Rexatar 200mm f3.5 manual prime

[hpa12]

Can anyone share something on its performance on a digital cam?

[Hankosaurus]

I see you have a D90. Did they make the Rexatar 200 in F mount? I have seen an M42 of that brand and focal length, but at f3.3.

I will guess that Rexatar is one of the many "otherbrand" makers from the days of manual match-needle SLRs. It would not surprise if that on APS it does pretty well. You would, after all, be using only the central 45% of the frame, cropping away the sides and corners where performance would likely fall off, and especially at wider apertures.

Here is a thread on the Classic Camera Repair Forum wherein a similar Rexatar is being discussed.
http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/forum/messages/3/17898.html?1292978213

Happy day.

[hpa12]

Thank you sir, thats a useful link. Yes, there's one that'll mount on the d90. I'm pretty impressed with the sharpness and colours in the samples, which i suppose is expected of a prime.

[Hankosaurus]

Hello again,  hpa12.

I am using old primes on my digital body, some of which date back to the 1960s. They are more than merely serviceable for normal size enlargements. I suspect that it may be the same with the Rexatar, judging from what I am seeing and reading online.

The current generation of quality primes and zooms is in many ways a cut above most of the optics from that previous time. Better coatings. Computer aided design. Not categorically better in every way, but generally better, IMO. If one uses that old glass carefully and creatively within its more constrained performance envelope, I am of the prejudiced view that some quality images can be had.

Early zooms had some serious limitations, and which have been largely eliminated in newer designs. For example, my Nikkor 43~86 zoom is a nightmare in terms of pincushion and barrel distortion at the extremes of zoom. And it's inferior to modern zooms in resolution too. But even it is rectilinear at about 60mm. Modern zooms still have such distortion, but it is minimal by comparison. And now the electronic darkroom's editing tools allow for its correction as well.

By comparison, many primes of a generation ago still shine. I much prefer them for manual focusing, which by the way, is the only way they focus anyway. Some folks also like the rendering of the older glass with single coatings. As it is with film, lenses have personalities, each behaving differently from others in subtle ways.

[suchi]

henry

pardon my unsolicited intrusion here. most of my lenses are primes harking back to the heydays of classic film slrs: ai, ais and ai'd nikkors; carl zeiss in m42; pb and c/y mounts; taks, tomiokas, a schahts, schneiders and russian helios, jupiter, mir lenses in m42. i use them all as per desired results and as occassion warrants on my full frame and aps-c canon eos dslrs. it is of course my subjective opinion, but i feel one has to get a "feel" for each lens in one's arsenal, and pick the appropriate one for the right job.  from what i am able to make out, in the case of canon glass, only the L breed have the pedigree to match the results of these humble mf primes. 

Hello again,  hpa12.

I am using old primes on my digital body, some of which date back to the 1960s. They are quite serviceable for normal size enlargements. I suspect that it may be the same with the Rexatar, judging from what I am seeing and reading online.

The current generation of quality primes and zooms is in many ways a cut above most of the optics from that previous time. Better coatings. Computer aided design. Not categorically better, but generally better, IMO. Nevertheless, if one uses that old glass carefully and creatively within its performance envelope, I suspect that some really excellent images can be had by a skilled imagemaker.

Some folks also like the rendering of the older glass with single coatings. As it is with film, lenses have personalities, each behaving differently from others in subtle ways.

[Hankosaurus]

Hello Suchi.

Actually, I know I speak for more than myself when I tell you how happy we are to have you and your expertise present here on the JJMPF. Your participation is in no wise an intrusion. And we look forward to learning from you as you share your knowledge and experiences in still and motion imagemaking.

I should have been clearer in the above post. My respect for old glass goes much deeper than I indicated. At that moment I was thinking of the older Nikkor and other-brand glass I use on my D700.

Like yourself, I have used, and still use primes of yesteryear that are more than merely capable. Like the 80mm f2.8 Zeiss Planar that was on my Hasselblad 500c. I regret selling that camera. Or the 50mm f2 Leitz Summicron on a Leica M3, or even the Jupiter 8M on a Kiev 4a. I have even used one of my enlarging lenses, a Schneider Componon, as a flat field close-up lens with the D700. The Zeiss Tessar, which can be a bit soft on the edges and in the corners wide open, does admirably within its sweet spot, and has wonderful contrast control too. Sometimes that Tessar's softness is even desirable.

I see your points and understand fully the respect you have for the capabilities of classic glass. So many newcomers are inclined to believe that good glass only came along recently. Many are surprised to learn that the Planar dates to the 1890's and the Tessar came along in about 1903. Many are likewise surprised to learn that the excellent lenses coming from Japan in the post-war years were more than a little influenced by these and other classic German designs.

henry

pardon my unsolicited intrusion here. most of my lenses are primes harking back to the heydays of classic film slrs: ai, ais and ai'd nikkors; carl zeiss in m42; pb and c/y mounts; taks, tomiokas, a schahts, schneiders and russian helios, jupiter, mir lenses in m42. i use them all as per desired results and as occassion warrants on my full frame and aps-c canon eos dslrs. it is of course my subjective opinion, but i feel one has to get a "feel" for each lens in one's arsenal, and pick the appropriate one for the right job.  from what i am able to make out, in the case of canon glass, only the L breed have the pedigree to match the results of these humble mf primes. 

Hello again,  hpa12.

I am using old primes on my digital body, some of which date back to the 1960s. They are quite serviceable for normal size enlargements. I suspect that it may be the same with the Rexatar, judging from what I am seeing and reading online.

The current generation of quality primes and zooms is in many ways a cut above most of the optics from that previous time. Better coatings. Computer aided design. Not categorically better, but generally better, IMO. Nevertheless, if one uses that old glass carefully and creatively within its performance envelope, I suspect that some really excellent images can be had by a skilled imagemaker.

Some folks also like the rendering of the older glass with single coatings. As it is with film, lenses have personalities, each behaving differently from others in subtle ways.

[suchi]

henry

by the way, these classic primes really make their presence felt when used to shoot dslr video on full-frame, giving us that wonderfully shallow dof, and the über-classic glowing cinematic feel ... :-)

cs

[hpa12]

i'm just sitting back, learning from everything