Any info on Schacht lenses?

[gdi]

I know they are cheap - but is the performance any good and worth a few bucks? I believe they are East German for Exacta? I am considering a 135 and 90.

Thanks

 

[VictorM.]

I have had a 90mm/2.8 for screw-mount Leica since 1969. The optics are good but the quality, especially the focusing mount, is poor. Mine is worn out and no longer usable. A 90mm Elmar from the '50's is a better choice. This was done with the Travenar 90/2.8 on an M2: http://www.flickr.com/photos/vgmayes/321817439/in/set-72157594329980962/

 

[gdi]

Thanks Victor - I did find some more info and I think I'll pass on Schacht's!

 

[nodyad]

Don't go too hard on the Schacht lenses. Here is an old resolution test review that I saved back when I bought my 135mm Travenar, and the frankensteinian gizmo used for the cereus photo that follows. If the price is right, you might be pleased.

 

[cmedin]

nodyad: what body is that?

 

[DeeCee3]

I've had two Schachts in bygone years and both performed adequately. Both happened to be f3.5 35mm Travegons (or maybe Travenars...?? it's been a long time now), one in LTM and one for Exakta. I used the LTM with an adaptor on my M2 and I still have the Exakta although it hasn't been used in 15 years.

A. Schacht of Ulm was a well-respected German optical firm; camera lenses were not their main production item. I remember reading that Schacht is now a part of a large German R&D corporation.

They were not stellar performers but I surely wouldn't pass one by.

dc3

 

[nodyad]

nodyad: what body is that?

Only a few days ago I learned from Peter Dechert's Shutterbug article on "The 1950 Canons" that it is one of the Skinner Canon IVs from 1950. See the recent new thread under Dechert's Canon column here.

 

[DeeCee3]

GDI, Schacht was a West German firm, not East German. Ulm, the city where they were located, also boasts the tallest steeple in Germany. It can be seen for miles as you approach the city.

dc3

 

[gdi]

Darn, I may try them after all...

 

[ferider]

If you are looking for good and cheap 90/135 lenses for your M3,
consider Nikkor 85/2, Nikkor 135/3.5 and Canon 135/3.5. The two
135 lenses can be had for peanuts and are as good as anything
out there ...

Best,

Roland.

 

[raid]

Only a few days ago I learned from Peter Dechert's Shutterbug article on "The 1950 Canons" that it is one of the Skinner Canon IVs from 1950. See the recent new thread under Dechert's Canon column here.

I have a feeling that this comment was meant for another thread. :bang:

 

[raid]

If you are looking for good and cheap 90/135 lenses for your M3,
consider Nikkor 85/2, Nikkor 135/3.5 and Canon 135/3.5. The two
135 lenses can be had for peanuts and are as good as anything
out there ...

Best,

Roland.

Hello Roland,
Sometimes, it is the fun of trying new things out that make us set aside the obvious. The Nikkor 135mm is razor sharp, by the way. Another cheap option is a Steinheil lens.

 

[VictorM.]

I didn't intend to discourage anyone from trying a Travenar. The main problem with mine was the soft aluminum used for the mechanical parts and the machining of the focus cam. my example has a flaw in the cam that shows up at about 3 metres and causes inaccurate focusing from about there to just under two meters. The lens worked well for me for 25+ years, including several long motorcycle/camping trips. Like Raid says, trying different stuff can be interesting.

 

[gdi]

Well I did buy them - and even talked myself into buying his Leicaflex SLR with 28 Elmarit (why did that I'll never know, but I'll find someone who needs it and pass it along!)

The 90mm Travenar is pretty good optically, the 135 Back focuses about 6-8" (anyone know how to adjust it?)http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?p=649670#post649670