whenever a thread arrives discussing the Agnar, Apotar and Solinar people always seem to get defensive and ultimately upset as if the criticisum is directed at the person and not the lenses.
this thread is about the lenses, thats what the OP was asking about.
i am all for anyone and everyone simply enjoying themselves with vintage photo equipment. heck i have some terrible lenses, by todays standards or even compared to 40s and 50s, but have still enjoyed using the cameras for a bit of fun..if expectations are kept to a minimum the results are often surprisingly nice.
however it doenst do anyone any good if they ask about the diffeences in the 3 mentioned lenses to simply say they are all good, great, no difference! that just leads to more confusion down the track with the next person asking.
as with most things, the good advice is to get the best you can afford, particularly as its now 50+ years on from when these were produced someone may as well get a Isollette with at least an Apotar given the choice is pretty much the same money, as often as not. (or even if they cost $15+ or more, that doenst hurt our pockets as much as it did to the folk living in the 50's) .
there is a noticable difference, it may as well be said. and as FallisP mentions the solinar's advantage compared to the Apotar is also when used wider open, which for some people may be important (not to mention you do get those extra lines per mm which can be important as well). what is that saying with photography?...spend big dollars for small gains....well when it comes to Isolettes luckly it works out, to spend pretty small extra dollars for bigger gains. (not counting the S/Isolette)
but by all means if you have an Iso w/Agnar and enjoy it, then continue to do so--like i said i had fun and got interesting photos from using all sorts of worse lenses (older period lenses) than the Agnar...cant remember the last time i used pin hole LOL , must try that again one day.
