I worked at a large camera store during much of 1980s. Lenses like these sold in droves because of price and price alone. Most of the buyers for this class of optics used their SLRs primarily to photograph birthday parties, school events, and holiday snapshots. It may be the among the worst optic ever, but to the owners of these lenses, they produced golden memories and that was a far sight better quality than 110 or 126 film could deliver.
And at the 4x6 print size people usually made, you wouldn't notice those unsharp corners without a loupe. There were lots of plastic lens cameras with worse image quality than this.
Even your scathing reviews are presented pleasantly. 😂 I have a Hanimex lens with a bit longer FL and it is no better. Even if these old budget items don’t measure up, they were capable of capturing memories. Most of my childhood photo album was created with a Sears 126 Instamatic… The memories still count.
I kinda want more vintage lens reviews because I know you'll do a great job! After all, there's plenty of decent Canon FD, Takumar and Olympus lenses floating around. Just to name a few!
Two years ago, I paid CAD $50.00 for a huge camera bag full of Yashica camera bodies, lenses, flashes, filters and misc. stuff from what was in effect an estate sale. The stuff belonged to a fellow's deceased Aunt. It was an amazing deal as most of the lenses were Yashica ML which is their "multi-Layer" lens grade and are considered to be quite good lenses. One other lens in the bag was the Hanimex 28mm f2.8 with the C/Y mount. Mine looks quite different from yours, however. It has a much lower serial number (# 173254), and was purchased in Canada by the original owner. I only shot some landscape photos with it, and the flare was rather rough. It takes up a spot on my lens shelf with my other vintage film lenses.
This was quite interesting. Your reviews are generally of excellent modern lenses which would be graded 8/10 or better, so it is useful to see on-screen results for a lens at the other end of the scale.
Your reviews are great, but for a long time now I felt like there is a missing piece data point covering the mid-frame resolution. I typically don't care much at all about the corner resolution but I care about the center and the mid frame. Many lenses, the 40 mm Canon STM pancake for example, perform fantastically well across about 80% of the frame, and just looking at the center and the corner performance you just don't get that info out of your reviews. I really think augmenting your resolution chart to cover mid frame would be a nice development. On normal and telephoto focal length I would rather see mid frame than corner. I only care about corner on wide and ultrawide. Regardless, thanks for what you do, you produce excellent reviews.
DXoMark has the sharpness field map where you can see how good is sharpness at various focal length and aperture at each point on the sensor. Unfortunately DXO don't do many lens reviews anymore these days. To visually also check 1/3 and 2/3 on the way to the corner and check image quality would make these videos probably a bit too long and repetitive. I have an idea for Christopher: add this kind of extra content to a Patreon video.
@@firstglass1696 It's definitely not the same thing because of the higher pixel density of aps-c. Some lenses are so sharp you can make that inference from the aps-c test, sure. Many others, no.
@@firstglass1696 I don't think it is quite like that. You could say the corner of the APS-C = about 2/3 on the FullFrame. But given the larger resolution (per m^2) you might see that a lens performs much worse on an APS-C then the FullFrame.
This review is quite entertaining! Actually, it would be most interesting to see more reviews of film camera classics that back in the day were considered premium grade, such as Nikkors, Canon FD L-series, Minolta, Takumar, Olympus, and so on.
Love this idea Christopher 👍😁. Please do some more 😊Testing lenses that we (or our parents) proudly carried in our kit bags 😂 - probably paired with a Practika MTL3 or something similar. I have a m42 Fujica 135mm f/2.8 which was a gift from my brother in law. He used it with his ST605N. That was a fantastic camera which unfortunately was a victim of the Mercury battery ban. It's actually a nice lens and I've used it occasionally on my X-T2 and X-E1. Not bad results with a rather pleasing colour characteristic.
@@DavidG-u2k they were a fantastic introduction to photography for youngsters and beginners. Gave them the tools to begin their exciting journey. Ok, everything else was a step up, but the reasonable price made them a good starting point. My first car was a 1972 Mini - everything else has been a step up 👍😁😂
A bit of advice on this one: Find a macro bellows and a reversing ring to mount that sucker backwards, and you will have a macro rig that can shoot snowflakes. Wides going backwards, even if crap forwards, make surprisingly good cheap macros.
Oh goodness.., I bought exactly this lens (MC version) as my first lens purchase in about 1987 as a wanted a wide angle for travel landscapes for my Praktica MTL-5. Even with limited knowledge in those days I could see it was very soft compared to the Pentacon 50mm f1.7 that came with my camera. Bought it just before my first backpacking trip through Europe as a young man and only discovered how poor it was after I returned home to Australia and got all my films processed. 😔
I would second that. However, with many manufacturers, sample variance was huge due to inferior quality control. This might limit the reviews' usefulness.
More reviews of vintage lenses please! I think it’s a good idea because we already have your tests of modern lenses, if you also test vintage lenses then we will have tests that are directly comparable between modern and old lenses
Nice reviewing,lots of details for sure,I really want you to do some star-fleid testing for review, because it can be very easy to spot the lens problem! Thanks!
I think that video description closest to click bait you’ll ever get! So many RUclips channels (cough, .. they’re not channels, they are one person) are resorting to dire clickbait titles and photoshop images more than ever. But you are a rare holdout.
Yes. It's a poor lens made even poorer by shooting on a high resolution sensor. Very interesting, though. I remember this brand from when I worked in photo retail in the 80's and 90's.
It's great for non native english speaker to come here to a review of a bad lens, new language is discovered from Christopher when commenting the insights of awful results. I, for one, welcome reviews of these type of old lenses. Good work
Believe it or not Chris this lens from what I've seen (I mean the photos you displayed in this review) has its own character and I like its bokeh despite being rubish :-)
I have a Tamron Adapt-a-magic (the precursor to the Adaptall) 28mm 2.8 and I find it to be lovely, the bokeh can also be busy but if you lean into it you get wonderful images with vintage tones.
Just picked this lens up for $9USD at a Thrift Store. I hated Hanimex lenses until I started using them for creative images. For a perfect 28mm I use my Sigma ART.
That was an interesting review. I find that vintage lenses from the better marques are still good today, but there were some real stinkers among them from the more obscure brands. I bought a used Hanimex 35mm f3.5 preset lens which turns out to be surprisingly good on my Nikon D7100, producing sharp, high contrast pictures. I also have two Vivitars, the 100-200mm f4 and the 135mm close focussing. Both are very good lenses indeed. I'd love to see more reviews like this, particularly the vintage Vivitar Series 1 lenses and the Tamron Adaptall SP lenses.
Thank you for a very interesting review. I recently bought a Soligor preset 35mm f 2.8 which also (by current standards) performs very poorly. Very soft at full aperture and with quite a bit of blooming. However, the full aperture images are beautifully dreamy. I am now searching out 28mm preset, no MC, lenses and they are quite difficult to find.
I have a 1970s Vivitar 28mm that is quite like this lens. It is Nikon F mount and I use it on my D810. Depends on my mood, sometimes I like shooting on softer quirky lenses. I paid only $15 USD for it.
Oh lord, I had this lens as part of my kit when I started out, using Spotmatic bodies. It was truly cheap, bought new in box in the bargain bin at a camera store on Queen East in Toronto back when I was always skint. I also had a Vivitar Series 1 85mm, a Takumar 105mm and another budget brand 35mm whose maker I can't recall. All sold decades ago when I upgraded to a Nikon F3HP. I don't recall if it was usable as I was just starting out, and was happy to have any gear that would fit my budget. One thing I'm sure of is that almost any low-cost Chinese lens from 7Artisans or the like today would leave it in the dust.
As some doing photography throughout the 1980s, I can confirm that the Hanimex 28mm f2.8 didn't have much of a reputation back then, and would come near to the bottom in group tests. 28mm f2.8 was probably the standard wide angle for the hobbyist back, then. This lens was not even in the same league as the Tamron, Sigma etc, let alone the camera manufacturers own lenses. A 3 lens combo back then was generally a 28mm f2.8 (or a 35mm f2.8), a 50mm 1.7-8 and a 135mm f2.8/f3.5.
Thank you for reviewing this Hanimex. Fortunately I don't think I have many of worst lenses any longer. One of the stand out stinkers for me was the Tokina SZ-X 210 (70-210 FD mount zoom). I suspect you'd find it tested worse than the Hanimex did. Not sure whether I just had a bad copy, or whether none of them were any good.
These lenses were meant for consumer grade ASA400/27DIN color film with 1 hr processing, which is like 4 to 6MP JPG if we are being charitable. Don't think we need Christopher to tell us not to buy or use one on our 40+MP camera.😁
i have vivitar 28mm f/2 lens tha has about the same quality with that old boy. but when i shoot with vivitar, i feel kinda happy with results. not bad that much and problems can be fixed on the post production.
I have the same lens but rebranded Zenit Zenitar m42 version. Just bought it yesterday 5€, didn't try yet but I saw some review, as like others any lens, they get the sharpest result at f8
Oh, the horror! I hade one or two cheap, used lenses from the 80s when I started out. Much like this lens in optical performance. Looking back now at images taken with those lenses makes me wonder if I was half blind back then! :D
Hey you seriously should consider following up on testing the old world's so called "Charactor" lenses. It is prieceless coz you do follow a unique but constant series of test on any lens you do test on and thus having a huge librery of newer era lenses, it is possible to very meaningfully underestand the data presented that additionally significantly adds to the taste of life for anyone with interest in history of photography. Thanks for all you do and God bless.
I have a good number of old manual lenses and perhaps one day my grandson (if I ever have one, that is) records a review like this after rummaging through my collection. I've noticed that wide angle lenses were particularly nasty in the film era, probably because the back elements need to be so tiny, which accentuates all and any imperfections in the optical system.
Well I basically used vintage lens EXCLUSIVELY and I am glad, this period in my life is finally over. I have a famous Helios, the better version amongts them and it’s a huge dissapointment. I mean yeah, all my pictures are basically useless with a lot of flare, ghosting and there’s nothing like contrast or sharpness there. Afterall, it was nothing but a basic "kit" lens back then.
Actually I own the Hanimex 28mm f/2,8 MC version :-D I bought it for something like 5 or 10€ some months ago. When I tested it, I really, really thought that it was broken. I like to clean and maintain my old glass by myself, but I could not find any fungus or haze, so I tested it again. And it's.... garbage. Absolutely ugly results, no picture is usable at all!! It does not have the "vintage look". At 2,8 is just unusable. At f4 it start showing some value, but when you see the image in the screen you just cry. The only advantage of this lens is the focal lenght, since 28mm is not so usual when we speak about vintage lenses, but hell, it's really, really bad. I will give a last try with my fuji, since only the central part of the lens is used, but I don't expect much of the experiment. Anyway, I enjoyed a lot this video, now I don't feel so alone!!!
Hanimex and Promaster are famous for being very bad choices. Salespeople (back in the day) jokingly called Hanimex "ham and eggs" which might make a nice breakfast, but you wouldn't want to strap it to your camera.
I’ve got this lens and I actually don’t mind it. I purposely use old crap lenses like this in my spare time to see what’s achievable with them. It’s a good stress relief away from shooting proper photos for money
Almost every Hanimex lenses were junk back then. They were cheap. Nevertheless they were decent for B&W photography with film cameras. They helped people take memories. Of course with the digital age, every flaws of lenses will be visible even more with 45+MP body. But those lenses can be used as a creative tool. Some people are researching that effect. It is funny to see people nowadays complain that newer lenses are clinically sharp
For a lens that is around 30 years old it is not too bad. Having said this, a 45MP sensor is overkill for that lens. 45MP is way sharper than most film - so ther wrong camera was used here. The bokeh is something unique. The age of the lense was not considered. Anyway, another failed review in my opinion. It is like comparing an BMW Isetta with a Fiat 500 of today and only looking at its performance.
This is genuinely the first lens review from you were I could see very clearly the huge issues with the sharpness in the sample photos before you got to the test card. Horrific.
vintage glass was simply better in the 60's.. whether from Germany or Japan. by the 80's physical design as well as coatings were cheapened, and quality control went downhill
Wow, this was awful haha. Ticked literally none of the boxes. Amazing when even a 12mm modern lens handles direct light in the frame better than a 28mm of the 80s. No longitudinal chromatic aberration check? Haha.
I worked at a large camera store during much of 1980s. Lenses like these sold in droves because of price and price alone. Most of the buyers for this class of optics used their SLRs primarily to photograph birthday parties, school events, and holiday snapshots. It may be the among the worst optic ever, but to the owners of these lenses, they produced golden memories and that was a far sight better quality than 110 or 126 film could deliver.
And at the 4x6 print size people usually made, you wouldn't notice those unsharp corners without a loupe. There were lots of plastic lens cameras with worse image quality than this.
Even your scathing reviews are presented pleasantly. 😂 I have a Hanimex lens with a bit longer FL and it is no better. Even if these old budget items don’t measure up, they were capable of capturing memories. Most of my childhood photo album was created with a Sears 126 Instamatic… The memories still count.
Elegantly and perfectly put. Thank you! 🤗
I kinda want more vintage lens reviews because I know you'll do a great job! After all, there's plenty of decent Canon FD, Takumar and Olympus lenses floating around. Just to name a few!
Two years ago, I paid CAD $50.00 for a huge camera bag full of Yashica camera bodies, lenses, flashes, filters and misc. stuff from what was in effect an estate sale. The stuff belonged to a fellow's deceased Aunt. It was an amazing deal as most of the lenses were Yashica ML which is their "multi-Layer" lens grade and are considered to be quite good lenses. One other lens in the bag was the Hanimex 28mm f2.8 with the C/Y mount. Mine looks quite different from yours, however. It has a much lower serial number (# 173254), and was purchased in Canada by the original owner. I only shot some landscape photos with it, and the flare was rather rough. It takes up a spot on my lens shelf with my other vintage film lenses.
This was quite interesting. Your reviews are generally of excellent modern lenses which would be graded 8/10 or better, so it is useful to see on-screen results for a lens at the other end of the scale.
Your reviews are great, but for a long time now I felt like there is a missing piece data point covering the mid-frame resolution. I typically don't care much at all about the corner resolution but I care about the center and the mid frame. Many lenses, the 40 mm Canon STM pancake for example, perform fantastically well across about 80% of the frame, and just looking at the center and the corner performance you just don't get that info out of your reviews. I really think augmenting your resolution chart to cover mid frame would be a nice development. On normal and telephoto focal length I would rather see mid frame than corner. I only care about corner on wide and ultrawide.
Regardless, thanks for what you do, you produce excellent reviews.
Seconded
DXoMark has the sharpness field map where you can see how good is sharpness at various focal length and aperture at each point on the sensor. Unfortunately DXO don't do many lens reviews anymore these days.
To visually also check 1/3 and 2/3 on the way to the corner and check image quality would make these videos probably a bit too long and repetitive. I have an idea for Christopher: add this kind of extra content to a Patreon video.
Did you miss the tests on APS-C, which are a kind of that?
@@firstglass1696 It's definitely not the same thing because of the higher pixel density of aps-c. Some lenses are so sharp you can make that inference from the aps-c test, sure. Many others, no.
@@firstglass1696 I don't think it is quite like that. You could say the corner of the APS-C = about 2/3 on the FullFrame. But given the larger resolution (per m^2) you might see that a lens performs much worse on an APS-C then the FullFrame.
This review is quite entertaining! Actually, it would be most interesting to see more reviews of film camera classics that back in the day were considered premium grade, such as Nikkors, Canon FD L-series, Minolta, Takumar, Olympus, and so on.
Love this idea Christopher 👍😁. Please do some more 😊Testing lenses that we (or our parents) proudly carried in our kit bags 😂 - probably paired with a Practika MTL3 or something similar. I have a m42 Fujica 135mm f/2.8 which was a gift from my brother in law. He used it with his ST605N. That was a fantastic camera which unfortunately was a victim of the Mercury battery ban. It's actually a nice lens and I've used it occasionally on my X-T2 and X-E1. Not bad results with a rather pleasing colour characteristic.
That takes me back; we used Practika cameras/lenses at the school photography club! Nasty things. 😁
@@DavidG-u2k they were a fantastic introduction to photography for youngsters and beginners. Gave them the tools to begin their exciting journey. Ok, everything else was a step up, but the reasonable price made them a good starting point. My first car was a 1972 Mini - everything else has been a step up 👍😁😂
A bit of advice on this one: Find a macro bellows and a reversing ring to mount that sucker backwards, and you will have a macro rig that can shoot snowflakes. Wides going backwards, even if crap forwards, make surprisingly good cheap macros.
Oh goodness.., I bought exactly this lens (MC version) as my first lens purchase in about 1987 as a wanted a wide angle for travel landscapes for my Praktica MTL-5. Even with limited knowledge in those days I could see it was very soft compared to the Pentacon 50mm f1.7 that came with my camera. Bought it just before my first backpacking trip through Europe as a young man and only discovered how poor it was after I returned home to Australia and got all my films processed. 😔
Would LOVE some more vintage reviews. Not enough scientific tests of old lenses.
I would second that. However, with many manufacturers, sample variance was huge due to inferior quality control. This might limit the reviews' usefulness.
Please Mr. Frost!!!
More reviews of vintage lenses please! I think it’s a good idea because we already have your tests of modern lenses, if you also test vintage lenses then we will have tests that are directly comparable between modern and old lenses
I think we're a bit spoiled by the quality of modern lenses?
love when you look at old lenses !! more please
Nice reviewing,lots of details for sure,I really want you to do some star-fleid testing for review, because it can be very easy to spot the lens problem! Thanks!
I love the crushing critique at the end :D
I think that video description closest to click bait you’ll ever get! So many RUclips channels (cough, .. they’re not channels, they are one person) are resorting to dire clickbait titles and photoshop images more than ever. But you are a rare holdout.
"Like trying to find a ghost in a room full of smoke". That almost made me fall out of my chair.
It was quite good at f5.6 in my eyes. Bear in mind it was tested on a high resolution digital body.
Yes. It's a poor lens made even poorer by shooting on a high resolution sensor. Very interesting, though. I remember this brand from when I worked in photo retail in the 80's and 90's.
I would love to see older lenses more. they are the most entertaining
It's great for non native english speaker to come here to a review of a bad lens, new language is discovered from Christopher when commenting the insights of awful results. I, for one, welcome reviews of these type of old lenses. Good work
Believe it or not Chris this lens from what I've seen (I mean the photos you displayed in this review) has its own character and I like its bokeh despite being rubish :-)
I have a Tamron Adapt-a-magic (the precursor to the Adaptall) 28mm 2.8 and I find it to be lovely, the bokeh can also be busy but if you lean into it you get wonderful images with vintage tones.
I imagine the conversation:
“Hi Chris! Do you have a hammer handy?”
“No but you can have my Hanimex lens…”
😆 I love it! However, if you keep these up you're bound to find a real gem. I'll be here for it.
lets get more old lens to test ,gonna be fun
Can relate - my Grandfather passed me down all of his old lenses, a couple of cheapo Hanimex's in there!
Just picked this lens up for $9USD at a Thrift Store. I hated Hanimex lenses until I started using them for creative images. For a perfect 28mm I use my Sigma ART.
That was an interesting review. I find that vintage lenses from the better marques are still good today, but there were some real stinkers among them from the more obscure brands. I bought a used Hanimex 35mm f3.5 preset lens which turns out to be surprisingly good on my Nikon D7100, producing sharp, high contrast pictures. I also have two Vivitars, the 100-200mm f4 and the 135mm close focussing. Both are very good lenses indeed. I'd love to see more reviews like this, particularly the vintage Vivitar Series 1 lenses and the Tamron Adaptall SP lenses.
Thank you for a very interesting review. I recently bought a Soligor preset 35mm f 2.8 which also (by current standards) performs very poorly. Very soft at full aperture and with quite a bit of blooming. However, the full aperture images are beautifully dreamy. I am now searching out 28mm preset, no MC, lenses and they are quite difficult to find.
I have a 1970s Vivitar 28mm that is quite like this lens. It is Nikon F mount and I use it on my D810. Depends on my mood, sometimes I like shooting on softer quirky lenses. I paid only $15 USD for it.
Oh lord, I had this lens as part of my kit when I started out, using Spotmatic bodies. It was truly cheap, bought new in box in the bargain bin at a camera store on Queen East in Toronto back when I was always skint. I also had a Vivitar Series 1 85mm, a Takumar 105mm and another budget brand 35mm whose maker I can't recall. All sold decades ago when I upgraded to a Nikon F3HP. I don't recall if it was usable as I was just starting out, and was happy to have any gear that would fit my budget. One thing I'm sure of is that almost any low-cost Chinese lens from 7Artisans or the like today would leave it in the dust.
As some doing photography throughout the 1980s, I can confirm that the Hanimex 28mm f2.8 didn't have much of a reputation back then, and would come near to the bottom in group tests. 28mm f2.8 was probably the standard wide angle for the hobbyist back, then. This lens was not even in the same league as the Tamron, Sigma etc, let alone the camera manufacturers own lenses. A 3 lens combo back then was generally a 28mm f2.8 (or a 35mm f2.8), a 50mm 1.7-8 and a 135mm f2.8/f3.5.
Love these retro reviews
Thank you for reviewing this Hanimex. Fortunately I don't think I have many of worst lenses any longer. One of the stand out stinkers for me was the Tokina SZ-X 210 (70-210 FD mount zoom). I suspect you'd find it tested worse than the Hanimex did. Not sure whether I just had a bad copy, or whether none of them were any good.
will nikon 28mm 2.8 non-D and D be contenders for the worst spot with this lens ? (Not 28mm G - Ais - Ai)
These lenses were meant for consumer grade ASA400/27DIN color film with 1 hr processing, which is like 4 to 6MP JPG if we are being charitable. Don't think we need Christopher to tell us not to buy or use one on our 40+MP camera.😁
i have vivitar 28mm f/2 lens tha has about the same quality with that old boy. but when i shoot with vivitar, i feel kinda happy with results. not bad that much and problems can be fixed on the post production.
Love the characteristics of this lense. its good for filming.
i hope you review more old lenses :)
is that really barrel distortion?
I have the same lens but rebranded Zenit Zenitar m42 version. Just bought it yesterday 5€, didn't try yet but I saw some review, as like others any lens, they get the sharpest result at f8
Oh, the horror! I hade one or two cheap, used lenses from the 80s when I started out. Much like this lens in optical performance. Looking back now at images taken with those lenses makes me wonder if I was half blind back then! :D
Isnt this better than the Canon RF 16mm 2.8?
Hey you seriously should consider following up on testing the old world's so called "Charactor" lenses. It is prieceless coz you do follow a unique but constant series of test on any lens you do test on and thus having a huge librery of newer era lenses, it is possible to very meaningfully underestand the data presented that additionally significantly adds to the taste of life for anyone with interest in history of photography.
Thanks for all you do and God bless.
So you might say this lens has a dreamy look...
I have a good number of old manual lenses and perhaps one day my grandson (if I ever have one, that is) records a review like this after rummaging through my collection. I've noticed that wide angle lenses were particularly nasty in the film era, probably because the back elements need to be so tiny, which accentuates all and any imperfections in the optical system.
Very interesting lens though! Great review as always!
With all due respect, I'm having some trouble imagining a lens _less_ interesting than a dark 28mm prime. Maybe a dark 35mm prime? ;)
I would use it in video and film camera work.
I mean.. back then... those pictures where usually printed on small slightly larget than hand sized cards :D
Well I basically used vintage lens EXCLUSIVELY and I am glad, this period in my life is finally over. I have a famous Helios, the better version amongts them and it’s a huge dissapointment. I mean yeah, all my pictures are basically useless with a lot of flare, ghosting and there’s nothing like contrast or sharpness there. Afterall, it was nothing but a basic "kit" lens back then.
Great. I will buy five of those
Actually I own the Hanimex 28mm f/2,8 MC version :-D I bought it for something like 5 or 10€ some months ago. When I tested it, I really, really thought that it was broken. I like to clean and maintain my old glass by myself, but I could not find any fungus or haze, so I tested it again. And it's.... garbage. Absolutely ugly results, no picture is usable at all!! It does not have the "vintage look". At 2,8 is just unusable. At f4 it start showing some value, but when you see the image in the screen you just cry. The only advantage of this lens is the focal lenght, since 28mm is not so usual when we speak about vintage lenses, but hell, it's really, really bad. I will give a last try with my fuji, since only the central part of the lens is used, but I don't expect much of the experiment. Anyway, I enjoyed a lot this video, now I don't feel so alone!!!
Hanimex and Promaster are famous for being very bad choices. Salespeople (back in the day) jokingly called Hanimex "ham and eggs" which might make a nice breakfast, but you wouldn't want to strap it to your camera.
Great for 240p cinematography 😄
If I was in the UK I'd send you so many lenses to test and review lol
Still not as bad as the original 7artisans 35mmf1.2!
I doubt Hanimex will send you anymore lenses to test after this one.
Interesting video.
TY! I enjoyed the diversion into poor and oddball territory!
I’ve got this lens and I actually don’t mind it.
I purposely use old crap lenses like this in my spare time to see what’s achievable with them.
It’s a good stress relief away from shooting proper photos for money
Unless you are taking pictures of test screens, as opposed to pictures of real things like landscapes, it's really not that bad.
Almost every Hanimex lenses were junk back then. They were cheap.
Nevertheless they were decent for B&W photography with film cameras. They helped people take memories. Of course with the digital age, every flaws of lenses will be visible even more with 45+MP body. But those lenses can be used as a creative tool. Some people are researching that effect. It is funny to see people nowadays complain that newer lenses are clinically sharp
the corners are jaw droppingly weak i can’t breathe 😩😂
There are so many special amazing vintage leneses but you have chosen to review some noname lense which nobody cared back then and especially now :).
Lol- great review as ever...
I just bust out laughing !!! lol
Don’t be too hard, Chris. Your family’s money was, no doubt, hard earned and they probably spent only what they could afford.
For a lens that is around 30 years old it is not too bad. Having said this, a 45MP sensor is overkill for that lens. 45MP is way sharper than most film - so ther wrong camera was used here. The bokeh is something unique. The age of the lense was not considered. Anyway, another failed review in my opinion. It is like comparing an BMW Isetta with a Fiat 500 of today and only looking at its performance.
It was good enough for film.
This is genuinely the first lens review from you were I could see very clearly the huge issues with the sharpness in the sample photos before you got to the test card. Horrific.
This reminds me of a weird pattern. 24mm...good. 28, bad. 35, good! 50, bad. 85: good. Why is this?!
Does anyone else actually think it's rather a bit of pincushion distortion and not barrel? Honest question.
Nice lens at f/16... Well, almost!
3:24
A bit mustachey I suppose.
@@villageblunder4787 Aaaah I see the outer edges are pincushion, the central section is barrel... Impressive.
It's no wonder why old people would swear by Nikon. The Nikkor AI-s 28mm f/2.8 of the 1980s is much better than this.
I got one, bought with a ae1 program. it is really bad
the worst lens I ever had
An lens designed for low pixel APS-C before the format even existed.
Should suit the hipsters and the lomography crowd.
vintage glass was simply better in the 60's.. whether from Germany or Japan. by the 80's physical design as well as coatings were cheapened, and quality control went downhill
I wouldn’t be so harsh on busy bokeh lenses
I quite like the result at ruclips.net/video/GHKFpTUhTH0/видео.html though, there's something pleasing about aberrations sometimes.
F/2.8 was standard, f/2 expensive
Results could have been worse, sure you could find worse. I owned a bad 28mm f/1.8 Canon, not for long...
First
Maybe you've never tried the really bad lenses.
I mean it isnt that bad for 1970 - bokeh is busy because the body is short
Wow, this was awful haha. Ticked literally none of the boxes. Amazing when even a 12mm modern lens handles direct light in the frame better than a 28mm of the 80s. No longitudinal chromatic aberration check? Haha.
cheap wide angle lenses are no good, kit lenses are better
Bought this lens just because of how bad it was.