Archlich
Well-known
I wonder why is it considered a old lens copy when it has a high refrective index element and an ED element? We're referring to the Thypoch Eureka right?
I wonder why is it considered a old lens copy when it has a high refrective index element and an ED element? We're referring to the Thypoch Eureka right?
I wonder why is it considered a old lens copy when it has a high refrective index element and an ED element? We're referring to the Thypoch Eureka right?
Just looked at the Eureka. Intrigued and mildly interested. But how do folks get this connection to the Reid/Taylor Hobson?
Too many lenses catching my eye nowadays 😕
Or maybe the king of good quality replicas of lenses that aren’t made anymore ; carefully ensuring that components can’t be swapped to the originals and occasionally adding new features such as the 35mm 8 bit collapsible.LLL is the king of knock off lenses
I think it was stated pretty clearly by them at the start and the looks are quite similar (well as much as an extensible tube with glass at both ends can be).Just looked at the Eureka. Intrigued and mildly interested. But how do folks get this connection to the Reid/Taylor Hobson?
Too many lenses catching my eye nowadays 😕
China has long history of copy good design but made in poor quality, such as Seagull 4 TLR copied Rolleiflex/cord, Seagull DF copied Minolta SR, et al. recent year China started produce good quality lenses, LLL initial replica did not have good QCOr maybe the king of good quality replicas of lenses that aren’t made anymore ; carefully ensuring that components can’t be swapped to the originals and occasionally adding new features such as the 35mm 8 bit collapsible.
Ok the 1966 was a bit of a knock off as Leica had just reintroduced similar.
China has long history of copy good design but made in poor quality, such as Seagull 4 TLR copied Rolleiflex/cord, Seagull DF copied Minolta SR, et al. recently year China started produce good quality lense, LLL initial replica did not have good QC