sanmich
Veteran
A few thoughts in the light of what I read here:
Roland: Thanks, I didn't know about some specific characteristic of the lens. I'm even happier now
. I'm a bit surprised by how little information about it is available about this lens around here...
Bill, I think that whatever is your budget, you can almost always choose between the two: character or performance, so...
Roger: I agree that I don't want to worry too much about what lens before grabbing it. You know what, it's exactly what was happening when I had to choose between the canon 1.5 and the skopar: will I have enough light for 2.5? will I need to go below 1m? should I fear from flare?
I'm really happy to have now one good 35 that will answer 99% of my needs, without the need to wonder what is going to be my type of photography today.
Of course, my own little dilemma is only for the example, and forced me to do some thinking on what I want from my gear. If I was shooting portraits, for example, I guess I would have a completely different set of priorities.
Barett: The RFFer that sold me the lens did so because he is building himself a set of zeiss glass, and you know what, I am starting to think that there is a certain kind of logic with it. Certain lines of lenses share a certain ergonomic and it could make sense to have a set like you do. wihtout any preliminary thinking, I ended up with the 28 and the 35 Hexanons, and it does feel "right" to switch from one to the other. Too bad they didn't expand to shorter FL or a faster 90...
Roland: Thanks, I didn't know about some specific characteristic of the lens. I'm even happier now
. I'm a bit surprised by how little information about it is available about this lens around here...Bill, I think that whatever is your budget, you can almost always choose between the two: character or performance, so...
Roger: I agree that I don't want to worry too much about what lens before grabbing it. You know what, it's exactly what was happening when I had to choose between the canon 1.5 and the skopar: will I have enough light for 2.5? will I need to go below 1m? should I fear from flare?
I'm really happy to have now one good 35 that will answer 99% of my needs, without the need to wonder what is going to be my type of photography today.
Of course, my own little dilemma is only for the example, and forced me to do some thinking on what I want from my gear. If I was shooting portraits, for example, I guess I would have a completely different set of priorities.
Barett: The RFFer that sold me the lens did so because he is building himself a set of zeiss glass, and you know what, I am starting to think that there is a certain kind of logic with it. Certain lines of lenses share a certain ergonomic and it could make sense to have a set like you do. wihtout any preliminary thinking, I ended up with the 28 and the 35 Hexanons, and it does feel "right" to switch from one to the other. Too bad they didn't expand to shorter FL or a faster 90...
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
But when a lens is not a 'cult classic' nor a brand-name wonderlens, one must perforce discover for oneself the nature of a given lens.
Personal favorite, and one which others have begun to discover: Isco-Gottingen Isconar 1:4.5/100 in M42. That one is 'character' and what character it has! I paid $5 for mine. Now they go for a trifle more. Still worth it.
Personal favorite, and one which remains obstinately undiscovered: Sears Auto 50mm f/1.7 in M42 or P/K mount. Devastatingly sharp, and ignored in favor of the lesser 1.4 lens.
So I like both, but being cheap, have to find them on my own.
Personal cheap favorites, excluding the Jupiters...
$10 50/1.9 Schneider Xenon for the Retina IIIS and $25 90/4 Tele-Arton for the Reflex-S. Kodak Retina outfits offer some bargains.
$10 50/1.9 Schneider Xenon for the Retina IIIS and $25 90/4 Tele-Arton for the Reflex-S. Kodak Retina outfits offer some bargains.
sanmich
Veteran
I don't know the lens you mention.
I am defenitely prefering now rangefinders.
From what I have tried, if I had to shoot on a very low budget, I would go the GSN/ Himatic route. I am lucky enough to be able to afford for some more expensive experimenting: a DR and now, after selling gear, the Hex.
I certainly can't afford, but would love to try, for example, the 50mm summilux ASPH or the 75mm 1.4, but, along the same lines of my reflection on the types of images that I like, I wouldn't have gone the Noctilux road, even if I had the cash.
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
I'll second that Sears Auto 50 1.7 in M42. I have one on a 1970's Sears Auto TLS EE (actually made by Ricoh) body and it's a great lens. I have the 50 1.4 as well. Both fine lenses. Produces modern looking photos.
tbarker13
shooter of stuff
This is a topic that has been fascinating to me since first stumbling upon this forum. I've really been enjoying using some of the older lenses that might be considered, at least technically, inferior to modern glass. (an example being a 35 pre-asph lux I bought last year)
I've been venturing into portraiture a lot lately. I started with a 50 pre-asph lux, but I am starting to lean toward a combination of a 1953 J3 and a newer model 50 elmar. These, I shoot along with a Nikon D300 armed with an 85/1.4 that I absolutely love.
I guess a lot of it just depends on what you want to accomplish with your photos. If I were shooting landscapes, I don't think the J3 would be my first choice. But for portraits...
I've been venturing into portraiture a lot lately. I started with a 50 pre-asph lux, but I am starting to lean toward a combination of a 1953 J3 and a newer model 50 elmar. These, I shoot along with a Nikon D300 armed with an 85/1.4 that I absolutely love.
I guess a lot of it just depends on what you want to accomplish with your photos. If I were shooting landscapes, I don't think the J3 would be my first choice. But for portraits...
bmattock
Veteran
Really? Interesting - I happen to have the Xenon you mention, but have never used it - always wanted to get a Retina to fit it to but have never done so. Let me ask you this - there is a fellow selling an adapter to fit the compur-mount lenses to M42. Thoughts?
Thoughts.... and deeds...
The Retina to M-42 adapter is expensive compared with the price of the lens and camera that it would fit. You can pick up a Retina IIIS for ~$100. The Rangefinder body is much simpler than the SLR. The top comes off easily and the viewfinder is easy to clean. The Compur shutter is easy to flood clean, just take off the lens.
The SLR's: The Retina Reflex-S, either the shutter goes bad or the prism goes bad. Find one with a working shutter and bad prism: buy a parts Minolta XG-1, XG-7, or XG-9. The prism is a perfect fit, and easy to replace. My Reflex-S was $50, the parts Minolta was ~$5.
Retina lenses are cheap as so many SLR's have died. The 35/2.8 Curtagon, 50/1.9 Xenon, 85/4 Tele-Arton, and 135/4 Xenar were ~$100 total. Cheap German Glass. Lots of Character.
The Retina to M-42 adapter is expensive compared with the price of the lens and camera that it would fit. You can pick up a Retina IIIS for ~$100. The Rangefinder body is much simpler than the SLR. The top comes off easily and the viewfinder is easy to clean. The Compur shutter is easy to flood clean, just take off the lens.
The SLR's: The Retina Reflex-S, either the shutter goes bad or the prism goes bad. Find one with a working shutter and bad prism: buy a parts Minolta XG-1, XG-7, or XG-9. The prism is a perfect fit, and easy to replace. My Reflex-S was $50, the parts Minolta was ~$5.
Retina lenses are cheap as so many SLR's have died. The 35/2.8 Curtagon, 50/1.9 Xenon, 85/4 Tele-Arton, and 135/4 Xenar were ~$100 total. Cheap German Glass. Lots of Character.