which slr system has the best lenses?

[berlincontemporary]

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?

I have used manual Nikkors, Canon FL and FD, Contax Zeiss, Minolta MC and Konica Hexanons. You will find better or worse lenses in any lineup. Generally, I found the Nikkors to be a disappointment for the price. Certainly the Konica and Minolta wide angles beat all the comparable Nikkors I have shot (28/2, 24/2, 35/2 all AIS). Contax Zeiss is top notch but expensive. Also pretty bulky for the faster glass.

You will find greatest bargains in Canon FL, Minolta and Konica. Although mirrorless cameras are starting to drive prices up again.

I am not sure why Konica is relatively unpopular today. Build quality is excellent, same is performance. Unless you buy the fastest (57/1.2, 28/1.8) you may find ridiculously good deals for old camera kits. Just give it a try.

 

[Greyscale]

I am not sure why Konica is relatively unpopular today. Build quality is excellent, same is performance. Unless you buy the fastest (57/1.2, 28/1.8) you may find ridiculously good deals for old camera kits. Just give it a try.

I wonder why about this as well, but I'm not complaining. I think that maybe some people shy away from Konica AR because they feel uncomfortable using a shutter-priority system. I have recently made the switch from Contax/Yashica to Konica AR primarily because those nice Hexanon lenses are such a bargain. I bought an FS-1 with a beautiful 40/1.8 on it for $10, and since then have acquired several more lenses, and I still haven't spent $50 on the entire kit yet. I probably will spend at least that much on a nice wide, but not enough to break the bank.

 

[bgb]

ok you got me interested ...

Which Konica bodies and which lenses are worth hunting down?

 

[Greyscale]

The only body that I have is the FS-1, so I don't know about any others. But I can vouch for its build quality, but watch out for ones with flaky electronics. Look for late serial number models.

You can choose from most of the Autoreflex T bodies usually for $40 or less on that auction site.

If you want one lens to try, and don't want to spend a fortune, the AR 40/1.8 and the 50/1.7 are both very highly regarded, and are considered among the sharpest lenses available from anyone.

 

[swoop]

Personally I've always found lenses to be generally the same. Lenses add character but a picture is a picture. I've placed more value on the ergonomics of the camera. Try to hold a bunch and see which is more comfy.

 

[Nokton48]

Minolta MC Rokkors are my current favorite, having been through many times Nikon and Canon.

 

[Steve M.]

The Leica R system should fit your needs quite nicely. The R Summicron is a good lens for close focus work too. Couple one w/ a Leicaflex SL and you're set.

 

[berlincontemporary]

ok you got me interested ...

Which Konica bodies and which lenses are worth hunting down?

Any Autoreflex T up to the T3. The later TC and T4 and are not as nice as the previous models (cutting cost, less metal). All later bodies are electronic whereas all Autoreflex models are fully mechanic.

Also note that all Autoreflex models offer shutter speed priority (you dial in shutter speed and the camera selects aperture). There is an AE lock when you half-press the shutter.

As to lenses just see what you can gather with a body.

Some links to get you started:
www.buhla.de

www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Konica_Autoreflex

cybernetdenis.net/camera.htm

www.mattdentonphoto.com/cameras/konica_auto_t3.html

www.dantestella.com/technical/fc1.html

tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/konicaslr/

 

[bgb]

Thanks very much berlincontemporary i will keep my eyes open 🙂

 

[Paul Luscher]

Well, in my case I'd have to say Olympus, 'cause that's my fave SLR system. But pretty much any camera system I've used has had decent lenses. Even gotten good results with some of the old Soligor stuff, from way back in the day when I started down this road....

 

[ChrisPlatt]

I haven't encountered a bad Pentax manual focus, fixed focal length lens.
Not so the case when I used Canon and Nikon...

Chris

 

[dof]

Any SLR body that can mount the Leitz/Leica 80mm Summilux lens is the best. Any other will strive for merely excellent in comparison.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

Sorry to be coming to this party so late.

I'm in the camp that believes there are excellent quality lenses in all the brands. And its easy to get 'brand-centered' to the point that you have so much, say, Olympus gear, that you can no longer see the trees for the forest.

I'd recommend that you find a camera body you love to work with (ease of use, viewfinder that 'fits' your eye, ergonomics). Then spend some time doing research to find the best lenses of that brand, in the focal lengths you feel you'll REALLY use. Then go make some pictures and stop looking over the hill at the greener pastures... because they aren't greener, just different.

I've found that there are very enjoyable lens characteristics to be found in Olympus, Minolta, Nikon, Pentax, and Contax. But all the time spent chasing the holy grail of "the best lenses" is pretty much pointless in my opinion. And it'll cost you a LOT of $$ and time to chase after these lenses. And in the end... none of them will make a better picture for you.

 

[shadowfox]

If you had to choose one line for consistently high quality, Contax would come to mind. There really were no dogs in their line (there's a couple in the OM line, the 35/2 for example is decent but not up to the performance of their other lenses, ditto the 135/2.8).

Ouch!
I would have let it go, but you mentioned the two favorite OM lenses of mine, so I have to try to rebut 🙂

OM Zuiko 35/2. Nothing is lacking with this lens, not "character", not contrast, not sharpness, not bokeh.

OM Zuiko 135/2.8. Same thing.

Now let's see your proof that these lenses are dogs. Other than just results from a bad day of shooting.

 

[NickTrop]

The definitive answer to your question is as follows:

1. Leica R
2. Pentax
3. Nikon/Canon (tie)

2 and 3 are close. Any and all are excellent, especially primes with "normal" aperture ranges 1.8-22 and focal lengths 24-85. Y'know - "boring" spec'd glass that people actually use to take pictures. These ratings are base on the overall "portfolio" of glass. There is no clear winner. If you took the label off any of these and swapped them with other manufacturers - Konica, Oly, Zeiss... whatever, most likely you would never know the difference.

 

[berlincontemporary]

1. Leica R

Would love to see a comparison of Leica R lenses vs. M and and any SLR competitor. Are they really that good?

Didnt Minolta build some of Leicas R bodies and lenses?

The question is, when you got money to spend on Leica why not go it all the way and buy into Leica M? Or save a lot of cash and buy something less popular with collectors?

 

[al1966]

Would love to see a comparison of Leica R lenses vs. M and and any SLR competitor. Are they really that good?

Didnt Minolta build some of Leicas R bodies and lenses?

The question is, when you got money to spend on Leica why not go it all the way and buy into Leica M? Or save a lot of cash and buy something less popular with collectors?

Yes Minolta made a lot of the electronics in some of the Leica SLR cameras, not sure which ones but it would have been from/ around the CL to CLE period. It is reputed that the Minolta 70-210 f4 af lens (beercan) is a Leica design. It would make sense that Minolta did the electronics part and Leica the optics. What gets me though is why they did not join forces and produce an AF line for Leica, even if it was the same mount, it would have sold more bodies and lenses for Leica.

 

[Platon]

Thank you all!
This thread makes it possible for me to still buy Hexanons very cheap.

 

[raid]

I don't know which SLR system has the best lenses.
I chose the Canon FD as my first "complete" lens line-up camera system,from a 7.5mm lens to a 500/4.5L lens. I also used the Rolleiflex 35mm system with Zeiss lenses. The lenses are excellent. The Pentax lenses are also excellent. My choice of Nikkor lenses is limited, but I like the 24mm/2.8, the 50mm/3.5 micro and the 105mm/2.5.

 

[RFH]

At the current 2nd hand prices, the Leica R lenses are hard to beat. I'm no super user, but I have tried other SLR lens brands as well (Canon, Nikon, Vivitar) and the R glass blows them all away with no competition. Any difference between the R and the M glass lies in the fine details. I'd say my M-lenses have more of the 3-D effect I associate with the Leica look. Hard to pinpoint, but when my friends see a bunch of thumbnails, they usually comment that the Leica shots (R as well as M) stand out. R series has a somewhat different rendering, but sharpness, contrast and the outstanding image quality are more or less equal to my eyes. The R 50/2 is incredible, so is my 35-70.