rkm
Well-known
With film SLR bodies being so cheap, it occurred to me that buying lenses that are exceptional is the best place to start, and pairing bodies to those lenses could be a secondary consideration. Instead of having one brand of body with many lenses to suit that brand, why not go with a range of lenses paired with bodies that were the best of their kind? (I guess weight is the obvious consideration...but, anywho)
Who made the best of each focal length manual focus SLR lens in the 60's, 70's, 80's? 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm etc etc
Who made the best of each focal length manual focus SLR lens in the 60's, 70's, 80's? 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 105mm etc etc
konicaman
konicaman
Hmm..interesting, a couple of suggestions:
Konica T(something) with the pancake Hexanon 40/1.8
Spotmatic (or Zenit if you want to be consistent) with Zenitar 50/2.0
Konica T(something) with the pancake Hexanon 40/1.8
Spotmatic (or Zenit if you want to be consistent) with Zenitar 50/2.0
Roger Hicks
Veteran
58/2 Biotar for portraits. 58/1.4 Nikkor is even nicer but harder to find & more expensive.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
filmfan
Well-known
These are the best primes from each focal length IMO:
24mm: Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 L, Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.8
28mm: Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S, Olympus OM Zuiko 28mm f/2
35mm: Zeiss/Contax Distagon 35mm f/1.4, Canon FD 35mm f/2 SSC concave
50mm: Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 AL ASPH, FD 50mm f/1.2 L
85mm: Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L
...and I have heard the latest Leica R lenses are better than anything else
24mm: Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 L, Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm f/2.8
28mm: Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S, Olympus OM Zuiko 28mm f/2
35mm: Zeiss/Contax Distagon 35mm f/1.4, Canon FD 35mm f/2 SSC concave
50mm: Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 AL ASPH, FD 50mm f/1.2 L
85mm: Canon FD 85mm f1.2 L
...and I have heard the latest Leica R lenses are better than anything else
mretina
Well-known
Below what I use / like
20mm Nikkor 20/4
28mm Elmarit 28/2.8; Nikkor 28/3.5
35mm Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 Rollei; Flektogon 35/2.4
50mm Zeiss 50/1.8; Summicron 50/2; Planar 50/1.7; Canon 50/1.4 FD
85mm Takumar 85/1.8; Jupiter 85/2; Nikkor 85/2
105mm Nikon 105/2.5, Orestor 100/2.8
20mm Nikkor 20/4
28mm Elmarit 28/2.8; Nikkor 28/3.5
35mm Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 Rollei; Flektogon 35/2.4
50mm Zeiss 50/1.8; Summicron 50/2; Planar 50/1.7; Canon 50/1.4 FD
85mm Takumar 85/1.8; Jupiter 85/2; Nikkor 85/2
105mm Nikon 105/2.5, Orestor 100/2.8
chrishayton
Well-known
A few great lenses come to mind off the top of my head, Interesting and great optics
40mm F2 OM
28mm F2.8 Zeiss C/Y
21mm F2 OM
80mm F1.4 Summilux
105mm F2.5 Nikkor
24 1.4 L Canon FD
40mm F2 OM
28mm F2.8 Zeiss C/Y
21mm F2 OM
80mm F1.4 Summilux
105mm F2.5 Nikkor
24 1.4 L Canon FD
leicapixie
Well-known
Nikon-F with the Nikkors, the 28mm,35mm,45mmGN,50mm,55mm-Micro,85mm,105mmf2,5"sonnar",135mm3,5.All with one small filter thread,52mm. I own all of the above except one!
The Pentax Takumars, esp. those with Multi coating are hard to beat.
The 28mm3,5,35mm2.0,50mm1.4,85mm1.9,135mm2.5. The yellowing a problem if one shoots color only.
My Canon 50mm1.8 a very satisfactory lens. i beleive there are few bad 50mm lenses.. The 58mmf2.o Biotar gave great effects. Sorry i traded it!
The original Leicaflex-R series for the 1st and 2nd Leica SLR were outstanding but in the case of the 1st Leica SLR, somebody there was a lunatic! A SLR that had no screen to focus on, or view depth of field.
I know the last one is a poor excuse. The reason i don't own a DSLR.. well one of many..
The Pentax Takumars, esp. those with Multi coating are hard to beat.
The 28mm3,5,35mm2.0,50mm1.4,85mm1.9,135mm2.5. The yellowing a problem if one shoots color only.
My Canon 50mm1.8 a very satisfactory lens. i beleive there are few bad 50mm lenses.. The 58mmf2.o Biotar gave great effects. Sorry i traded it!
The original Leicaflex-R series for the 1st and 2nd Leica SLR were outstanding but in the case of the 1st Leica SLR, somebody there was a lunatic! A SLR that had no screen to focus on, or view depth of field.
I know the last one is a poor excuse. The reason i don't own a DSLR.. well one of many..
charjohncarter
Veteran
I find that the split image screen is best for 20mm and 28mm lenses. Now, longer focal lengths I'm not sure I need it. So I have 20, 28, 35, 50, 200mm Pentax lenses in K mount, and I can use any body 35 and above. But I use AF or split screen bodies for the 28mm and below.
Bruin
Noktonian
I'd say Nikon for 28 and 105, Pentax for 50, Oly for 85, Minolta for 24.
nobbylon
Veteran
from the ones I have or have had,
Nikon
28 2.8 AIS the best 28 there is.
35 2.0 'O'
85 1.8 K series
105 2.5 AI or AIS superb but not as good as the 90 elmarit.
all sold because I can't focus Nikon F, F2 and F3's any more.
Pentax
50 1.4 screwmount super tak' great bokeh sold due dim spotmatic viewfinders
50 1.4 K still have, very smooth bokeh and good sharpness. Better than the later M versions.
Leica R
35 Summicron E55 IMHO the best 35 there is.
50 Summicron 1st version and again the best f2 50 made
60 macro elmarit, simply stunning lens
90 Elmarit E55 sharper than the 90 summicron with equal bokeh and IMO better than the 105 Nikkors.
I still have all the R lenses for one reason, to my eyes they are better than anything else.
Nikon
28 2.8 AIS the best 28 there is.
35 2.0 'O'
85 1.8 K series
105 2.5 AI or AIS superb but not as good as the 90 elmarit.
all sold because I can't focus Nikon F, F2 and F3's any more.
Pentax
50 1.4 screwmount super tak' great bokeh sold due dim spotmatic viewfinders
50 1.4 K still have, very smooth bokeh and good sharpness. Better than the later M versions.
Leica R
35 Summicron E55 IMHO the best 35 there is.
50 Summicron 1st version and again the best f2 50 made
60 macro elmarit, simply stunning lens
90 Elmarit E55 sharper than the 90 summicron with equal bokeh and IMO better than the 105 Nikkors.
I still have all the R lenses for one reason, to my eyes they are better than anything else.
Austintatious
Well-known
Many of the Minolta Rokkors are fantastic ! Some folks have discovered this fact as the prices on'em have doubled in the last couple years. Lots of bodies for them as well.
Contax C/Y
50/1.4 or 1.7 Planar
85/2.8 Sonnar
60/2.8 Makro Planar C
Use these a lot on NEX. Work great on excellent, great, cheap Contax SLRs with huge bright viewfinders.
50/1.4 or 1.7 Planar
85/2.8 Sonnar
60/2.8 Makro Planar C
Use these a lot on NEX. Work great on excellent, great, cheap Contax SLRs with huge bright viewfinders.
bugmenot
Well-known
The notion of "best" is such a murky one. Each user will have his or her own opinions of good and great lenses.
On the other hand, the notion of "terrible" is an easy one. There are simply lenses that should not have been
However, just for the record, these are a handful of SLR lenses I consider to be amazing performers:
Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (M42 Mount)
Revuenon (Cosina) 55mm f/1.2 (K-mount)
Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 S.S.C Macro lens (FD-mount)
Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AI-S (F-mount)
Nikon 105mm f/2 DC (F-mount)
Nikon 135mm f/2 DC (F-mount)
And just about any Zeiss lens in any mount you can get your hands on
I have personally never owned very expensive wide angle SLR lenses, and as such, given my limited exposure to the more "budget" wide and ultra wide angle lenses,
I have never found any of them to be very good. Most modern lenses outperform them greatly.
On the other hand, the notion of "terrible" is an easy one. There are simply lenses that should not have been
However, just for the record, these are a handful of SLR lenses I consider to be amazing performers:
Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 (M42 Mount)
Revuenon (Cosina) 55mm f/1.2 (K-mount)
Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 S.S.C Macro lens (FD-mount)
Nikon 85mm f/1.4 AI-S (F-mount)
Nikon 105mm f/2 DC (F-mount)
Nikon 135mm f/2 DC (F-mount)
And just about any Zeiss lens in any mount you can get your hands on
I have personally never owned very expensive wide angle SLR lenses, and as such, given my limited exposure to the more "budget" wide and ultra wide angle lenses,
I have never found any of them to be very good. Most modern lenses outperform them greatly.
Everyone knows Zeiss is the best.
charjohncarter
Veteran
Everyone knows Zeiss is the best.
I have a few (and they are excellent), but focusing the lens (no matter what make) is the most important (and a tripod).
Vickko
Veteran
Interesting question, these come to mind:
50mm f1.4 Summilux (E60 last version) for Leica R
58mm f1.2 Noct-Nikkor for Nikon F
60mm f2.8 Macro for Leica R
80mm f1.4 Summilux for Leica R
100mm f2.8 APO Macro Elmarit R for Leica
100mm f3.5 Planar for Hasselblad
110mm f2 Planar for Hasselblad
180mm f3.4 APO-Telyt for Leica
250mm f5.6 Super Achromat for Hasselblad
50mm f1.4 Summilux (E60 last version) for Leica R
58mm f1.2 Noct-Nikkor for Nikon F
60mm f2.8 Macro for Leica R
80mm f1.4 Summilux for Leica R
100mm f2.8 APO Macro Elmarit R for Leica
100mm f3.5 Planar for Hasselblad
110mm f2 Planar for Hasselblad
180mm f3.4 APO-Telyt for Leica
250mm f5.6 Super Achromat for Hasselblad
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
Depends on what you consider "nice" - what qualities do you want? Build quality? Overall optical quality? Color rendition? etc. etc.
I personally think the Leitz reflex lenses are not worth the money. The Rollei Planar is a better lens in most major respects than the equivalent Summicron - and costs less than half as much. The Icarex Ultron is legendary... and I'd say it is better than the Summicron too - except that it has rather busy and distracting blur, it's also hard to find and too expensive these days. The CZJ Tessars are really nice (sharper than their West twins even) albeit slowish at f2.8, and shouldn't even be used that wide open IMO.
If you're going to pair the lenses with their original body though... the Nikon F range is probably the safest bet.
My favorite 50 right now is the Yashinon 2/50 because it sharp enough, and it gives nice soft blur which is uncommon in fast 50s. I like using the Oreston 1.8/50 when shooting slides because it renders colors to my liking...
I personally think the Leitz reflex lenses are not worth the money. The Rollei Planar is a better lens in most major respects than the equivalent Summicron - and costs less than half as much. The Icarex Ultron is legendary... and I'd say it is better than the Summicron too - except that it has rather busy and distracting blur, it's also hard to find and too expensive these days. The CZJ Tessars are really nice (sharper than their West twins even) albeit slowish at f2.8, and shouldn't even be used that wide open IMO.
If you're going to pair the lenses with their original body though... the Nikon F range is probably the safest bet.
My favorite 50 right now is the Yashinon 2/50 because it sharp enough, and it gives nice soft blur which is uncommon in fast 50s. I like using the Oreston 1.8/50 when shooting slides because it renders colors to my liking...
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Optically speaking, the Nikkor AF 105/2 DC is without peer that I know in the 85-105 range. The Ai 28/2.0 was also always a favorite of mine.
charjohncarter
Veteran
I seem to be off the OP's question. But I will say again: the Japanese really didn't make any bad lenses from 1975 on. So, focusing ability is (with tripod) the best way to maximizes your lenses. And I doubt if anyone could ever tell which is which (if properly used).
gilpen123
Gil
Same here 28 2.8, 105 2.5 and to add the 180 2.8 all AI-s. Never used other brands.