1joel1
Well-known
Ahem...
fd 85mm 1.2L is the lens Id consider to be without peer in that range of focal lengths.
fd 24mm f1.4L for 24mm, Leica and contax for 50mm, contax for ultrawides.
The 85/1.2 has terrible coma, but it is a fun lens and the center of the image is very nice.
Joel
oftheherd
Veteran
Interesting to read back over this thread. I am the only one with any love for Fujinon lenses, and only one other with any love for the Yashinons, in particular the 50mm f/1.7.
Of course, neither were accepted as pro-level camera gear, and I don't recall either being marketed as such. Maybe the Fuji ST901, but not agressively nor successfully. In the 1970s, screw mount M42 lenses, including finally the Pentax, were not touted by the magazines as professional gear. All had to make a change to bayonet mount lenses. The Y/C bayonet mounted Contax lenses and cameras, and the Pentax bayonet mounted lenses and high end cameras, made a stab at being accepted by the Pros. I think by then, Canon and Nikon were some firmly entrenched they couldn't be caught. Even Minolta couldn't keep up with them, despite making great strides in auto-focus camera bodies.
The sad thing is/was that the Contax and Fujica lenses didn't decline much in value. The Yashinons, except for the 50mm f/1.4 and very rare f/1.2, of course did not so much, but ebay being what it was, some of them did slip through at reasonable, although rather high prices.
I don't know if it was primarily due to poor marketing, failure to pay sufficiently high advertising, or simple preference for bayonet lenses as 'pro' lenses, by both magazine writers and actual professional camera users.
Myself, as a person who started SLRs with an M42 mount lens, I grew to prefer them. Both for personal use and as a professional in crime scene photography, I preferred that for low light work.
I quickly learned how to set the lens on the camera, turn it the wrong way until I felt it seat, then reverse and tighten it down. I didn't need light for that. Bayonet mount lenses with their nice little red dots, usually made the red dots too hard to see in low light. Even when what I wanted to photograph wasn't always a black cat in a coal bin, where I was sittin often was that dim.
Anyone else with thoughts on M42 lenses as good lenses (some have already mentioned Pentax lenses) that didn't get the reputation they may have deserved, or that you thought they did.
Of course, neither were accepted as pro-level camera gear, and I don't recall either being marketed as such. Maybe the Fuji ST901, but not agressively nor successfully. In the 1970s, screw mount M42 lenses, including finally the Pentax, were not touted by the magazines as professional gear. All had to make a change to bayonet mount lenses. The Y/C bayonet mounted Contax lenses and cameras, and the Pentax bayonet mounted lenses and high end cameras, made a stab at being accepted by the Pros. I think by then, Canon and Nikon were some firmly entrenched they couldn't be caught. Even Minolta couldn't keep up with them, despite making great strides in auto-focus camera bodies.
The sad thing is/was that the Contax and Fujica lenses didn't decline much in value. The Yashinons, except for the 50mm f/1.4 and very rare f/1.2, of course did not so much, but ebay being what it was, some of them did slip through at reasonable, although rather high prices.
I don't know if it was primarily due to poor marketing, failure to pay sufficiently high advertising, or simple preference for bayonet lenses as 'pro' lenses, by both magazine writers and actual professional camera users.
Myself, as a person who started SLRs with an M42 mount lens, I grew to prefer them. Both for personal use and as a professional in crime scene photography, I preferred that for low light work.
I quickly learned how to set the lens on the camera, turn it the wrong way until I felt it seat, then reverse and tighten it down. I didn't need light for that. Bayonet mount lenses with their nice little red dots, usually made the red dots too hard to see in low light. Even when what I wanted to photograph wasn't always a black cat in a coal bin, where I was sittin often was that dim.
Anyone else with thoughts on M42 lenses as good lenses (some have already mentioned Pentax lenses) that didn't get the reputation they may have deserved, or that you thought they did.
Frontman
Well-known
I have tried many cameras and lenses, Japan is a great place for anything photography-related, and if you can't find a particular lens here, you probably won't find it anywhere.
Among the 20/21mm lenses I have (Nikon, Canon, Olympus), the OM Zuiko 21/3.5 is the best performer. It is also the smallest, and the lightest, particulary when compared to the Canon FD20/2.8 (which is a good performer).
For 35mm lenses, I have a few different Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta types. The best is the Canon 35/2 concave. It holds it's own against good 35mm RF glass like my Summaron/Summicron. The only reason I own an FD camera is to be able to shoot with this lens.
Among the 50's, I have more than I can keep track of. Oddities include the Nikon 58/1.4, and the Pentax 58/2. I also have a variety of faster lenses, like the Canon/Nikon/Olympus 50/1.2 lenses. I usually shoot with the cheap Olympus 50/1.8. The Nikon 50/1.2 is my second choice, it is decently sharp at f/1.4, sharper than regular 1.4 lenses shot wide open.
My favorite short tele is the OM 90/2 macro. I have used the Nikon 85/1.4, and the Canon 85/1.2, but the OM 90 is simply a phenomenal lens, great for general shooting, and great for getting really close.
Among the 20/21mm lenses I have (Nikon, Canon, Olympus), the OM Zuiko 21/3.5 is the best performer. It is also the smallest, and the lightest, particulary when compared to the Canon FD20/2.8 (which is a good performer).
For 35mm lenses, I have a few different Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Pentax, and Minolta types. The best is the Canon 35/2 concave. It holds it's own against good 35mm RF glass like my Summaron/Summicron. The only reason I own an FD camera is to be able to shoot with this lens.
Among the 50's, I have more than I can keep track of. Oddities include the Nikon 58/1.4, and the Pentax 58/2. I also have a variety of faster lenses, like the Canon/Nikon/Olympus 50/1.2 lenses. I usually shoot with the cheap Olympus 50/1.8. The Nikon 50/1.2 is my second choice, it is decently sharp at f/1.4, sharper than regular 1.4 lenses shot wide open.
My favorite short tele is the OM 90/2 macro. I have used the Nikon 85/1.4, and the Canon 85/1.2, but the OM 90 is simply a phenomenal lens, great for general shooting, and great for getting really close.
Pablito
coco frío
That's fine if you're just playing around, but to work effectively you need to feel like the camera body is an extension of your body - you need to be able to operate it on instinct and intuition without thinking. Very hard to do that with different bodies from different camera companies, with the controls all being in different places, etc.
ampguy
Veteran
perhaps a bit harsh
perhaps a bit harsh
A couple of years ago, I shot a parade with just this lens, and have many great images from it.
The distortion at the extremes is bad, but around ~60, it is fairly straight, and the low contrast works great with film and digital. A lot of these were made, as they were one of the first mass produced zooms, perhaps you got a bad copy?
perhaps a bit harsh
A couple of years ago, I shot a parade with just this lens, and have many great images from it.
The distortion at the extremes is bad, but around ~60, it is fairly straight, and the low contrast works great with film and digital. A lot of these were made, as they were one of the first mass produced zooms, perhaps you got a bad copy?
stompyq
Well-known
More like you got the only good copy they ever made.
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
I know that at least one person who summited Mt. Everest did so with an Ftn and a 43-86 (and Kodachrome).
Cheers
asiafish
Established
My fabs
My fabs
I shot Minolta in the 1970s and 80s, switched to Nikon in the 90s, now am back to Minolta and Leica R. I find that Leica and Minolta share a certain character in the way they render, which is perhaps either why or because the two companies shared a few designs.
I take my Leica outfit (R6 and R3 MOT) if I only want 50 or 90mm, but usually use my Minolta as 35mm is my favorite focal length and the cheap and humble 35/2.8 Rokkor is much better than my heavy, expensive and not any better 35 Elmarit-R.
24mm wide:
Minolta MD W.Rokkor 24mm f2.8 and Leica 24mm Elmarit-R f2.8
These are both outstanding and not coincidentally are actually the same lens, at least optically. The Leica is built much better and the Minolta is 1/4 the price. I sold my Elmarit and kept my Rokkor.
28mm wide:
Minolta MC W.Rokkor 28mm f2.5
This one has a radioactive element not unlike most of the f1.2 or faster standard lenses of the 1960s and 1970s (can yellow, but clears if left uncapped in the sun). VERY sharp at all apertures, but prone to flare.
35mm Moderate wide:
Minolta MD Rokkor X 35mm f2.8
A very humble lens and new or used was always MUCH cheaper than the more famous 35/1.8. Cheaper, but better. This lens is sharper than my 35mm Elmarit-R up to f5.6 where the Leica is equal, with the Elmarit looking a bit better at f8, but the Rokkor still VERy close. Best $30 I ever spent.
50ish Standard:
Leica 50mm f2 Summicron-R
Perfection. Enough said.
Runner Up: Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4.
Very prone to flare, but SHARP from f2 and with incredible bokeh wide open. A fantastic portrait lens when adapted to Sony NEX.
80-105ish Portrait:
Lieca 90mm f2.8 Elmarit-R
This is an outstanding portrait lens, perhaps the best available except for its modest f2.8 maximum aperture
Runner Up: Minolta MD Tele-Rokkor 100mm f2.5
The slightly longer focal length and slightly wider aperture give a noticeable reduction in depth of field, with bokeh ALMOST as nice as the 90 Elmarit-R. A very nice portrait lens for 1/6 the price of the Leica.
135mm long portrait:
Minolta MC Tele-Rokkor 135mm f2.8 (4 element last MC version and 6 element "PF")
There are 3 basic optical formulas for Minoltas 135mm lenses and all are good for different reasons. The early 6 element "PF" models are softest unless stopped down to f5.6, but have the best bokeh. The late MD 5 element models are the smallest, lightest and are very sharp. The 4 element middle model is the sharpest and makes the Leica Elmarit-R 135mm look soft.
The 4 element model is expensive, but worth it. The PF models can be had for $40 and is the best for portraits, with bokeh to die for.
My fabs
I shot Minolta in the 1970s and 80s, switched to Nikon in the 90s, now am back to Minolta and Leica R. I find that Leica and Minolta share a certain character in the way they render, which is perhaps either why or because the two companies shared a few designs.
I take my Leica outfit (R6 and R3 MOT) if I only want 50 or 90mm, but usually use my Minolta as 35mm is my favorite focal length and the cheap and humble 35/2.8 Rokkor is much better than my heavy, expensive and not any better 35 Elmarit-R.
24mm wide:
Minolta MD W.Rokkor 24mm f2.8 and Leica 24mm Elmarit-R f2.8
These are both outstanding and not coincidentally are actually the same lens, at least optically. The Leica is built much better and the Minolta is 1/4 the price. I sold my Elmarit and kept my Rokkor.
28mm wide:
Minolta MC W.Rokkor 28mm f2.5
This one has a radioactive element not unlike most of the f1.2 or faster standard lenses of the 1960s and 1970s (can yellow, but clears if left uncapped in the sun). VERY sharp at all apertures, but prone to flare.
35mm Moderate wide:
Minolta MD Rokkor X 35mm f2.8
A very humble lens and new or used was always MUCH cheaper than the more famous 35/1.8. Cheaper, but better. This lens is sharper than my 35mm Elmarit-R up to f5.6 where the Leica is equal, with the Elmarit looking a bit better at f8, but the Rokkor still VERy close. Best $30 I ever spent.
50ish Standard:
Leica 50mm f2 Summicron-R
Perfection. Enough said.
Runner Up: Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4.
Very prone to flare, but SHARP from f2 and with incredible bokeh wide open. A fantastic portrait lens when adapted to Sony NEX.
80-105ish Portrait:
Lieca 90mm f2.8 Elmarit-R
This is an outstanding portrait lens, perhaps the best available except for its modest f2.8 maximum aperture
Runner Up: Minolta MD Tele-Rokkor 100mm f2.5
The slightly longer focal length and slightly wider aperture give a noticeable reduction in depth of field, with bokeh ALMOST as nice as the 90 Elmarit-R. A very nice portrait lens for 1/6 the price of the Leica.
135mm long portrait:
Minolta MC Tele-Rokkor 135mm f2.8 (4 element last MC version and 6 element "PF")
There are 3 basic optical formulas for Minoltas 135mm lenses and all are good for different reasons. The early 6 element "PF" models are softest unless stopped down to f5.6, but have the best bokeh. The late MD 5 element models are the smallest, lightest and are very sharp. The 4 element middle model is the sharpest and makes the Leica Elmarit-R 135mm look soft.
The 4 element model is expensive, but worth it. The PF models can be had for $40 and is the best for portraits, with bokeh to die for.
mfogiel
Veteran
Coming back to this thread, after I've had a chance to test out the R Summicron 50/2 1st ver. for some portraiture. Given, that my version is a 2 cam, I use it on the R4s2 wide open only. What I have seen, is one of the most charming renderings at this f stop, for a 50mm lens. I am pushing the best lens for each fl paradigm a step further, and am looking for the best lens in each fl and at each working aperture, that I use habitually. One should also add the film and developer, to complete the picture, you know...
Obviously, all this regards the B&W film photography only, as anything else, is not even meritable of comment
Summicron R 50/2 1st ver @f2.0, APX 100, Rodinal 1+50.
20134820 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Obviously, all this regards the B&W film photography only, as anything else, is not even meritable of comment
Summicron R 50/2 1st ver @f2.0, APX 100, Rodinal 1+50.
20134820 by mfogiel, on Flickr
csxcnj
Well-known
Coming back to this thread, after I've had a chance to test out the R Summicron 50/2 1st ver. for some portraiture. Given, that my version is a 2 cam, I use it on the R4s2 wide open only. What I have seen, is one of the most charming renderings at this f stop, for a 50mm lens. I am pushing the best lens for each f stop paradigm a step further, and am looking for the best lens in each fl and at each working aperture, that I use habitually. One should also add the film and developer, to complete the picture, you know...
Obviously, all this regards the B&W film photography only, as anything else, is not even meritable of comment
Summicron R 50/2 1st ver @f2.0, APX 100, Rodinal 1+50.
20134820 by mfogiel, on Flickr
Why is she so angry?
Godfrey
somewhat colored
You could make this real easy and just say Nikon, Leica, or Olympus. That's why I have both Nikon and Leica now, and had Olympus too. ;-)
G
Vickko
Veteran
Olympus killed my wallet / bank account this summer.
;-)
;-)
x-ray
Veteran
I would agree with this list and add the following:
Nikkor 105 2.5 all versions
Nikkor 400 3.5
Nikkor 8mm 2.8
Nikkor 300 f2
Nikkor 24 2.8 last version
Nikkor 50 1.2 Noct
Nikkor 85 1.4
Canon 85L 1.2
Leica R 90 f2
Leica R 180 f3.4 apo
Zeiss 60 macro planar
Zeiss 25 f2.8 Distagon
Texsport
Well-known
My favorites to recommend:
Canon FD L 24/1.4
Canon FD L 50/1.2 (100/1.2 on OMD)
Canon FD L 85/1.2
Vivitar Series 1 Flat Field 90-180/4.5 Macro (180-360/4.5 Macro zoom on OMD-my walkin' around macro-super with OMD IS system)
Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro "Bokina" ( 180/2.5 Macro on OMD)
Vivitar Series 1 200/3.0 (Compact 400/3.0 tele on OMD)
Nikon DC 135/2.0 Auto ( MF 270/2.0 on OMD)
Olympus OM 350/2.8 ( 700/2.8 and 980/2.8 with 1.4X extender on OMD)
Texsport
Canon FD L 24/1.4
Canon FD L 50/1.2 (100/1.2 on OMD)
Canon FD L 85/1.2
Vivitar Series 1 Flat Field 90-180/4.5 Macro (180-360/4.5 Macro zoom on OMD-my walkin' around macro-super with OMD IS system)
Vivitar Series 1 90/2.5 Macro "Bokina" ( 180/2.5 Macro on OMD)
Vivitar Series 1 200/3.0 (Compact 400/3.0 tele on OMD)
Nikon DC 135/2.0 Auto ( MF 270/2.0 on OMD)
Olympus OM 350/2.8 ( 700/2.8 and 980/2.8 with 1.4X extender on OMD)
Texsport
raid
Dad Photographer
raid
Dad Photographer
OK. I have these. The more people define their view of best lenses, the more I have! This is good.
raid
Dad Photographer
This is what I like too.
Jack Conrad
Well-known
Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2
Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2
Recently, I acquired a Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2 with a bent filter ring and lots of internal dust. After straightening it up a bit and sticking it on my old Oly e-520 DSLR, I am Extremely impressed.
After having several copies of the Rokkor 50-58/1.4's, which I found to be comparable to most 50's, perhaps about equal to the Takumars, I have to report that this lens is head and shoulders above any other 50 I've tried.
And I'm not talking about bokeh or close focus.
This particular copy of the MC 58/1.2 is absolutely superb at capturing tonal gradations and detail resolution at medium distances between say, 10 ft. and infinity.
It seems to capture more detail, and more beautifully at those distances than my Nikkor AF 105/2.8 micro on a Nex-5N after pixel peeping at 100% magnification.
Admittedly, I don't have any experience with Leica lenses, but
I suspect this lens would compare very favorably.
I just wonder how intimate the collaboration between Leica and Minolta really was back in the 70's.
Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2
Recently, I acquired a Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2 with a bent filter ring and lots of internal dust. After straightening it up a bit and sticking it on my old Oly e-520 DSLR, I am Extremely impressed.
After having several copies of the Rokkor 50-58/1.4's, which I found to be comparable to most 50's, perhaps about equal to the Takumars, I have to report that this lens is head and shoulders above any other 50 I've tried.
And I'm not talking about bokeh or close focus.
This particular copy of the MC 58/1.2 is absolutely superb at capturing tonal gradations and detail resolution at medium distances between say, 10 ft. and infinity.
It seems to capture more detail, and more beautifully at those distances than my Nikkor AF 105/2.8 micro on a Nex-5N after pixel peeping at 100% magnification.
Admittedly, I don't have any experience with Leica lenses, but
I suspect this lens would compare very favorably.
I just wonder how intimate the collaboration between Leica and Minolta really was back in the 70's.
raid
Dad Photographer
I have none of these lenses I have none of these lensesI have none of your chosen best lenses. What should I now do?
Timmyjoe
Veteran
I second these two. Love them both and am constantly trying to find ways to adapt them to whatever camera I am shooting.
Also heard the Leica 80mm Summilux R is a fantastic lens.
Still looking for wides to fall in love with.
Best,
-Tim