Good, bad lenses

[Sumarongi]

For the very small amount of portrait shooting I've done, I also found 58mm to work pretty well. In my case a Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4. It holds its own nicely as a portrait lens and also does well in the street. But that's a good/good lens; we can't have that here!!

What is the actual reason that SLR camera makers before say 1965 chose a focal length longer than 50mm for their very fast *standard* lens?

One can read, uhm, a fast 50mm would have collided with the mirror, and so on. That might be true, but to me it sounds a bit like a post-factum-rationalisation (aka: FAKE NEWS! SAD!).

Isn't it much more plausible that they -- then in the days when RF and TLR were much more common -- intentionally chose such a length of say 57mm or 58mm because with such a length the 35mm-format-SLR-photographer can perfectly work -- having both their eyes open?

 

[johnf04]

What is the actual reason that SLR camera makers before say 1965 chose a focal length longer than 50mm for their very fast *standard* lens?

One can read, uhm, a fast 50mm would have collided with the mirror, and so on. That might be true, but to me it sounds a bit like a post-factum-rationalisation (aka: FAKE NEWS! SAD!).

Isn't it much more plausible that they -- then in the days when RF and TLR were much more common -- intentionally chose such a length of say 57mm or 58mm because with such a length the 35mm-format-SLR-photographer can perfectly work -- having both their eyes open?

They were discussing this back in 2008.

https://www.photo.net/discuss/threads/aha-now-i-get-why-58mm-lenses.335789/

 

[Doug]

58mm for portraits, a pretty good choice!

Here, 1.4/58mm Voigtlander Nokton SL at f/3.5 on a (full frame) Pentax K-1

 

[Roger Hicks]

What is the actual reason that SLR camera makers before say 1965 chose a focal length longer than 50mm for their very fast *standard* lens?

One can read, uhm, a fast 50mm would have collided with the mirror, and so on. That might be true, but to me it sounds a bit like a post-factum-rationalisation (aka: FAKE NEWS! SAD!).

Isn't it much more plausible that they -- then in the days when RF and TLR were much more common -- intentionally chose such a length of say 57mm or 58mm because with such a length the 35mm-format-SLR-photographer can perfectly work -- having both their eyes open?

To be honest, that argument sound even more like an ex post facto generalization. If it were the case, why (a) were there not more 58mm lenses and (b) did most of them go down to 55mm and then 50mm as soon as possible?

Alpa started out with 50mm lenses (f/1.8 Macro Switar). Pentax went from 55 to 50. Nikon went from 58 to 55 to 50. And so on. Leaf-shutter Contaflexes went for a 45/2.8, because Tessars are nice and simple (and thin); In fact, there've been few if any 58mm f/2.8 lenses for reflexes.

A friend found that a 50/2 Summar, properly mounted, allowed 1mm clearance with one of the more popular reflexes (sorry, I forget which one -- I'm dredging this up from 30+ years ago) but faster lenses didn't. A degree of retrofocus design is all but essential for seriously fast 50mm lenses, and retrofocus by definition does nothing to improve definition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[kuuan]

a few, older lenses that come to my mind

e.g. a Komura LTM f3.5/105mm
first sample I had reduced "clarity" in Lightroom:

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr


even without PPing which pushes the result in a certain way as above, not only softness caused of simple coating makes results unique but specially also amazing colors


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

camera used also plays a certain role, for both Ricoh GXR M module

 

[kuuan]

a better known lens, Sonnar Canon LTM f1.5/50mm. My copy possibly is not a best performing one due to little haze or even coating damage, though this is not certain.


on Sony NEX5n

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

on Ricoh GXR M

malu ( shy ) by andreas, on Flickr

 

[kuuan]

often it is the weker coating of older lenses that imo makes them a bit "bad" lenses but actually, if one has the taste for it, very good lenses.
Here a Topcor-S f2/50mm

on Sony A7 against the light, already added contrast in PP:

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

on Ricoh GXR M

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr


again, colors and flares that give extra character, on Sony A7

Huc Bridge by andreas, on Flickr

 

[kuuan]

and sometimes it is faults that have developped that makes a lens special. Many Canon LTM lenses have a haze problem, sometimes one that cannot be cleaned or cured. The resulting low contrast sometimes looks good though, e.g.


a hazy Canon LTM f1.8/50mm on Ricoh GXR M


Canon LTM f1.8/50mm by andreas, on Flickr


a somewhat hazy Pen-F Zuiko f3.5/20mm on Sony NEX5n:


Untitled by andreas, on Flickr

 

[ACullen]

My vote would go to the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 C/Y mount. I've used this on/off for thirty years. It's small, smooth focus and crisp aperture ring. A joy to handle , not too much flare but distortion and edge softness which never improves from bad when stopped down. It's gone relatively unused since I started into using RF kit.

When I break out my Contax kit its always a favourite along with my Yashica ML 28mm f2.8 which doesn't have the finest reputation either. Both lenses have given great images over the years.

 

[kotokot21]

I have an awesome 40/4 triplet lens from Smena-8M which was transplanted to an LTM mount by some ukrainian craftsman. The only drawback is the absence of rangefinder coupling, but after all it was designed to be scale-focus lens. I like the quirkiness of this lens, the color rendition and the bokeh.

 

[David Hughes]

One of my toys is a LOMO T-43 (Triplet) 40mm f/4 from a Smena mounted in a bit of tube, then fitted to an elderly (M39) Zenit's focussing scale and mount. Add an adapter and it works in the M9 but you have to guess focus and keep a careful note of the scale reading and true distance. Anyway, it was cheap and does nice portraits of things like flowers.

This is a one to one crop at 1024 by 768 pixels.

Regards, David

PS The M9 took it best as the 35mm f/2 11 310 lens.

 

[Roger Hicks]

My vote would go to the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 C/Y mount. . . .

Wow! Someone's got to love it, I suppose, but you're the first I've encountered. My very strong suspicion is that you found what it could do, and built on that, instead of focusing (as most people do) on what it can't do.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pentode]

often it is the weker coating of older lenses that imo makes them a bit "bad" lenses but actually, if one has the taste for it, very good lenses.

I agree. I sometimes prefer my older Rokkor MC lenses, with their lower contrast and softer look at the edges, to my more modern Rokkor MD versions.

 

[dmr]

Does anyone like or use any of the Lentar lenses?

When I was young(er) these had the reputation of being about the worst el-cheapo M42 lenses around. LOL, "sub-Spiratone." 🙂 The only one I ever remember was one a friend got (135 IIRC) which was soft in performance and had terrible vignetting.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Picked up a Russian 1950s 50mm Jupiter 8 not long ago. It is in surprisingly good shape. Took it out just a little while ago one my M-E to test it out. All were shot wide open at f/2. There was heavy overcast with a slight drizzle so the park down the street was empty.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Does anyone like or use any of the Lentar lenses?

When I was young(er) these had the reputation of being about the worst el-cheapo M42 lenses around. LOL, "sub-Spiratone." 🙂 The only one I ever remember was one a friend got (135 IIRC) which was soft in performance and had terrible vignetting.

Gosh! I'd even forgotten the name! I think I've sen 'em but have no experience of them. Wonder how any are still around?

Cheers,

R.

 

[jamin-b]

58mm for portraits, a pretty good choice!

Here, 1.4/58mm Voigtlander Nokton SL at f/3.5 on a (full frame) Pentax K-1

Agreed, but that's an awesome lens, not a good-bad one...

Sent from my HTC U11 using Tapatalk

 

[Swift1]

Does anyone like or use any of the Lentar lenses?

When I was young(er) these had the reputation of being about the worst el-cheapo M42 lenses around. LOL, "sub-Spiratone." 🙂 The only one I ever remember was one a friend got (135 IIRC) which was soft in performance and had terrible vignetting.

I found a Tele-Lentar 135/3.5 at Goodwill in 2010, and I was actually pretty impressed with it. The build quality wasn't up to Takumar standards, but it was decent.
This photo was taken at f/3.5, using a Pentax K10D.

 

[raid]

A very cheap movie camera lens 25/1.4 om E-P2

 

[Roger Hicks]

I found a Tele-Lentar 135/3.5 at Goodwill in 2010, and I was actually pretty impressed with it. The build quality wasn't up to Takumar standards, but it was decent.
This photo was taken at f/3.5, using a Pentax K10D. . . .

Lovely shot! But then, ultra-sharpness is seldom a requisite in shots of pretty little girls.

It would probably have been a great shot even with a good lens.

Cheers,

R.