50/1.4 camera/lens combo

f3hp and ZF 50/1.4 Planar then.

get a red dot screen.

you can veto olympus but I will tell you that their 50/1.2 is the prime pick of the fast lenses and with a 1-4 or 2-4 it's pretty out of this world for viewfinder brightness.
 
jett said:
Lots of suggestions.

I'm a little lost, but to be fair, my questions were open-ended.
The only SLR body/lens that I have right now is a Leicaflex with a 50mm f2.0
Summicron. I like it very much, but the 50/1.4 Summilux is too pricey, and so I'm looking for a faster, cheaper alternative to compliment this camera. I love everything about this camera. The size, the quality, the viewfinder, but the lens is sometimes too slow.

Lens:
I'm looking for a manual focus 50mm-58mm f1.2-f1.4 lens. I don't have a budget per se, but I would feel uncomfortable spending more than $500 on a lens. I'm not sure how I feel about f1.2 lenses... I've never owned one but I would expect the slower counterparts to perform better, all things equal. The lens doesn't have to be clinical sharp, so 70's-80's lenses are most probably fine. Auto-focus (sigma) is not an option.

Body:
I'm looking for a body that is great for manual focusing. To me, ths means a contrasty viewfinder and a plain matte screen. I don't like focusing aids. All-mechanical is a bonus. A bigger/heftier camera is also a bonus.

Questions
Pentax
1. Do the K, M, and A lenses work on every bayonet body? Like the KX and the MX.
2. Are plain matte screens easy to find? Are they available on the spotmatic.
3. Which models have the best viewfinder?

With that said, I'm leaning towards a Nikon F2 or F3 with a 50mm f1.4/f1.2 or a 58mm f1.4 lens, a Contax RTS I/II with a 50mm f1.4 lens, or a Pentax KX/MX with a 50mm f1.2 K mount or some 50mm f1.4 lens. Nothing wrong with Olympus or Minolta but I don't feel that their cameras fit me. Konica fascinates me, but not having an interchangeable focusing screens (for a plain matte) is a deal breaker (unless I'm mistaken and they do have models with interchangeable focusing screens) since there are many other camera options that do.
Click to expand...

Q1. yes, the lenses all work, only the A priority etc may not depending on the body.
Q2. not sure sorry. I don't think they are available on the spotmatic.
Q3. I like the mx viewfinder, large enough, good contrast. Better than my old sp500 was.
 
jett said:
Body:
I'm looking for a body that is great for manual focusing. To me, ths means a contrasty viewfinder and a plain matte screen. I don't like focusing aids. All-mechanical is a bonus. A bigger/heftier camera is also a bonus.

Questions
Pentax
1. Do the K, M, and A lenses work on every bayonet body? Like the KX and the MX.
2. Are plain matte screens easy to find? Are they available on the spotmatic.
3. Which models have the best viewfinder?
Click to expand...

1. Pentax K, M and A lenses work on every bayonet body, even digital. You can even use the older M42 lenses with and adapter.

2. Several Pentax models have plain matte screens with fresnel centers, including the K1000, KM, Spotmatic SP, Pentax SV, etc. The Pentax LX and MX permit the use of interchangeable screens and both models have plain matte focus screens. SD-21 screen is all matte.

3. Pentax LX has a stunningly clear viewfinder. The MX is almost as nice. The only 35mm viewfinder I have ever used that has matched the LX one is on a Zeiss Ikon Contarex.

The Pentax SMC M 50/1.4 is a terrific lens and a wonderful compliment to the LX or MX because it is nice and small. The SMC Pentax 50/1.2 is larger but very, very nice, and equal to the 50/1.4 at f1.4. Of course all these lenses older designs so will have some curvature of field issues when shot wide open. My experience is that both the Pentax 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 are sharp as a tack by f4.

However, neither the LX, nor the MX are big and hefty. The Nikon will likely be more to your liking though the viewfinders are not quite as good. The cameras and lenses are larger than most Pentax cameras.
 
I am amazed you want another system, based on 1 f-stop!
The difference between 1.4 and 2.0 is that.
The 1.4 usually are more finicky with depth of field at maximum.
Add other lenses to the Leicaflex..
You can use faster film, push process whatever.
In Pro shooting I have never used faster than f2.
Many many years..

If you want to try out other systems..
Pentax K mounts and the 50mm1.4 Super Takumar.
Nikon-F series(esp F3) with Nikkor 1.4.
Canon A-series. Ae-1P and equal lens.
Minolta a stunning surprise for me.
 
the minolta 50/1.4 is based on the 58/1.2 formula, though after so many compromises I do not personally feel that it retains the magic of it's bigger brother. it's not bad, though.
 
leicapixie said:
I am amazed you want another system, based on 1 f-stop!
The difference between 1.4 and 2.0 is that.
The 1.4 usually are more finicky with depth of field at maximum.
Add other lenses to the Leicaflex..
You can use faster film, push process whatever.
In Pro shooting I have never used faster than f2.
Many many years..

If you want to try out other systems..
Pentax K mounts and the 50mm1.4 Super Takumar.
Nikon-F series(esp F3) with Nikkor 1.4.
Canon A-series. Ae-1P and equal lens.
Minolta a stunning surprise for me.
Click to expand...

I have to agree with this. Do I practice what I preach ? Of course not!
I just bought a Pentax KM and a K 50 1.4 mainly because of another thread reminding me how much I liked that particular lens. I have the 50 summicron and SL's, I have Nikons and a 50 1.4 and I'm also fortunate to have M's and a 50 summilux however that Pentax 50 K series has stuck in my memory as being one of the nicest 50 1.4's.
I tend never to shoot them wide open however the main plus of a 1.4 on an SLR especially an older one is viewfinder brightness.
 
redisburning said:
the minolta 50/1.4 is based on the 58/1.2 formula, though after so many compromises I do not personally feel that it retains the magic of it's bigger brother. it's not bad, though.
Click to expand...
You're talking 'bout the Minolta 50mm f/1.4 MC Rokkor-PG. I really like mine, but that's me. The Minolta 50/1.4 MD was a new lens, not based on the 58/1.2, but on the MD 50/1.2 - that was a new design in the late 70's. Take a look over at Rokkorfiles for reference. Like in most manual focus systems, the Minolta 50/1.4 lenses are the best bang for your buck - that is, of course, if you can live without the f/1.2 bokeh ;)
 
As Keith said, get that OM1 and a 50/1.4 (>1,000,000) - all you'll need. and with a budget of 500$ for the lens you'll get a VERY good one and have cash left for a perfect body (or a good CLA)

OK, sorry, just checked, it's NOT a big camera but quite hefty! And you can get any focusing screen you like

As for the viewfinder, it might be the biggest and brightest around!
 
You have been given many opinions above.
I would add the Canon 50/1.4 FD which was for many years the lens that other lenses were compared to. Add a Canon F1 or T90, and you have a great set.

The Zeiss 50/1.4 for tbe Rolleiflex SLR cameras is a superior lens. Its weakness cones from not having a reliable camera for it.
 
raid said:
You have been given many opinions above.
I would add the Canon 50/1.4 FD which was for many years the lens that other lenses were compared to. Add a Canon F1 or T90, and you have a great set.

The Zeiss 50/1.4 for tbe Rolleiflex SLR cameras is a superior lens. Its weakness cones from not having a reliable camera for it.
Click to expand...

Without putting too much work/money, can the Rolleiflex SLR lenses be easily adopted to another mount? I figured, that it is theoretically possible, but getting a Contax body or a Nikon body (w/ a Zeiss lens) is just easier.
 
jett said:
Without putting too much work/money, can the Rolleiflex SLR lenses be easily adopted to another mount? I figured, that it is theoretically possible,
Click to expand...

Pretty much every cross-mount SLR lens adaptation is theoretically possible, once you start cutting into the rear barrel. But it does not seem to be as easy and affordable as merely replacing the mount, or somebody would be selling conversion kits (like for Leicaflex lenses).
 
You have been given many opinions above.
I would add the Canon 50/1.4 FD which was for many years the lens that other lenses were compared to. Add a Canon F1 or T90, and you have a great set.
Click to expand...

I agree absolutely, Raid!

As I was reading through the posts I thought of my own Canon 50/1.4 FD on my Canon T90, and wondered if anyone would mention the lens. Biting sharpness, great colour transmission, minimal distortion, and so on. Even so, I tended not to use it with colour slides because, for me, the lens had too much contrast, especially with Kodachrome 64 on a bright summer's day - I simply lost too much shadow detail.
 
No, it is not cheap or easy to do.
Amedeo once offered such a service, but not anymore.
 
I prefer the Minolta AF 50/1.4 (=Minolta MD 50/1.4) to the Canon AF 50/1.4 (=Canon FDn 50/1.4) but that might be due to the "rendering" and not because it is sharper....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom