which slr system has the best lenses?

[Palmer Segner]

I bought an r2 a month or two ago and so far i love it. The only 'problem' ive had is parallax when im shooting stuff thats only a few feet away.

I currenty have a nikon fa but coming back from my c/v 35/2.5 is a bit of a let down. Are there any slr systems with lenses that are on par with rf lenses? How do Contax or olympus om's compare?

 

[BSchall]

Being a Nikon shooter, I've got no complaints about the Nikkor prime lenses. All are good, some better than others. I really can't see the C/V 35 being better than the Nikkor 35mm f2.0 Ais.

As far as other systems, I would love to try the Leica R series and the Zeiss lenses for Contax. Probably about as good as they come.

 

[Paul_C]

Pentax, Rollei. I can't really think of an slr that doesn't have wonderful lenses available for it, but those two are my favorites.

 

[Palmer Segner]

maybe its just my lens then, i have a 50/2 nippon kogaku and it definitely doesnt seem as good as the cv. But either way my fa is falling apart so im thinking about trying something else.

 

[rxmd]

Well as you observe yourself it's all in the lenses. I guess for most SLR systems you find better and worse lenses. Put a 24/2.8 or a 28/2.8 AiS on your Nikon and suddenly you'll find that it's rather fine, for example.

Generally speaking, with this kind of question you're unlikely to generate more than just a bunch of opinionated responses. If anything, they lead to uncoordinated gear purchasing habits. In order for differences between camera systems to be meaningful, you have to have a pretty good idea what you want yourself.

 

[ChrisN]

The Pentax FA lenses, and especially the Limited series, are top performers with very pleasing characteristics. Used with consideration for their strengths and awareness of their weaknesses, you can be very confident that you'll get good results from them.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

Contax and Olympus made great SLRs. If you go Contax, don't get an AX. Go for one of the RTS models or an RX. Olympus has made some of the best lenses in all of photographic history, but so have all the major companies. Minolta, Pentax, Canon and Nikon also all have lenses that are without peers. Each company's top SLR lenses are the best. These days with computers designing everything, there is little way that lenses can get better aside from making tolerances tighter but then possibly diminishing the quality of handling or features like autofocus. Personally, I'd go for a Nikon F4, but that's just because I loved mine and thought it was the greatest SLR ever made. Still do.

Just because you have an issue with parallax doesn't mean you give up on rangefinders. The RF camera can serve as a lightweight, quiet tool for just walking around. If you need to do closer than .7 meters, then a macro lens on an SLR is the best way to go. Same goes for telephoto. You just can't shoot anything longer than 135mm because of the accuracy of the rangefinders and because the lenses don't exist, for the most part.

I'm in this same boat right now, contemplating what dSLR I will get to compliment my current rangefinder kit. If I need to shoot macro or telephoto I'm going to need an SLR. For everything in between, I love the rangefinders.

Phil Forrest

 

[rxmd]

Used with consideration for their strengths and awareness of their weaknesses, you can be very confident that you'll get good results from them.

In fact, this is so true that it applies to each and every camera system.

 

[capricho]

The Pentax fast 50's are superb. My favorite is the A-1:1.4 Best bang for the buck by far.

 

[Palmer Segner]

oh im not interested in macro stuff or anything, i just have framing problems in the 3-5 ft range and just want something a little more accurate. i think i might just go with an om because i dont really want to spend a ton of money on something i wont use that often.

 

[filmfan]

Whichever camera/lens that you can afford and have on you is the best.

 

[tbarker13]

Loving my Nikon glass...
But I also loved my Canon glass when I used that.

 

[bgb]

The film you decide to use will have a but effect on the quality of the images, as will the f stop you shoot the lens at and whether you use a tripod all the time or not.
I hear Hasselblad make some nice lenses 🙂

 

[gavinlg]

For SLR's:

1. Contax/Zeiss
2. Leica
3. Canon and Olympus

In that order, personally. The really good canon lenses are REALLY good (although underrated) - both EF and FD.

 

[valdas]

I agree with the opinion that all brands have good lenses and not so good ones. I've been in a search for that magic lens and changed from Canon to Olympus, then added Contax then dived into RF and bought Leica... But at the end of the day I still shoot 30% with old scale focus cameras like AGFA Optima and I'm very happy about IQ. Unless you intend to have really large prints where the difference is somewhat visible (by trained eye) or just shoot brick walls and make Imacon scans (to compare "Leica bricks" vs "Contax bricks")...

 

[tlitody]

zeiss lenses for contax are very very good. But the problem you will have is finding the lenses that everyone really wants. i.e. the 35 f1.4 and 28 f2 and some of the wider ones. They appear rarely these days and are expensive S/H.

A better option be would be to get a canon or nikon film body and buy the new zeiss lenses for those. Many canon and nikon camera owners buy the zeiss manual focus lenses for their digital bodies. They are essentially the same design as the original contax slr lenses but with latest glass.
But having said that, the new ZM lenses have significantly better MTF figures than the old contax slr lenses. But then MTF isn't everything.

 

[newspaperguy]

Dollar for dollar, I don't think you can surpass the results from the Olympus Zuiko lenses.

...and I have, and have used, Nikons and Nikkors for 30+ years.

 

[FalseDigital]

Personally, I think Olympus and Nikon have the best lenses.

 

[oftheherd]

I can't compare any lenses since I have never done comprehensive tests even of those I have owned. But I can tell you that the Zeiss Contax lenses are great. So are the Fujinon lenses. I have also used Yashinon lenses that were very good. Not as good as the Fujinon or Zeiss, but quite good none the less.

Since you seem to want something for macro, be sure to look for a camera that has mirror lock up, or a really good mirror dampening system. I used Yashinon lenses on a TL Super with good results, and the later Yashica TL Electro is a good camera. Hard to find a TL Super in good working condition. The Fujica ST 901 did not have mirror lock up but that feature was purposely left off as it had a really good mirro dampening system. I don't know other cameras. But I got good results with the Yashica and Fujica cameras. I used a 50mm normal lens for the Yashica with extension tubes, dnd a normal and macro lens with the Fujica.

 

[former member]

maybe its just my lens then, i have a 50/2 nippon kogaku and it definitely doesnt seem as good as the cv. But either way my fa is falling apart so im thinking about trying something else.

You are using a lens that is made over 40 years ago, single-coated, and comparing with a much newer multi-coated lens.

Try a newer multi-coated Nikkor lens. Pick up a Nikkor 35/2 AI series or later, or a 28/2.8 AIS.