SLR with fast suite of primes

[msbarnes]

I'm interested in getting an 35mm SLR system with a fast suite of wide-angle primes. I'm interested in the 35mm/f2 and 28mm/f2 (or 28mm/f2.8) mostly. I want speed for indoor/low-light use.

I'd prefer a Leica M with a summicron or the Hexar AF & Ricoh GR1, but they are real expensive and the aging electronics for high-end point and shoots worries me a bit.

I'm considering an SLR because they are cheaper overall and if the body dies, you can always get a new one for cheap. I'm not sure which body (and features) I want. I'm most interested in the Olympus OM1 or OM2 because of size, looks, and quietness although but I can't ignore the popularity of Nikon and Pentax or the bargain value of Canon and Minolta.

Considering that I want a camera mostly for indoor use, so at wide apertures, is there a clear winner? There are loyalist in all of these brands so I figure that there may not be a winner and that I should base my decision on the technical details and price, but since my question is more specific, maybe there is?

 

[Corto]

Honestly, the Nikon N series (N70-80-90) are great bargains right now.

 

[redisburning]

Here is my 2c as an OM system user.

If you're going to spend the money to get a 24/2 or 28/2, the 35/2 and the right 50 (IMO the 2 or 3.5 macro, or the 50mm f1.2) it's not bad. the slower lenses are nice, but bad for indoors.

I hate the focus screens. A 1-13 is the best Ive been able to find so far (no luck tracking down a series 2). the camera bodies are nice.

I have a minolta srt-101. hate that camera. the rokkor lenses are really nice though.

it was circumstance that got me these cameras. I did not go out with the intent to buy a system (in fact, the OM stuff was given to me). when it was time for that, I bought an M2.

but, if I were starting over and had to pick an SLR I'd probably get a plain prism Nikon F. then I could get a 55mm micro, a 105mm f2.5 and get ZF stuff for faster glass.

 

[Steve M.]

Yes, there's a clear winner. Get just about any SLR w/ a good meter and viewfinder, buy yourself a Leica R 50 2.0 lens (the German one) and an R 90 2.0 lens, slap on a couple of adapters, and be stunned by the image quality. That's what I've been doing for years. Won't bore you w/ photos, but these lenses are as good as it gets. Sharp, beautiful bokeh, and Leica 3-D imaging. The 90 Summicron is the best portrait lens I've ever seen on a SLR. Smooooth.

 

[miloshadzic]

If autofocus isn't important I'd look into Canon FD lenses and bodies.

 

[msbarnes]

My priorities:
-Lens: I don't care that much about lens quality because medium format does so with much less effort. Maximum resolution does not matter, but horrible bokeh....like the electro 35cc...is something i'd like to avoid. I considered this camera, but the bokeh keeps me away.
-Body: Autofocus and Autoexposure are not important. The most important thing for me is a camera that is solid, metered, and with a great viewfinder. Size and noise are minor benefits within the framework of 35mm SLR's.

I've looked into the prices on keh.com and they seem similarly priced, so I'm wondering if there was a clear winner in wides or if some brands were notorious for having bad primes.

 

[al1966]

If I used 35mm as my main format I would go for a Yashica or Contax with a Zeiss lens. There is something really special about those lenses but they are still quite expensive and by the time I could afford such quality I had got medium format. I used to love my Canon FD and Pentax cameras and both had some nice lens choices (I still use FD). A lot of people have sworn by the Konica lenses and I do fancy one myself, I have a Fuji 50mm that seems good. There is so much choice of good older lenses in all different mounts at bargain prices that you could try a few different ones and keep the one you like best.

 

[Steve Bellayr]

IMHO: Nikon F3HP which can be optained reasonably compared to Leica M6. The lenses are another matter. The best series are 24mm f2.8 or 28mm f2.8 both AiS...your decision. As for 35mm the Nikkor 35mm f2.0 has been around for a long time. It is currently out of production. The lenses are problematic as they are old and some what spotty to find one that is high performance as production was NOT consistent. In this range the best is the Zeiss 35mm f2.0. New it is high priced try to find one used. It is a large lens but high performance. As for the 50mm you have 2 choices. The Zeiss being the preferred but much more costly. The other is the 6th version of the 50mm f1.4 which is the best. (Look for one with a high serial number. You will need to check the internet for numbers.) As for the 85mm most people perfer the f1.4 as the better but it is much more costly. You could go with the 85mm f2.0. If you skip the 85mm that is not a problem but the must have lens is the 105mm f2.5 AiS which is legendary. Afor Ai v. AiS I prefer the AiS. Some say that the Ai is just as good. That is a decision that you will need to make...I have made mine. The one thing about Nikon as opposed to other SLR systems is the construction...IMHO it is brutally strong and they are plentiful.

 

[oftheherd]

If I used 35mm as my main format I would go for a Yashica or Contax with a Zeiss lens. There is something really special about those lenses but they are still quite expensive and by the time I could afford such quality I had got medium format. I used to love my Canon FD and Pentax cameras and both had some nice lens choices (I still use FD). A lot of people have sworn by the Konica lenses and I do fancy one myself, I have a Fuji 50mm that seems good. There is so much choice of good older lenses in all different mounts at bargain prices that you could try a few different ones and keep the one you like best.

I have only the Zeiss T* 50mm f/1.4, and no others. It is very sharp. I can't vouch for others, but I can't imagine they would be any less desirable. Since I couldn't afford any, I didn't keep up on what fast lenses they might have, but they probably had some. They are likely to be even more expensive than the normal f/stop lenses.

Konica lenses were known years ago to far east pros for their quality.

I do have several Fujinon lenses. They take a back seat to nobody. They are M42 mount, so they will fit on several different mounts that share M42, or others with adapters. I don't know that they had any fast lenses like you want. If they did, they would be very expensive. More normal f/stop lenses are rather expensive these days. I think their 35mm f/2.8 was the fastest 35mm. I have one but since 35mm just isn't my shtick, I have never used it. ;-( I've got to at least try it one of these days. Fuji also had a later line of bayonet mount lenses. I never owned any but have seen them and don't think they were quite up to the quality of the M42s, but still probably good.

EDIT: FWIW I did once own a Fujica bayonet mound lens and camera. It was sharp enough, but I just didn't like it compared to my ST901. I eventually donated it.

 

[Crazy Fedya]

Why not to try Pentax MX with 35/2 and 28/2 M lenses. They are not the cheapest, but are not too expensive, and image quality is nice. MX's viewfinder is huge.

 

[Frontman]

I have used the Olympus OM system for some time, and it is a favorite. Unfortunately, OM stuff is popular (and expensive) particularly the faster prime lenses. As an alternative, Canon FD gear is the best value. An AE1 can be had for very little. I would recommend the FD 20/2.8 as a super wide lens. It is as good as anything else out there, but more reasonably priced. The FD 35/2 is an excellent lens, particularly the older concave model. Honestly I prefer the old FD concave to my Leica M 35mm lenses. The faster 50/55mm 1.2 FD primes are more common and less expensive than those from Olympus and Nikon, but give up little or nothing in quality.

I have recently started using a Nikon FM3A, all I can say about this camera is "wow!". The FM3A is expensive, but it is more worth the money than many more expensive cameras out there.

 

[Frank Petronio]

I think the bodies are the weak parts of the system, they all seem to suffer with age, both electronic and in the mirror-prisms. I like really clean finders and viewing screens and the majority of used cameras out there are pretty dirty.

I've had all the main Nikon bodies except for the F4-5-6 and of the manual focus bodies, the FM2 and FM3 are the best by virtue of being relatively plentiful and inexpensive (in the case of the FM2). However they have a shutter than sounds like a tin can being shot by a BB-gun and I can't tolerate that anymore. The nicest feeling Nikon SLR, to me at least, is a clean F3. So long as you find a good one with its LCDs in good condition, it's the best body for manual lenses.

I don't really see the point of messing with lessor AF bodies when you can find clean Nikon F100s for $175 and clean N80s for $50. Everything that came before these is primitive in comparison. But they aren't perfect - the N80 finder is quite dim, and the F100 has a couple of design flaws like an early-model film rewind fork that can break, a weak back door, and a deteriorating rubber covering condition. The F6 is supposedly next to perfect but as expensive as a good Leica M6.

Keep it in perspective though. Nikons were the dominant SLR cameras for very good reasons. They work very reliably overall, even their base models.

If you hunt and find a good F100, I would use the modern G lenses (electronically controlled aperture, no manual ring) as much as you can afford - the 24.1.4; 35/1.4; and 85/1.4 are expensive and superb. But the $200 50/1.8 G is no slouch either. You can use the AIS lenses on the F100 as well (not the N80) - the best ones I've used are the 24/2, 85/1.4, and 180/2.8 in AIS - great lenses even by today's standards.

The Nikon 35/2 AFD is a great lens in a plastic case, while the AIS 35/2 is fine. The 55/2.8 Macro AIS is excellent (as is the 60/2.8 Marco G). The 105/2.5 is fine but the 105/1.8 AIS is amazing.

 

[Corto]

of course, if medium format interests you there's always the Pentax 645.

 

[colyn]

My vote goes to the srT 102 or 202 with the outstanding Rokkor lens.

 

[msbarnes]

Ahhh so many suggestions. It looks like there is no clear winner but some very useful insight on different bodies and lenses.

I do not own an SLR so I'm not sure if I should invest into a 35mm SLR or a 645 one. I like 35mm for lens speed, quietness, and smaller bodies but I like 645 for the larger negative. Can I expect to shoot a 645 camera like the Pentax 645 with the 45mm/55mm lens at 1/30's without much noticeable mirror slap? It probably depends on the user ofcourse, but I shoot at this speed with my mirror less cameras quite often.

I'd like a 35mm first because they are more practical. CZ and Leica lenses are too much, they probably are better, but I'd rather get something that is almost as good for a cheaper price. al1966 is right and that I'd want the best if this were my main format, but it isn't. I'm all over the place with different formats/systems but if I were to spend money on one format, it'd be 6x6. However, i want a 35mm for the reasons I outlined above.

 

[mervynyan]

canon fd mount is the best and easier to build. they are dirt cheap these days, a lot of 1.2 lenses

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I have an Olympus OM-4T with 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, and 85/2 lenses. The 2-13 screen makes a HUGE difference in focusing these lenses in low light. The standard 1-13 screen sucks, as someone else mentioned. I find OM bodies nearly impossible to focus accurately in low light with the dimmer 1-series screens. The 2-series screens, which work only in the OM-4/4T, OM-3/3Ti, and OM-2sp bodies, are brighter and very easy to focus in low light.

I also have a Nikon F3-HP with the same lenses. It is a lot harder (but not impossible) for me to focus than the OM-4T and 2-13 screen. I have the red-dot K screen (brighter Nikon screen) in my F3.

I find the Pentax Spotmatic and Minolta SRT bodies virtually impossible to focus in low light. The finders and screens are just too dim.

 

[Waus]

Nobody did mention Minolta...
The XD-7 with a 28/2 a 35/1.8 and a 50/1.4 are not that expensive-and there a less 'cult-folowers' (not inteded as an insult...)as with Nikon/Leica/Olympus...

 

[Freakscene]

I also have a Nikon F3-HP with the same lenses. It is a lot harder (but not impossible) for me to focus than the OM-4T and 2-13 screen. I have the red-dot K screen (brighter Nikon screen) in my F3.

The Leicaflex SL and SL2, Contax Aria and Olympus OMs with a 2 series screen are the easiest manual focus SLRs to focus, in my experience. Chris points out something important here: to focus a manual focus SLR accurately you need a bright screen, a sufficiently coarse screen surface to see when the image is in focus, and good magnification. The difference between the F3 and Olympus OMs, or the Contax Aria (both easier to focus in my experience) is the magnification - which is lower in the F3, necessitated by the 100% viewfinder.

Avoid modern "bright screens". These are plastic, not ground glass, and are made like a series of short sections of parallel fibre-optic cable with a tiny lens on the front and back surface. They don't have the focus 'snap' of a coarser screen and while brighter, faster lenses have a lesser brightening effect on them because each microlens/fibre has its own maximum transmission (if you can't easily imagine this, it may be useful to think of it like each lens/fibre having an effective aperture). This is why an F100 is a really nice camera, but is MUCH better for AF lenses than manual focus ones.

Marty

 

[PMCC]

Body: Autofocus and Autoexposure are not important. The most important thing for me is a camera that is solid, metered, and with a great viewfinder. Size and noise are minor benefits within the framework of 35mm SLR's.

Then consider the Leicaflex SL or SL2. Built for the ages, full stop. Unsurpassed viewfinders (edge to the SL), reliable no-frills TTL metering (edge to the SL2). It must also be said that Leica R lenses are first rate, especially the Summilux and Summicron fast primes.