which slr system has the best lenses?

[David Hughes]

Trouble is, with one or two exceptions, if we are talking film slr's, then we are talking about old, second-hand lenses. And that brings in the problems others have had before deciding to sell them.

So really, you should be considering only the opinions of careful owners who've had the lenses from new. Or else second-hand ones that have been completely checked and repaired if need be.

I'd like to add my 2d worth and say that I've been happy with lenses from all the major makers and a lot of the others but, alas, I've also been very unhappy with at least one lens from all of them.

The nicest surprises were from Minolta and Konica, btw. The very best were Leica, Olympus and Contax/Zeiss but at a price.

BTW (2), really cheapo anonymous ones make good portrait lenses because of the built in soft, romantic effect. That's an example of where "best" has a strange meaning...

Regards, David

 

[dtcls100]

There is no system with the best lenses, just as there is no best lens per se. Depends what qualities that you are looking for. Also, a lens' performance -- regardless of what you are looking for or value -- is dependent on a host of variable factors like subject matter, subject lighting, subject contrast, interaction between the tolerances of the lens and camera body, steadiness of photographer (especially while handholding), accuracy of focus, the photographer's eyesight and how well the camera's viewfinder suits him or her in this regard, etc. Ignoring this really is simplistic.
Simply put, if you like how a camera and lens combination works -- you like the photos produced, like how it feels and handles, and have become familiar with using it so that it complements, rather than intrudes on your photo-taking process, you should stick with it. Don't get suckered into chasing after the elusive "best" lens or camera. Most people would be vastly better served getting their eyesight checked and having a suitable diopter installed in their cameras and practicing their focusing and handholding technique.

 

[sc_rufctr]

The best Manual focus SLR Lenses???

1. Leica R.

The best Auto Focus SLR lenses???

1. Nikon.

The best Manual or Auto focus SLR Lenses???

1. Leica R.

------------------------------------------------------

What about medium format?

The best Auto Focus Medium Format SLR lenses???

1. Leica S2. (although this is based on others opinions)

I'm planning on finding out first hand. 😉

 

[scottgee1]

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

SNIP!

I will risk mentioning that Erwin Puts has tested a LOT of lenses and written extensively about his impressions. Is he a Leica fanboy? Of course! Employee? Maybe not directly, but he seems to be on the payroll in some way. Regardless, his articles can stimulate the "little grey cells":

http://www.imx.nl/photo/optics/optics/page63.html

I agree with his conclusion: "Without objective measurements . . . any lens assessment stands on a shaky base." Yes, we're entitled to our opinions but need to keep in mind that that's all they are -- personal impressions. Solid tests go a long way toward providing objective answers to the question at hand.

Based on 40+ years of shooting experience, Zeiss, Leitz and Fuji optics have impressed me the most. If large format is in the mix, Schneider and Rodenstock top my list.

Years ago I had an interesting discussion with a Zeiss engineer. At that time I was shooting both Mamiya RZ and Hasselblad. I told him I didn't see a clear difference between results I got from them. He reminded me that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. My processing and printing were being done by a commercial lab. He said, "If your prints were hand made with a top-notch enlarger fitted with a Rodenstock lens, you'd see the difference." That certainly makes sense; unfortunately, I didn't/don't have access to a darkroom so I never tested his assertion . . . 😱

I also agree with those who have pointed out that many of the lenses mentioned are decades old, have been used and may not be up to spec. Only after a thorough check and calibration by a competent tech can one really know what a lens is capable of delivering.

my two lux worth/ScottGee1

 

[mawz]

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.

The Beercan is not a Leica design, but its predecessor, the MD 70-210/4, possibly is (it may be a Minolta design used by Leica, same as the 24/2.8 Elmarit-R)

The early R bodies are based on Minolta designs but made by Leica. I'm not sure who made the electronics but given the difference in reliability I suspect Minolta did not actually make the electronics for the R, the Minolta variants are more reliable.

By the time the Minolta AF line debuted the Leica/Minolta partnership was over. It really wasn't a great value for Minolta once the CL/CLE was gone.