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

[semi-ambivalent]

I'd say Nikon for 28 and 105, Pentax for 50, Oly for 85, Minolta for 24.

The 50mm f/2 Nikkor-H gets pretty high marks. I don't have one but I do have the Ai, which is supposed to be the same formula as the H and with better coating. I did a bit of pixel peeping with my sons 5100 and that 50 was outstanding. That being said, my 50 mm f/1.8 long nose has a bit less veiling at 1.8-2 than does the f/2 and is ever so slightly better in the corners. The f/2 has a little more contrast richness in the colors that lends itself to the resolution. This is a 100% DX image that gimp tells me is 68.5 inches wide so the resolution differences are meaningless.

For me the f/2 wins because I like that veiling at f/2 and because it cost me thirty dollars. You're bang on about the 28 (AiS) and the 105.

cheers

 

[ChrisN]

I think Pentax made the best 77mm prime - the FA 77 1.8 Limited. 🙂

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I'm gonna throw the Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 L into the mix.

This is a lens that I've only had the opportunity to use a little bit on loan but that short period of time has filled me with the urge to own and shoot one of these stellar gems. There is nothing wrong with it whatsoever. Perfect.

Phil Forrest

 

[f16sunshine]

If by best you mean high contrast sharp lenses with good build quality I would recommend the Zeiss Contax system lenses.
Pretty consistent overall. I especially like the f2.8/85, f1.4/85, f2/100, and f2.8/180mm.
The wides are also excellent but, they are not cheap. I use the distagon f2.8/21mm and f1.4/35. both are now hard to find at reasonable prices.
The f2.8/85 is just a peach and super cheap for what it will do for you in terms of output.
If you own a 5D(ii,iii) make sure and get a couple chipped adapters for this mount. These lenses perform great on the 5D models.

 

[Rob-F]

Not an exhaustive list, but a few favorites I won't part with:

90mm f/2.8 Elmarit (can be adapted to Nikon mount)
135mm f/2.8 Elmarit (can be adapted to Nikon mount)
180mm f/3.4 APO-Telyt (can be adapted to Nikon mount)
28mm PC-Nikkor
35mm PC-Nikkor (latest)
55mm f/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (f/2.8 version almost as good)
15mm f/3.5 Nikkor

 

[Dirk]

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

20mm (OK, 19mm here): Leica Elmarit 19mm 2.8, version II
24mm: Nikkor AI-S 24mm 2.8
28mm: Leica Elmarit 28mm 2.8, version II
35mm: Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 MMJ
50mm (55mm here): Canon FD 55mm 1.2 Aspherical
50mm Macro: Pentax SMC Macro Takumar 4.0
85mm: Canon FD 85mm 1.2
105mm: Nikkor 105mm 1.8 AI-S

I'll leave stuff above that range to others, as I don't have much experience with telephoto lenses above 105mm.

 

[Vickko]

Oh, yeah, I agree with these two too !!! Fantastic lenses from Canon.

...

50mm (55mm here): Canon FD 55mm 1.2 Aspherical

85mm: Canon FD 85mm 1.2
...

 

[splitimageview]

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.

I have the 105 DC, it is as you describe. Fantastic!

 

[splitimageview]

24mm: Nikkor AI-S 24mm 2.8

My favorite 24. Highly under rated. Close range correction. Excellent bokeh, which may seem an odd thing to say about a wide, but it scores an 8 on Johnston's Bokeh Rating.

http://free.art.pl/fotografie/johnston/LensBokehRatings.pdf

 

[Harry Lime]

Leica R
To this day a lot of this glass is hard to beat. My Summilux-R 1.4/50 still is the best fast 50 I have used for an SLR and I've owned many from Zeiss, Nikon, Canon etc. The 50 Lux and Summicron-R 2/50 are the two reasons why I still shot with R bodies.

Other notables include the Summicron-R 2/50, Macro 2.8/60, Summilux-R 1.4/80, Summicron-R ASPH 2/90, APO 2.8/100mm. These are really, really good lenses and just like with the M glass, I do see a noticeable difference in scans and wet prints, between the R glass and the Zeiss and Nikkors I shoot.

The Summilux-R 1.4/35 is underrated, as is the last version of the Summicron-R 2/35. The ultra wides get very good reviews (19mm ? etc). A lot of the long Leica R glass is truly outstanding, as are the 2.8/35-70, 4/35-70, 28-90, 4/80-200, 2.8/80-200.

But as with everything Leica, their pricing placed them totally out of the mainstream. I think the 2.8/80-200 went for $6000 in the early 2000's.


Zeiss Contax
I never owned a Contax, but two of my friends did and the results were impressive. But I now have the 2/35 Distagon, Planar 1.4/50 and 1.4/85 in Nikon F mount and as expected these are really good lenses.

Canon FD
Canon made some very impressive glass in the old FD mount. Erwin Puts speaks very highly of this line up. Lot's of impressive high speed 50's and I think Canon was one of the first companies to start to use ASPH surfaces.


Nikon
I'm also a Nikon guy, but I always felt that their lens lineup was somewhat uneven. You have real standouts like the 2/28, 2/50, 1.4/50 AIS, Micro-Nikkor 3.5 (2.8) /55, 1.4/85mm, 2.5/105. But then there are lenses like the 2/35, which to be polite, is really weak. The 1.4/35 also never impressed me. Really soft at 1.4. There are some really cool f1.2 fifties. Not the sharpest, but they render really beautifully.

I always thought that Nikon made the best SLR bodies around, but for some reason they would keep a lens in their line up for 20 years and never update it, while the rest of the industry did.


Early on I also shot a little Pentax and really liked their fast 50's. Maybe not the sharpest lenses, but my god did they draw beautifully in b/w. Mike Johnston waxes about this lens on occasion. It's like the SLR version of the Leica M Summicron-DR 2/50.

 

[mfogiel]

Beyond what has been said, I have now and enjoy a lot the Minolta Rokkor 58/1,2 PG

 

[windraider]

Out of the Nikon, Minoltas, Olympus and 3rd party brands that I have tried, I usually find Nikkors to have the slight edge, particularly the 24/2.8 and 35/2 AIS.

Minolta teles give surprising bang for the buck as I have good experiences with the 135/3.5 MC and 200/3.5 MC.

 

[johannielscom]

Low contrast shots on a sharp digital sensor are my game.

On the D3100 I shoot:

• Nikkor-S 1.4/58mm
• Nikkor-P 2.5/105mm (1st version, Sonnar)
• Tamron BBAR 2.8-3.5/35-80mm Adaptall
• Tamron BBAR 3.5/24-48mm Adaptall

Haven't shot the 24-48mm yet (it's arriving next week) but if it's anything like the other BBAR lens, I'll be happy with it!

Extra perk is the Nikkors fitting onto any AF-S body (3100, 5100, 3200), Nikkormats, the F2, F3? and F4, while the Adaptalls... well they fit onto anything when you switch mounts! And they were cheap too!

 

[Mablo]

A skunk at the picnic here. In my opinion most Hexanon AR prime lenses wipe the floor with Nikkor lenses of the same FL.

 

[Nettar]

A skunk at the picnic, eh? Well, I'll be the hippopotamus at the picnic. I saw Vickko above suggesting 'Blad lenses, so the medium format foot is already in the door. There has been mention of 55mm lenses, so let me suggest the SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4, last version (I think from the mid 1980s). Very good! Nettar

 

[Aristophanes]

31, 43, 77mm = Pentax Limited.


My Minolta Rokkor MD 100/2.8 is a fantastic piece of optical engineering.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

It is hard to add to the list above -- hard because so many good lenses have been mentioned, and hard too because I own a lot of the lenses mentioned, but have not made a comparison that would allow a categorical testing like "best." Some favorites:

35/2, 50/1.4 Pentax screw-mount lenses
57/1.2, 50/1.7 Konica Hexar AR
35/2, 105/2.5 Nikon

[Edit: of course these are just the SLR lenses] The Leica 50/1.4 Asph, 35/2 Asph, 24/2.8 Apsh, 90/2 Apo Asph, 75/2 Asph are really, really good. I mean for my photography they are class-by-themselves hard to beat. And also -- that super-sharp modern look is not always what is wanted. But the question always comes down to whether the "advantages" are worth the expense for a particular photographer. And as much as I like those lenses, on my most recent job I used all Zeiss M-mount lenses: principally the 25/2.8 and 35/2.

I have never tried the Carl Zeiss/Yashica SLR lenses -- always wanted to, though.

 

[nobbylon]

As others have mentioned it's what you as an individual like in a lens. Some have mentioned the Planar 50 1.7 which is no doubt a great lens but one which I really disliked the bokeh of so sold it after a few rolls.
The other problem is having too many different bodies to match your lenses. I've slimmed down my manual gear to a Pentax and a Leicaflex but at one time had Olympus, Nikon and Contax going at the same time just to be able to use the lenses. Nightmare. If I had to pick only one system to use it would be my cheapy Leicaflex with the R lenses. I have a feeling that R lenses are climbing steadily in value though and are no longer the cheap option s/h.

 

[kanzlr]

I tried a lot of systems over time and found that most first party lenses are superb. I really like so far:

OM 24/2.8
C/Y Distagon 28/2.8
Minolta MD 200/4 and 85/2 (both unbelievably good)

 

[Roger Hicks]

As others have mentioned it's what you as an individual like in a lens. Some have mentioned the Planar 50 1.7 which is no doubt a great lens but one which I really disliked the bokeh of so sold it after a few rolls.
The other problem is having too many different bodies to match your lenses. I've slimmed down my manual gear to a Pentax and a Leicaflex but at one time had Olympus, Nikon and Contax going at the same time just to be able to use the lenses. Nightmare. If I had to pick only one system to use it would be my cheapy Leicaflex with the R lenses. I have a feeling that R lenses are climbing steadily in value though and are no longer the cheap option s/h.

YES!

So buy a Type 240 (or an Alpa, if you like film) and solve the problem...

Cheers,

R.