Makina (sold as Makinon).
Rexatar was apparently the brand name for lenses
distributed by a photo store by the name of Prinz in
the USA.
Supposed to be half-ways acceptable when stopped down
to 5.6 or 8 - otherwise absolute rubbish
Best
Douglas
On 26.04.2017 18:59, Richard Palmer (Redacted sender
vicmalta for DMARC) wrote:
David; If you hold the lens up to the light and view------
it through the rear element and if you see aloc acoc
on the front element with the c letters facing in the
opposite direction,
then I would say you have a bow-wow lens :-).
Seriously, I went on the net and found a site where
some fellow had a short focal length zoom with the
Rexatar name. The response to him was rather
speculative. One respondent said maybe Cimko made it.
The other respondent said Cimo. I also found that
lens on a 2010 post of The Pentax Forum one member
was given the lens that you are talking about he took
it apart and cleaned it, He said the blades were a
bit loose. Anyway, neither site that I found could
positively name the manufacturer. I would say since
it was given to you, you are still ahead of the game.
Rich Palmer
On Wednesday, April 26, 2017 10:48 AM, David Young
<dsy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Recently, I was given a Rexatar (actually made by
???) 200mm/f3.3 tele lens in 42mm
(Pentax/Paraktica/Contax) thread mount.
And as most of you know, I teach photography.... in
fact I start my (somewhat) advanced class, tonight.
(It's a small town - 5 students!)
I was testing the Rexanar, yesterday, in the hopes
that it might show some chromatic aberration, so that
I could quit using a shot I borrowed from the Wikipedia.
What I found was probably the worst lens I've ever
owned/used!
For comparisons, the top shot is a similar one of the
brand-name on my BBQ made with my 12~40/2.8 Oly PRO
series zoom. The lower shot is almost the same shot,
made with the Rexanar.
Compare, colour, resolution (try to read the
temperature gauge), check distortion (shape of the
logo & gauge) and, of course the chromatic aberration.
http://www.furnfeather.ca/look/RExatar.html
I'm thinking that this 1975 lens may qualify as one
of the worst lenses ever made. Which is a pity, as
it's in mint shape, with really nice, very smooth
focusing - though the auto-diaphragm is a wee bit
sluggish.
Comments? Anyone?
David.
------
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.ca/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.ca/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
Unsubscribe or change to/from Digest Mode at:
http://www.lrflex.furnfeather.ca/
Archives are at:
//www.freelists.org/archives/leicareflex/
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
