jarski
Veteran
Disaster_Area
Gadget Monger
It definitely seems Nikon has the most popular selection of MF glass... Canon seems to be leading in AF glass.
I have the 85mm f1.2 and the 135L... and those two lenses alone will keep from ever switching systems. The 70-300IS is also AMAZING... for around $400 used there isn't a single AF zoom in that range that's a better bang for your buck.. Here's a sample shot:
I have the 85mm f1.2 and the 135L... and those two lenses alone will keep from ever switching systems. The 70-300IS is also AMAZING... for around $400 used there isn't a single AF zoom in that range that's a better bang for your buck.. Here's a sample shot:
nrb
Nuno Borges
These I found good or outstanding:
Zuiko OM: 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2, 100/2.8
Canon EF: 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8
Contax: 28/2.8, 50/1.7
Nikon AIS: 28/2.8
Leica: 28/2.8, 50/2, 90/2.8, 180/4
Minolta AF: 28/2.8, 50/1.7
Zuiko OM: 24/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/2, 100/2.8
Canon EF: 24/2.8, 35/2, 85/1.8
Contax: 28/2.8, 50/1.7
Nikon AIS: 28/2.8
Leica: 28/2.8, 50/2, 90/2.8, 180/4
Minolta AF: 28/2.8, 50/1.7
Robin P
Well-known
Some that I've been impressed by over the years -
Pentax 30mm f2.8
Konica AR 85mm
Vivitar 35mm f1.9
Yashica YC 21mm
Yashica YC 100mm macro
Cosinon 45mm f2.8
Cheers, Robin
Pentax 30mm f2.8
Konica AR 85mm
Vivitar 35mm f1.9
Yashica YC 21mm
Yashica YC 100mm macro
Cosinon 45mm f2.8
Cheers, Robin
Frontman
Well-known
I have one myself, it's nice, but there are others which I like better.
TKH
Well-known
rainer good to see you here as well, schalke fan. are you using rangefinders now as well?
- arsenal fan from pf
So little the world can be...
No, I dont use a rangefinder. I like too. The old Epson Rd-1 is an old wish. But I didnt find one for a small price.
Yes, the FA31 is to big. So I prefere the DA35 and DA40.
Merry christmas to Toronto!
P.S.: Whats up with Arsenal? Schalke is on Place two in the Bundesliga and we hope to play Champions League next year again.
japro
Member
Thats interesting. The 28AF is usually considered one of the weakest of the Minolta AF primes. I have a 24/2.8AF which is decent. The MC (or early MD) 24/2.8 from Minolta is often considered "the best" of the systems wide lenses (with the 24/2.8 VFC as main contestant).
Notable Minolta/Sony AF lenses are the 200/2.8 Apo, 135/1.8 ZA,100/2.0AF and the usual bunch of Lenses that seem to be great in every system (85/1.4 Zeiss/Minolta, 100/2.8 Macro...). My personal favorite is the 135mm STF for it's specacular quality being one of the last (if not the last) really innovative lenses on the market.
Notable Minolta SR lenses are the already mentioned 24/2.8 (as far as i know, that's one of the Minolta lenses that were also sold by leica), the unique VFC lenses (variable field curvature), 21/2.8 MC, 35/1.8 MC or MD, 85/2 and again the usual stuff like 50/1.2s, 135/2.8s etc.
One of the most impressive 35mm lenses i own is the C/Y Zeiss 28-85/3.3-4 Vario-sonnar. While it does have lots of distortion (like any Zoom in that range) the sharpness and contrast are very "unzoomish". I once did some test shots against the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 Planars and wasn't able to tell wether the primes or the zoom was sharper at equal f-stops.
PatrickT
New Rangefinder User
How about some more Minolta MF lens recommendations? I have the MD 35/1.8 that I love and I've heard that the 58/1.2 is legendary (people convert them to use on Canon and Nikon digitals with fantastic results).
I also have some OM equipment that I love. The 50/1.4 (pre-1.1mil) is probably my favorite lens ever, the 28/3.5 is a tiny little gem and the 35/2.8 is also likable.
I also have some OM equipment that I love. The 50/1.4 (pre-1.1mil) is probably my favorite lens ever, the 28/3.5 is a tiny little gem and the 35/2.8 is also likable.
japro
Member
I don't have any of those. The 58/1.2 is often said to have spectacular Bokeh...
The Rokkor Files is a nice source of information about various Minolta MF gear, as well as This nice site for more technical Details.
Of the Rokkors I own, I probably like the 21/2.8 MC, 16/2.8 MC Fish and 200/2.8 MD the most. The first two, because fisheyes and superwides are fun and the 200/2.8 for being so compact and a perfect fit for the XD-7/11.
Interesting trivia about the 16/2.8 Fish: There were two Version, the early MC/MD and the later "plain MD", with the plain MD using a different optical formula and being smaller, and the first being rumored of using the same optics as the Leica 16/2.8 Fish (both manufactured by Mionlta in Japan). I have never found someone actually talking about their comparative optical performance, but both are said to be very fine lenses (my MC at least is
). Anyway, when Minolta built their 16mm AF fisheye, they apparently dug up the first design and used the same optical formula for the AF fisheye as well, which is now still used in the Sony version of said lens , which makes the optical design of the Sony 16mm Fisheye possibly one of the oldest optical formulas still in production, since the frist version was released in 1969... (also you could say the Sony AF system is the only system featuring Zeiss AND Leica AF lenses )The 35/2.8 (the later non-HG version) rates extremly high on the "bang for buck"-scale. Since everyone want's a 35/1.8, the 35/2.8 goes for ridiculously low prices (paid like 15$ for my mint one from a local store) and I found it to be one the sharpest lenses I own.
I have a rather rare (at least I think so) 100-500/8 Apo on my shelf which takes very sharp pictures as well. But the 100-500 is just so heavy and big, it literally dwarfes the modern 70-200/2.8 Zooms, that I rarely use it.
A rather strange lens is the 250/5.6 RF-Rokkor (yes, that's a mirror lens!) for being possibly one of the smallest an most unobtrusive telephoto lenses around. Lately they fetch absurd prices on eBay. If someone knows why, please tell me! There was one selling for over 1000$ just a few weeks ago
.
novum
Well-known
I'm often astounded by the beauty my 135/2.8 Ai is capable of. Not bad for a lens that gets no respect. I think my 50/1.2 AiS is better than the 50/1.4's that I've owned. In fact, I liked the cheap 50/1.8E better than the 50/1.4's. And I love my FM2n. And my FE, for that matter.
novum
Well-known
Here's a sample shot:
Wow, that's stunning! Duly noted.
dacookieman
Cookie Monster
I have the Nikon 50mm f1.2 AIS and it has a signature that i really like! And its really sharp wide open and i love how buttery smooth it focuses Everything else just falls into a dreamy blur.
For me, its a reallllly evil lens that i couldn't bear to let go and have decided to keep for a loooong time
Some of my favourite shots with the 50mm f1.2 AIS @ f1.2 on the 5D:
Everything else just falls into a dreamy blur. For me, its a reallllly evil lens that i couldn't bear to let go and have decided to keep for a loooong time
Some of my favourite shots with the 50mm f1.2 AIS @ f1.2 on the 5D:
Last edited:
jarski
Veteran
dacookieman
Cookie Monster
nice photos, especially first one. + and interesting use of Nikkor on Canon
I was using nikon previously before i switched to canon for digital, but i still have samples shot with my F3HP.
Thanks for viewing!naturepix
Dave Myers
pvdhaar
Peter
My personal favorite is Nikon's 35-70/2.8D.. It's built like a brick, gives better IQ already wide open than the 50/1.8@f5.6, and weighs a trifle less than 700 grams, which is just inside my comfort zone for hauling stuff around all day.
The main trouble with the 35-70 seems to be that a fair number of them on sale have been so abused that they're out of alignment and give less than stellar performance. Only thing I can say; if you got a good one, it's really good.
The main trouble with the 35-70 seems to be that a fair number of them on sale have been so abused that they're out of alignment and give less than stellar performance. Only thing I can say; if you got a good one, it's really good.
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
I got to use one ten or eleven years ago, courtesy of the armed forces and their duplicating stand, and I was blown away by the eerie fineness of the details in the plaques & certificates I was tasked with taking pictures of. Looked like pictures taken through a Zeiss Sonnar on crystal meth. Never forgot the lens.
Well, hey. I got given one over Christmas. With an F3 as its rear cap. Neither had been touched by human hands in at least ten years.
Did a bit of googling and reading once I got the rig home, and have decided that the combination seems worth taking to Nippon Photo Clinic in Manhattan for a complete overhaul, sometime in the next few months.
Huge lens, though. Makes my 50mm M-mount Summilux seem like lightweight paratrooper kit in comparison. A real can of beans.
Last edited:
Biggles
My cup runneth amok.
Heh. Just weighed 'em. You're right!
50mm f/1.4 M- Summilux: 300 grams
55mm f/2.8 Micro: 290 grams
For bulk, though, the Nikon lens wins by a head. The Summilux is shorter even with its hood on.
50mm f/1.4 M- Summilux: 300 grams
55mm f/2.8 Micro: 290 grams
For bulk, though, the Nikon lens wins by a head. The Summilux is shorter even with its hood on.
28/2.8 Distagon
50/1.7 Planar
85/2.8 Sonnar
Contax/Yashica mount. *Really* enjoying this sweet set. Small, light, sharp, great color/bokeh/"3D"
50/1.7 Planar
85/2.8 Sonnar
Contax/Yashica mount. *Really* enjoying this sweet set. Small, light, sharp, great color/bokeh/"3D"
monochromejrnl
Well-known
50/1.4 M42 Pentax SMC Takumar (and some earlier gen) are optical copies of the 50/1.4 Zeiss planar (down to the 5/6 elements being a single glued element, rather than separate as in the current Zeiss ZF/ZK/ZE 50/1.4.
Build quality is superb and these lenses are very inexpensive (and easily adapted to various other mounts).
Build quality is superb and these lenses are very inexpensive (and easily adapted to various other mounts).