Meyer-Optik Goerlitz unveils titanium and gold-plated Trioplan 100mm F2.8 limited edition lenses

I wouldn't buy the gold or platinum versions but if I had the dosh, I'd have to weigh up whether to get the new regular version ($1400) or the original legacy Meyer Trioplan 100 ($800-$1000 on ebay not including delivery cost).

Jun 24, 2016permalink

So much hate for a company that's just trying to differentiate itself in the market.
It's camera bling for people who like that sort of thing.
The regular version of the lens is roughly $1200. Still quite pricey but this is is small lens manufacturer that doesn't have the economies of scale that canikon have or the cheap labour of many other manufacturers.

Jun 22, 2016permalink

The hate argument again! Do you really think anyone hates the lens, or the company? I think you are imagining things.

Jun 22, 2016permalink

I think I'm basing my response on the comments before mine

Jun 23, 2016permalink

So, if someone says - this was not a good ice cream - then he hates it? Or - if someone says - "gold plated? How quaint" - that he hates the lens? Sure, that might be according to your use of language and the word "hate" - but it is a bit surprising in that case.

Jun 23, 2016permalink

If someone says "hey that icecream flavour is terrible, just look at the colour" then I would say that maybe they should actually taste the icecream before deciding.

Jun 24, 2016*permalink

GRUBERND

the price is way too low to seriously fund research for new lenses.
(edit for typo)

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

I love retro looking lenses. I really love the scalloped metal focus rings of early Nikon lenses, like the 55 1.2 and 35 1.4. Those things look so cool!

But, $2500-$3500 just because a (brand new) lens looks cool and has neat bokeh? That's just absurd.

If you ask me, part of the charm of old classic lenses is the fact that someone else has cast them aside. In fact some lenses may have passed hands many times, or might have been manufactured before you or I were even born.

I still have the two 50mm's that I inherited from my grandfathers, a Pentax and a Nikon. They're sharp as heck, and are dear to me. The bokeh is nice too.

This, on the other hand, is a lens for people with more money than sense. People who are downright insecure about whether or not they have the right collection of status symbols in their life. Yes, it's probably a freaking awesome lens. Yes, money is for spending and if you're this obsessed, then go for it. But you're not as cool as you think you are.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

It is not retro looking. No old lens have even looked close to this. It looks more like a piece of plumbing with some glass.

Jun 22, 2016permalink

Okay fine, then call it steampunk maybe? :-P

Jun 24, 2016permalink

Steampunk is OK, that is faked oldies. Maybe more rust!

Jun 24, 2016permalink

Or, I could see this lens in the hands of a certain Firefly-class spaceship pilot...

Jun 24, 2016permalink

RUcrAZ

Looks great, especially the golden ones. But I will wait until Nikon sells an ebony body, to match. Or at least a nice Goncalo Alves wood body. Can't see putting a gold metal lens on black plastic bodies....yeccch!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Bok7h

What a gigantic flock of whiners !
What narrowness of spirit, what a lack of tolerance.

Now I think finally I love these lenses. At least THEY have a little bit of character and their own personnality. But the comments ... Phew.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

SeeRoy

And the spelling! Double-phew!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

If you think paying $3500 for bokeh constitutes "character", then you're the one without personality. :-P

Jun 21, 2016permalink

gkdiamond

@Bok7h - You forgot to mention how titanium and gold-plated lenses help photographers take better pictures too.

Jun 22, 2016permalink

Graham Hilling

A special kind of person will be buying this.....

Jun 21, 2016permalink

SeeRoy

Yes indeed.
"Never give a sucker an even break"
W.C. Fields

Jun 21, 2016permalink

kewlguy

The expensive casing should compensate all the aberrations of the poor optics.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

OBI656

... and this GOLD Plating is for what ... please help me to understand, some funny line, please ....

Jun 21, 2016permalink

SeeRoy

See above.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

dprived prev

is for when the queen of Neverland invites you personally to photograph her newborn granddaughter in a private dinner party ... with candle light and precioussssss ornaments and all that jazz! ;-)

Jun 22, 2016permalink

Osvaldo Cristo

Funny. Very funny. 😂

Jun 21, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

If the lens was a couple of hundred £/$/Eur I would buy one, but not for nigh ten times that price. I mean, who do they think they are - Leica!

I once had a Zeiss Ikon that had a triplet lens, had some good results - at f/8. Wider than that or in 35mm the results would be as sharp as dog poo. Very expensive dog poo at that. Dog poo with a nice blur. If you like dog poo then this is the lens for you! What's that phrase about a fool, his money and easy parted?

Dog poo lens and not the dog's dangles.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

KrisAK

Is this luxury retro-tech fetish a new thing, or has it always been around?

Jun 21, 2016permalink

kpaddler

They missed to gold plate the front element

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Richard Franiec

Unfortunately, boutique items like the lenses in questions, are still a dream of a few delusional marketing nuts. I cannot imagine the positive impact on brand visibility.
This is the first I've heard of the company or its product. There is no way that 110 lenses (even if sold) could recover the development cost. What a waste of resources.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

balios

This appears to be a new German company founded in 2014, which bought the naming rights to Meyer-Optik-Görlitz.

The 110 lenses are "limited edition". There is also a standard version of the same lens sold in unlimited quantities. Their website also has a range of lenses for various systems.

The titanium and gold finish are just plating processes that don't really add to the overall development costs. Based on the pricing, they are more than making up for the cost of the additional plating.

And as you said, these limited editions are really just for marketing, to get the name out there. I knew nothing about the company, but have now checked out their website due to this news. So its working to some degree.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

I think they've resurrected the original designs as well

Jun 24, 2016permalink

Melchiorum

I can buy a pair of an amazing quality lenses that will actually serve me well in my photography, or I can choose a hipster piece of turd plated in gold...hmm, that's a really tough dilemma right here.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

(unknown member)

I suppose bad photographers will buy this and then blame the bad results on the lens and then call it "Art".

Jun 22, 2016permalink

WillWeaverRVA

...why?

Jun 21, 2016permalink

obsolescence

What? ...No precious gemstone studs? ...No mother of pearl accents? ...Booooring.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

papillon_65

Also included in the lens case is a flashing neon sign to attach to your camera emblazoned with the words "please steal me", no extra charge.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

better: lens with fluorescent lighting under them and f2.0 aperture. truly the fast and the furious.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Miron09

I´ll buy this for my white EPM1. Otherwise - if this supports serious lens development, why not

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

aris14

Rich collectors tend to be sillier, I guess...

Jun 21, 2016permalink

PowerG9atBlackForest

May I just throw in the idea that mahagony "Swietenia macrophylla" could go for another fashionable material for Meyer-Optik Goerlitzes because it is very durable, hard, very machinable and comes from sustainable sources. Oh, it could be polished to a fine degree of shine as well - Hasselblad I am sure would be able to confirm that.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

good, now i can finally be a photo-pimp!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

JF69

Wow.......what a lovely polished turd!
Meyer-Optik Goerlitz are so sure it will enrich the photography world, that they're offering with the option of having it wrapped in Premium Recycled Toilet Paper,
for a nominal fee of €499.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

photonius

Hmm, I guess they forgot about the basic principles of photography. Who wants extra flare reflecting of shiny golden inside surfaces....

Jun 21, 2016permalink

dprived prev

apparently the inside is black ...
or if not, then maybe that's intended for 'shiny, dreamy' portraits? ;-)

Jun 22, 2016permalink

tinternaut

S'ppose that's one way a lens manufacturer, that no one has ever heard of, can become a lens manufacturer that everyone has heard of. Better to be notorious than unknown.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Actually, Meyer Optik was founded in 1918 and the chap who invented Zeiss' Tessar worked for them. and went on to become East Germany's second lens manufacturer after Carl Zeiss Jena. So the company with a long history of which no one has heard makes a triplet piece of bling.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

Michiel953

Clueless.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

It's really not the same company though, they purchased the brand and while the trioplan is at least an original design, a lot of the lenses they sell are just Chinese Mitakon lenses, they import them in parts and then assemble them in Germany just so they can write "made in germany" on the side and then give vague "evidence" of their difference and superiority to the Chinese versions such as using parts made by a supplier to the aviation industry (turned out to be some of the screws I think)

I think they sell a rebadged Helios for over twice the original price too.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

vscd

I think this could be the new standard-hasselblad lens, but I recommend some svarovski-crystals on the front.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

PG Thomas

No Silly! It has to be the INSIDE! Just think of the enhanced Chromatic Aberration that gives

Jun 21, 2016permalink

vscd

I just thought why nobody invented svarovski or diamond microlenses on the sensor. 50 MegaBlingBling, aehm Megapixel, would be awesome.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Infared

Love all the comments. That gold lens has to be one of the ugliest, overpriced things that I have ever seen in my life. LOL!
Thanks, but my money is buying an Olympus 300mm f/4.0 Pro.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

belle100

Despite all the silliness, the 'Golden Eye' gold-plated unit looks quite beautifully attractive, I must say.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

jefmcc

Someone point me to a cheap Chinese replica please. Not paying more that $150 US.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

spencerda

Not jealous at all.
We all buy what we can afford or justify.
I purchased new cars, some consider doing so tossing money away. Do I have the funds to buy the lens either form, yes I do. Would I do so, no as its way over price for the quality it can reproduce. Do I begrudge someone who does, not at all. It's their money, if it gives pleasure God bless them. We all fall into the trap? If you wish to call it that of paying a premium for brand name or style.
Or to put it another way paying say 50 percent more for an extra 5-10 percent in function or quality.

Like buying REI vs say Target or Cosco.

Having said the above, we can still have a bit of fun with overprice items.

It's the old eye of the beholder.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Zdman

It more a case of if people actually do buy this en masse then you’ll have more of the same. Now I have no problem with the gold and titanium overpriced version but even the normal version is 1499 euro. Before you tell me its hand crafted how come the same company can make an 80mm F2 with six elements (compared to the three here) for 599. This leads to a company like Sony and Olympus who start to push up the price of their offerings ever higher because they know the same people will pay extra for exclusivity and we have camera’s going the way of the handbag. It always starts with something like this and believe me if it sells well the big boys are going to take note. If society frowned more on this buying excessively priced items to show off we'd all be better off so I welcome the negative comments.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Wow..a page full of jealous people who can't afford nicest things...so they sarcastically bash instead. How predictable.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Or maybe they'd rather buy something much better for the same money, something that actually justifies it's price tag.

I can't believe people are defending this hideously overpriced reproduction when you can buy the original for less, that fact alone should tell you all you need to know.

They play on the heritage of the lens but it's a brand new remake and costs more than the genuine article, think about that.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Zdman

See my comment above. Its actually a good thing society frowns on people who buy items only to show off that they can. Why should shoving that you have more money into peoples faces be a good thing. We haven't been doing that enough and the world is suffering for it. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be able to buy fine things and enjoy them if they're actually better but this is not the case here.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Daydream...Drfine "much better for the same money." So now we must succumb to your opinion of what we can buy. We get it...you can't afford this lens. Some of us can and may simply appreciate how it looks. The original isn't the same lens...give that some thought. And seriously, it's $3 grand...big deal. You'd think we were talking a million here with some of your whining.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

sierranvin

Davinator celebrates the 1% and their habits.
At least Chairman Mao knew how to re-educate people...

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

catchall

The Davinator,

Gold and titanium plating adds nothing to do nothing for photo quality, and it's $3500 not $3K. Stop pretending like you can actually afford it and go learn something. As for a better lenshere's one that's better at fraction of the cost: http://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product/camera-lenses/af-zoom-nikkor-80-200mm-f%252f2.8d-ed.html.

Obviously you've been hard at work:
We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid - Benjamin Franklin

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Considering my lens and camera list, $3500 is hardly anything. My 645Z was more than double that. So now those of us who can afford something nice are just the ignorant 1%. Go buy your plastic gear and leave nice collectibles up to the rest of us. Man..so bitter. Get a better job if you are so unhappy

Jun 21, 2016permalink

So the ONLY reason people wouldn't buy this is because they can't afford it? Not because it's a mediocre triplet with a tasteless finish that has "sucker bait" written all over it.

This is designed solely for the kind of people that like to mouth off about how rich they are on photography websites.

There's nothing collectable about this, it's not going to be remembered or prized in years to come, just acknowledged for the cynical peice of overpriced tat that it is.

Get a sense of taste if you're so unhappy. It's not our fault if you're stupid enough to buy something designed purely to part fools from their money.

You're just digging yourself into a deeper hole very time you attempt to justify something that cannot be justified, it's up to you what you want to spend your money on but claiming the only reason anyone wouldn't own this is because they couldn't afford it is some of the most pathetic, self serving circular logic I've ever seen.

Jun 22, 2016*permalink

Fatdeeman....you may wish to read up on strawmen agriements. The only one digging deeper here is you thinking anyone needs to justify anything to you.

Jun 22, 2016permalink

maximumeffort

Proof that fools and their money are easily parted.

You do not speak for everyone who can afford this lens so please stop speaking on my behalf.

I don't care if you're a millionaire, this lens is in poor taste and is designed to appeal to people with poor taste. Exactly the type of person that would come here and accuse anyone who can see this lens for the polished turd it is of being "jealous"

There's nothing cheaper than defending your own bad taste by accusing others of jealousy.

Jun 22, 2016permalink

catchall

Obviously you are missing the point alltogether. Gold-plated version of this camera is not any better than the version of the lens that hasn't been anything plated. Hving gold plating has nothing to do with quality of the lens or actual value. Here's the question for you: Why spend much more on the same lens in different color?

Explanation is limited to following choices: moron consumer or tacky taste.

And please don't talk about how people critisizing the price are broke or jealous. This argument is tired and shows low class/IQ.

Jun 28, 2016permalink

Wow...so anyone wanting a different color, different option, or anything of the sort...and are fine with paying for it....is a "moron consumer." Got it. You may wish to check you IQ.

Jun 28, 2016permalink

photogeek

Meh, I'm waiting for rhodium plated version with lenses made of diamonds. Nothing less than that will be able to convey my artistic intent when I'm photographing birds in flight or my cat.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

i need that for cat-in-flight, a new style for which the tools are severely lacking.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Seeky

You are aiming to low... I would only consider an optic made of vibranium and lenses of boron nitride. I can finally use a lens made of that freely without worrying about lens caps. The Navy can use it as a projectile for their rail guns too, if need be.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

adamantium or no sale, bub!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

dash2k8

What about a Kryptonite version?

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Mattersburger

These are crap.
I'm waiting for the unobtanium plated version.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Alex Efimoff

Nuh.. I want the Phantazium one from a comment below.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

unfortunately the unobtanium lenses are known to last only a few seconds. so much for "lenses are forever". but at least you can still maintain the exclusivity bragging rights.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

acidic

Hell yeah!

Finally a lens that matches my front teeth!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

AlanG

They should make a "Trump" signature version. He loves everything in gold.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Old Cameras

And it's gonna be the greatest thing ever!!! You're all just a bunch of losers!!!!!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

photogeek

Here's to making photography great again. Your photos will be so good, your head will spin. And best of all Mexicans are going to pay for it.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

Mr Bolton

If you don't buy this lens, you're FIRED!

Jun 21, 2016permalink

there should also be a Trump telephoto: ridiculously long and covered in black glass.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

alfredo_tomato

Oh, it will mount on my Olympus EPL1.

I'd rather have the Titanium.

Jun 20, 2016permalink

raimundo gaby

I have the "regular" version which I bought in quickstarter, and it is for sure a lens that can lead to very creative photography. Here are some samples:
https://flic.kr/s/aHskzUz6D7
I don't buy limited versions of anything, but I think it is astaunding how much people care about things that are not their business, like how others spend their money...

Jun 20, 2016permalink

Alex Efimoff

I guess this lens is suitable for flower shooters only.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

"I think it is astaunding how much people care about things that are not their business, like how others spend their money..."

That doesn't sound insecure at all.....

It's overpriced whether you buy it or not, it doesn't require someone to buy it before you reach that conclusion.

Jun 21, 2016*permalink

martinneuss

Nice photos really, the bokeh is amazing.

Don't worry about all this blah-blah about the lens here ... you own it, you are happy with it, and so every dime that you spent on that was spent well.

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Hasa

Hi! You have got a collection of beautiful photos with incredible lighting. Thank you for sharing! You gave everybody else a chance to see the bokeh of this lens explored to its fullest potential. I prefer however the bokeh of my Tamron 90 mm 2.8 macro though for flowers or the Tamron 15-30mm 2.8 which adds some weightlifting into an already attractive package :-) Sure, not much bokeh in a 15-30mm anyways. https://plus.google.com/u/0/photos/+HansChristianSteenSteenHansen/albums/6298648255741400001/6298648254777333458?pid=6298648254777333458&oid=107872732293560147841

Jun 21, 2016permalink

raimundo gaby

Not for flowers only:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/raimundogaby/27035059601/in/dateposted-public/
Here is one of my baby Truffle

Jun 21, 2016permalink

raimundo gaby

A gold anything is not of value to me, but may be of value for some.
Best,
Gaby

Jun 21, 2016permalink

Hasa

Very nice Raimundo, and the bokeh is much less soap-bubbly. I am not too fond of bright, sharp edges of "bubbles", but that is just a matter of taste.

Jun 26, 2016permalink

PL6012

My comment:
Whatever, to buy to sell??? :) The f...King market!!!

Jun 20, 2016permalink

sebbe

And everybody of us knows: Inside, they are all plastic.

Jun 20, 2016permalink

marc petzold

What?! No wooden focus or aperture rings? Epic fail!

Jun 20, 2016permalink