Who made the best manual focus SLR lenses of each focal length?

60mm Macro Elmarit for Leica R is a big favourite
560 Telyt 6.8 for Leica R is specialist and simply stunning (could probably be adapted to fit anything)

I was going to put the 21 4.0 Super Angulon but I am not so sure...maybe others would like to comment.

Sorry, but I am a Leicaflex SL nut.

Michael
 
Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5
Nikkor-H 85/1.8
Nikkor 20/3.5 AI-S
Nikon 105/2.8 AF-D Micro
Nikkor 28/2 AI
Nikkor 180/2.8 ED AI-S
Micro-Nikkor 200/4 ED-IF AI-S
Nikkor 50/1.2 AI

SMC Pentax FA 43/1.9 Limited
SMC Pentax FA 77/1.8 Limited

These are what I've used and remain memorable to me.
 
The most under-rated lens I ever came across was the 50mm f1.2 (yes two!) Rikenon in M42 mount. It's the one with a bit of the rear element cut away to accomodate the aperture linkage.

At f8, my specimen was close enough to my Nikkor f1.4 to make the difference irrelevant. It was good enough wide open as well.

:D
 
Too many to list really. All I can do is give a few of my favourites.

50mm ƒ2 H Nikkor

28mm ƒ2,8 AIS (one of the best wides ever)

85mm ƒ1,8 Canon FD or even the 100mm ƒ2,8

Contax Planar 50mm ƒ1,7

Canon FD 24mm ƒ1,4L
 
Lots and lots of good SLR glass. In fact, there are far more winners than losers.

Leica R glass I have enjoyed shooting, but not carrying. Too heavy. Over-engineered, super smooth, but overkill mechanically for the most part.
 
digitalintrigue said:
Lots and lots of good SLR glass. In fact, there are far more winners than losers.

Leica R glass I have enjoyed shooting, but not carrying. Too heavy. Over-engineered, super smooth, but overkill mechanically for the most part.
Click to expand...
Try Zeiss lenses for the Contarex Cyclops/Bullseye! A bit slippery, too, some of them...

Cheers,

R.
 
I bet! I haven't tried those, but they do appear like they would feel like boat anchors. Although most likely great optics!
 
People!
The best is what you have at hand. You will make do, even if your sample is not the "best". If it is a good concept or fortuitous capture no one will notice if the lens used was not the best what could be.
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
The most under-rated lens I ever came across was the 50mm f1.2 (yes two!) Rikenon in M42 mount. It's the one with a bit of the rear element cut away to accomodate the aperture linkage.

At f8, my specimen was close enough to my Nikkor f1.4 to make the difference irrelevant. It was good enough wide open as well.

:D
Click to expand...


I think you mean the 1.2/55, and I don't think I'd call it underrated. It (and its twins, made for various brands by Tomioka) is one of the most sought after M42 lenses out there.
 
I've tried to pare down my camera systems, and in the process, some time back I got rid of my Minolta stuff. Shame, because the lenses I had were pretty darned nice. I settled on Nikon for the best combination of quality and compatibility with my AF/digital stuff.

My favorite MF Nikkors are the 24/2.8 AIS (that is still a little gem on my D300, I was surprised how sharp it was when I tested it out before purchasing it), the 28/2.0 AIS (I like it better on MF bodies) and the 105/2.5 AIS (which I use more often on MF bodies--or the F4--as, while it's quite good on DSLRs, it's not as easy to focus accurately with their comparatively inferior viewfinders).

While it's technically outside the OP's remit, I would also highly recommend the 180/2.8 AF(D). I've got the last version, and while it does have autofocus, it's just as much at home on an MF body. It's got a wide, conveniently located focusing ring (the autofocus is so slow, it doesn't really gain anything from its ability to do that), and it's wonderful on an FE or--focused manually--on an F4. I used to use it frequently as my butterfly/dragonfly lens--coupled with the PN-11 extension tube, it made a brilliant package for chasing insects and other small creatures.
 
rohankent said:
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
Click to expand...

My Minolta MC Rokkors do not lack anything as far as I am concerned. They are exceptional! Specifically the 21mm MC F2.8 , the 24mm MC F2.8, the 28mm MC F3.5 (very underrated), the 35mm MC F2.8, the 58mm MC F1.2, the 85mm MC F1.7, and the particularly good 100mm MC F2.5

Minolta manufactured their own optical glass.
 
Sticking to 35mm SLRs. The Leica R lenses are in general spectacular because their size allowed the Leitz engineers to solve many problems they'd long been working on for the smaller-diameter M lines. It would be repetitive to put Leica R for each focal length but one might well do it. The Summicron R 50/2 certainly deserves standout mention, as do a slew of others. In the long lenses, from 180 up to 400, you are, according to the famed Erwin Puts, dealing with near flawless lens design, simply the best glass there is. This is most especially true of the APO 280/4 apparently. Now, on to other lenses, only ones I have known (I haven't owned all these, but I've been fortunate enough to use almost all of them):

Minolta MC Rokkor 21mm f/2.8, OM 21/2, Nikkor 20/3.5

Minolta MD Rokkor X 24/2.8; Contax 25/2.8; OM 24/2 (which I just got and developed first rolls and oh sweet!) I'm shocked how many people love the Nikkor here, I have had three and none was particularly good.

Nikon 28/2 OR 28/2.8(Ai-s only); Contax 28/2.8; OM 28/2; Canon FD 28/2

OM 35/2 and Canon FD concave 35/2 (I haven't used the Contax, alas)

Pentax SMC Tak 50/1.4; Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar; Canon FD 50/1.4 SSC; OM Macro 50/2 (!!); OM Macro 50/3.5; Nikkor Ai 50/2; Nikkor AiS 50/1.2; Micro-Nikkor 55/3.5 F (pre-Ai); MD Rokkor 50/1.4 and MC Rokkor 58/1.4 (I haven't used the famed 58/1.2 but is, you know, famed.)

Rokkor MD 85/2; Contax/Zeiss 85/2.8; M42 Pentax SMC Tak 85/1.8 (!!)

MD Rokkor 100/2.5, Canon 100/2, OM 100/2, Nikkor 105/2.5 (!!)

Canon FD 135/2 (!!) (I'd love to get the Minolta 135/2 but it sells for $900-1000 these days, when it is available at all; the Canon is spectacular and can be had for $300 or a shade less.)

Nikkor AIS ED 180/2.8 (!!)

MD Rokkor 200/2 , Micro-Nikkor 200/2

Canon FD 300/2.8

You would think for the basic focal lengths you'd be best with Minolta or Pentax perhaps but the problem is their cameras. Some people love the Spotmatics and K's and the SRT's but I find them uncomfortable and un-smooth. The best of them are the Pentax MX and ME's and the Minolta XD's. But the Minolta's are not reliable. Whereas Nikons, fabulous. The OM2n and OM's in general, also fantastic. The OM lenses though are getting pricier by the minute and they were never cheap.
 
PS I'd add that these discussions are always dotted with comments about how the equipment doesn't matter, the photographer's eye and technique are what matter, and sure, that's largely true; but this is a discussion about equipment. If we were discussing, as travelers, which airlines we like, we wouldn't want to hear that it's not the airline that matters, it's the landing of the plane. Duh.
 
zuiko85 said:
People!
The best is what you have at hand. You will make do, even if your sample is not the "best". If it is a good concept or fortuitous capture no one will notice if the lens used was not the best what could be.
Click to expand...
Person!

That doesn't mean we have no preferences.

Or, indeed, that we can't get better pictures -- ones we are more satisfied with, even if only one other person in a hundred or a thousand might see any difference -- by using the equipment we like.

Otherwise, after all, why would I use Leica instead of Lomo?

In other words, it's a good idea to 'have at hand' whatever your happiest using for that application. Contrariwise, it may also mean cutting down the range of cameras you use so that what you 'have at hand' is versatile and adequate for most purposes.

Cheers,

R.
 
Yeah, haven't seen much mention of the CZ lenses for the Contarex.

Whether or not they were "the best" optically on an f/stop-to-f/stop/MTF basis for their time period (I can only compare them w/a few manual focus Nikkors), they were certainly superbly-made & had some neat features (almost-macro close-focus capability on the 25, 35s, & most of the 50s, for example). As Erwin Puts has noted, they also were designed to have a very consistent look across the various focal lengths (though this meant less uniformity on accessory sizes, etc.).

digitalintrigue said:
Everyone knows Zeiss is the best. :)
Click to expand...
 
Roger Hicks said:
Person!

That doesn't mean we have no preferences.

Or, indeed, that we can't get better pictures -- ones we are more satisfied with, even if only one other person in a hundred or a thousand might see any difference -- by using the equipment we like.

Otherwise, after all, why would I use Leica instead of Lomo?

In other words, it's a good idea to 'have at hand' whatever your happiest using for that application. Contrariwise, it may also mean cutting down the range of cameras you use so that what you 'have at hand' is versatile and adequate for most purposes.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Well said and one of the main reasons I've tried a lot of different gear and eventually ended up with the equipment I have.
 
I haven't owned nor tried most of what has been mentioned above.

But for me, the M42 mount Fujinon lenses took a back seat to no others. Their later bayonet line just didn't seem as good to me, optically or build. I only have one Contax lens, the 50mm f/1.4. It has taken some really great photos for me. I have several Yashinon M42 mount lenses, which I really thought were fine lenses. I guess since they were made by Tomioka, that should not be a surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom