which slr system has the best lenses?

[lxmike]

Taking price into the equation I would say Pentax and Olympus, affordable quality

 

[mfogiel]

It does not need to be that expensive, but if you want the latest, modern, high contrast low flare, great sharpness and good bokeh lenses, then this is the description of the Zeiss ZF or ZE line. I have the 25, 35, 50, 85 and 100 ZF, and in terms of sharpness they are certainly better than the equivalent Nikon lenses, however I believe that you should decide on the type of lens first, then choose your pick, and in the end buy the matching body. I know of great 85 and 50mm lenses from Oly and Pentax, and also Nikon made some good lenses in the 105, 85, 50(55) and 35mm fl if you choose well. Then, if you happen to like Salgado's photos, he made most of them with the Leica 28 and 60mm lenses. Start with the lens, and work backwards.

 

[rover]

Can I have my Minolta wides, Pentax standards, and Nikon teles?

 

[f16sunshine]

I prefer Zeiss Contax and Zuiko OM for use on my 5Dii. To be honest, for seldom use as you describe. Surely you can find a suitable lens for your nikon. My teeth where cut using a Yashica/Contax set. I always wanted a Nikon when younger. When I could finally afford an F3 the ergonomics of the lenses threw me off. There are so many millions of great Nikon images. I think a flikr search for the focal length you want will provide the best results for your choice making. Cheers Palmer. Happy the R2 kit worked out!

 

[Krosya]

Besides big names such as Contax and Leica, I wouldnt forget some superb ones like Konica AR system and Yashica ML (which can be used on Contax bodies and Canon EOS with adapter). I have and like Canon EOS and FD systems as well, but those are personal preference - Canon vs Nikon, etc. Pentax are good too.

 

[BillBingham2]

Palmer,

A lot depends upon what characteristics you are looking for and what focal length you want. CV makes some very good Nikon mount glass (SL II line) 20/3.5, 40/?, really good stuff. If you want to spend more money you can go Zeiss F mount stuff.

Myself I'm in love with the way good Nikkors paint light. There are world class Nikkors and there are so so Nikkors. I've always thought that the number of work class is higher than with others manufacturer.

B2 (;->

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Leica Leica Leica. Three times other wise message is too short.

 

[scorpius73]

I have a Nikon FM3A with Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, 50mm f1.2 AIS and 105mm f2.5 AIS lenses. I think they are 3 of the best primes produced by Nikon. Would love a CV 40mm f2 to round it out though. I have never tried any other SLR systems though.

 

[paulmd]

I'd say Pentax 67, especially dollar for dollar (you could get a barebones P67 setup for $300 according to my latest KEH catalog). Some Hasselblad lenses may be better, but the P67 lenses are a fraction of the cost. The P67 wideangles are especially good (75mm, P67 55mm f/4, 45mm). I can also afford a few different lenses (never paid more than $200 for one), which would not be possible with a Hasselblad. The medium format negative means there's more detail than the best 35mm negatives - you would have to deliver 3x the resolution to equal it, and I suspect you'd run into diffraction limits first. The tradeoff is weight and frequent reloading.

 

[Rob-F]

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.

Yes. Or even the bargain-priced 50mm f/1.8.

 

[kevin m]

...which slr system has the best lenses?

The overwhelming amount of information available on this topic on the internet might lead a person to imagine there's an answer out there that matters, but there isn't.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In current production? Anything that takes Zeiss. Remember ZF...

Cheers,

R.

 

[kuzano]

Olympus Zuiko

Olympus Zuiko

Without a doubt once you've seen the results.

If Olympus had done as well on camera bodies in the 70's, as they did on lens glass, we might no longer have Nikon/Canon to contend with.

I just talked with a professional who is using and adaptor to use Olympus legacy glass on his Canon digital. Smart man.

 

[Frontman]

Each manufacturer has certain lenses which are better than others. My favorite 35mm SLR lens is the Canon FD 35/2 concave, my favorite 50mm SLR lens is the Olympus Zuiko 50/1.8. My favorite all-around SLR lens is tha Canon 35-105 zoom.

 

[Brian Levy]

You do not mention the film format so there is a very wide open field.

35mm is I think I'd go for a Rollei 3003 as having possibly the best lenses but Leica runs right up there with the Rollei Zeiss glass. I'd prefer the Rollei if someone were to offer me the pick of either though the Rollei is dead as a company and the camera is totally battery dependent. A little further down I'd vote for the Olympus OM series lenses. The company cut its teeth on making the more difficult high quality lenses for 1/2 frame cameras and carried that knowledge to the OM.

Medium format presents almost as wide a range of options but again as a maker, Zeiss still rises to the top position imho. Then I opt for the Bronica Nikon made lenses for the S series and the Bronica made lenses for the cameras before Tamron bought them. When Tamron took over the lenses seemed to move closer to what I term the more emotionless Asian formula. Yes, better resolution but loss of something making the viewer less involved and invited into the image.

Admittedly, I do prefer the earlier slightly less contrasty, high lpm, analytical lens formulas to the formulas and preferences started with the Japanese which is more of the standard today.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Without a doubt once you've seen the results.

If Olympus had done as well on camera bodies in the 70's, as they did on lens glass, we might no longer have Nikon/Canon to contend with.

I just talked with a professional who is using and adaptor to use Olympus legacy glass on his Canon digital. Smart man.

Strange, this. Maybe my friends and I have been unlucky but I've never seen any evidence whatsoever that Zuiko interchangeable lenses were any good, let alone stunningly good. This is across a sample, between three or four of us, of maybe a dozen lenses. Must be wide sample variation because there are plenty who praise them to the skies.

Cheers,

R.

 

[bgb]

I too have had a few Zuikos and while i like them i could never have called it love. I now shoot a Nikon and the primes are just fine with good film and good judgment.
Once long ago I used to shoot Canon FD lenses and my brother in law who worked for Olympus reckoned you could tell which photos were taken with the FD and which with the Zuiko, both 50mm f 1.8. The Canon always won.
Opinion only no tesst were ever done.

 

[Chris101]

The Canon 50mm f/1.8 FD was an exemplary lens. It never missed. But I would pit my 50mm f/3.5 Zuiko against this or any 50mm lens at distances of 3 meters or less.

 

[mawz]

Without a doubt once you've seen the results.

If Olympus had done as well on camera bodies in the 70's, as they did on lens glass, we might no longer have Nikon/Canon to contend with.

I just talked with a professional who is using and adaptor to use Olympus legacy glass on his Canon digital. Smart man.

As good as the Zuiko's are, they do have some issues. They tend to have strong vignetting at wider apertures and somewhat subdued colour. And the 70's production has coatings inferior to the competition (Oly was still using single-coating until the late 70's, Nikon, Contax and Pentax in particular were well ahead in terms of coatings, Canon's S.S.C. wasn't far behind the leaders either)

Great glass if you like how they render (which I do), but not in any way clearly superior to the competition in all regards. And their bodies were quite good, it wasn't until the 80's that they started to fall behind in terms of body spec.

Pretty much every one of the major makers had its strengths back then. Nikon had the best selection of lenses, Canon had super-fast lenses (24/1.4 and 85/1.2), Oly had the smallest lenses and some of the sharpest, Pentax had the best coatings and some of the best wides, Minolta offered the richest colour, Contax offered the Zeiss look and consistently high quality lenses.

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). But of course Contax means the Yashica body crapshoot, reliability is not a strong suit of the older Contax and Yashica bodies.

 

[PatrickT]

For top notch optical quality, I'd have to say Leica/Contax.

HOWEVER, if you factor in the other variables....cost, size, weight, etc...I'd say that the Olympus lenses win. Their wides are amazing, their standards are damn good and some of their teles are stunning. Aside from that, they're small, light and relatively inexpensive. They also adapt very easily to Canon DSLRs (which is primarily how I use them).

On top of that, their camera bodies are fantastic. Small, light, good ergonomics, etc.

EDIT: I'll also echo what mawz said above. Especially about the vignetting and a few dogs (I agree with the sub-par-ness of the 35/2).