Contax 35-70 f3.4 - a little pricey now, but what a lens ! As good as any primes within its range
Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm f1.4 - Dreamy, beautiful, cheap. One of my secrets!
Leica 90mm f2 summicron - the Leica '3d' for cheap
Zeiss 28mm f2.8 - Wow wow, cheap
Zeiss jena Flektogon 35mm f2.4 - Wow, amazing
Minolta Rokkor 58mm f1.2 - Some grinding to make it work, but OMFG, amazing!
Canon 70-210 f4L (IS or not) - Amazing lens(es)
Sigma 30mm f1.4 - few-trick pony, but what a good job of those tricks
Zuiko 24mm and 28mm (f2.8 or f3.5)
Canon 400mm f5.6L No better birding lens!
The Zuiko 50/1.8 "Made in Japan" version is the best of the different versions and usually doesn't cost any more. MIne is excellent from wide open, with corner to corner sharpness.
mh2000 wrote:
>>Olympus 50mm f1.8 - probably the best 50mm lens you can get for $30
I have one of these on my OM-1... it's nice and has charm, but really, I prefer the lowly Canon EF 50/1.8 for most images... I have a Super-Tak 50 as well... it does have *some* "magic," but I don't really feel compelled to use it... I'm happiest using my EF 50/1.8 (when I just have to have AF) or my Summicron-R 50 which is just all around great/superb...
Edited by pdmphoto on Aug 31, 2008 at 07:50 PM GMT
Maybe - but it can be fun, and a good way to learn about the look of different lenses. If you are lucky you can end up with some great bargains. I also much prefer to use manual focus lenses for landscape shooting.
Spending money on Canon, or the most expensive alternative option, can just be a waste of money and give the user a false sense of using the "best" tool for the job.
telyt wrote:
and a waste of precious time.
Edited by pdmphoto on Aug 31, 2008 at 07:51 PM GMT
pdmphoto wrote:
Maybe - but it can be fun, and a good way to learn about the look of different lenses. If you are lucky you can end up with some great bargains. I also much prefer to use manual focus lenses for landscape shooting.
Spending money on Canon, or the most expensive alternative option, can just be a waste of money and give the user a false sense of using thre "best" tool for the job.
Correct. I have 7 primes here (max Av from 1.2 to 1.8, including Canon) for around $450. Hardly "false economy" compared to the 50L @ $1,200. The only lens over $80 was the Olympus 55/1.2.
It was also hardly "waste of time" since the point was to try out different lenses.
My short list of bang for buck alt. lenses:
Kiron 24/2
Nikon 28/2.8 AIS
C/Z 35-70/3.4
Industar 50/2.8
Rokkor 58/1.2
Jupiter 9 85/2
Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8
Nikon 105/2.5 p.c.
Pentacon 135/2.8
Tair 135/2.8
Vivitar Close Focus 135/2.8
Jupiter 12 200/4
Well, I think we better stock up on the lenses before the article comes out and drives the price up
Unfortunately when people talk about Zuiko, they often don't mention that there is multi-coated vs. single-coated version. I bought the G.Zuiko 24mm (single-coated) and am not too impressed. My Tamron SP 17-35 does a better job at a cheap price.
Leica and Zeiss also have different model variations, too.
Vivitar Series 1 35-85/2.8 (made by Kiron) at some point was named by the Modern Photographer magazine as one of the 10 sharpest zooms. I decided to take my chances and picked up one today on ebay in OM mount for $77.
Nikkor Ai-S 50/1.2 can be had for about 1/3 of the price of Canon 50/1.2 L. The late model Nikkor Ai-S 105/2.5 is in the $150 range and great for headshots.
Zenitar 16mm is a fun lens.
In your article you may also want to mention that not all lenses will fit on all cameras. For example, Canon 5D has problem mounting some of these lenses and either will require trimming the back of the lens or shaving the mirror.
i will tell you my story about olympus zuiko. ok, its now 30 years old. but: i have bought 35/2.0 and 24/2.0 from the grey-market. 24/2.0 from hongkog, the other from an grey-importer here.
i had also 50/1.4 and 75-150. since i had nothing else i was satisfied until the night i tested zeiss 85/1.4(contax/yashica). all shots b+w. when i bought contax rts my first lens was 35/1.4. its was later when i could buy 85/1.4. i had never used a zoom-lens(only tested). forget angenieux 35-70. compared with 35/1.4. total crap. before that olympus om to contax-shift i had found out this. i compared the grey-market 35/2.0 with an official one i the shop. mine was crap. and in a museum -topfloor with diffused light i could easily see light-fall-off. shooting inside a church with difficult light i could clear see razorsharp results already at fstop 2 of zeiss distagon 35/1.4. both zuikos 24 and 35 were soft. ok. in the meantime other lenses were produced and could be wonderful. i loved the om-system, still do but i also had repeating problems with om-2 -shutter-shifts. so it shifted to contax. lack of 35/1.4 or/and 85/1.4 in eighter canon-or nikon-system has made my decision. i have four dslexchange-adapters to fit my zeiss-lenses 18-135mm to canon(which i still do not have yet).
My alternative lenses were at one time my primary lenses...Nikkors on Nikon F film bods...I discovered through the net of adapters that gave them new life...I could've used them on the higher end Nikon Dslr bods, but I felt that they were just a wee bit heaver/larger/ more expensive than I like, and the small D40 too behind the tech curve for me. So I use Canons with them...well some of them...
I discovered that the new technology of zooms are superior to the old wide angle Nikkors I had...considering I WOULD NEVER use zooms back in my newspaper photog days, I sold my wide angle Nikkors, gladly eating crow as I use the 18-55 IS Canon...
still...when it comes to telephoto focal lengths, old black Nikkors are the steal/deals at under $100 when compared to Canon grays, esp. my 135/2.8 and the 300/4.5...still, many reject them as such...manual focusing being something many photographers who grew up in digital age never had to learn or practice...
So, to your list let me add a nice little gem I found at a pawn shop just this week...
A KODAKgear 80-210 zoom, with Canon EF mount and chips for auto-focus and auto-exposure...
I've read that it may be made by Tamron, but I don't know this for a fact...despite the fact that it is clearly a lightweight budget lens with a plastic mount and not metal, this old lens mounts smoothly and locks tight to my Canon DSLRs...More to the point I guess, is that it is sharp, (with plenty of contrast, and miminal color abberation and flare), surprising for a lens that routinely sells for around $50. It has me researching to see if any other KODAKgear lenses are out there,
Thanks everyone. This is a great round-up of ideas. I'll let you know how this goes. And in the meantime, I'm definitely reading this if anyone else contributes to the thread-- and open to receiving emails about any anecdotes you've had getting into the manual focus lens on DSLR world.
I added this to the other thread I started, but I want to include it here as well:
If there's anyone here who will be in New York City this coming week, who uses older MF lenses on DSLRs (canon or other), and wouldn't mind letting me interview you in person-- please send me an email.
Gasrocks, I have a Meyer Trioplan 100/2.8 sitting on a desk at home. This is the first time I've ever heard anyone mention it. It looks pretty ugly to me, but I was given it for free, so hey, what ya gonna do? (shrugs) It looks very old-school, and is quite light (aluminium body perhaps?), so might find a place in my city bag for occasional use if it performed reasonably well. You mention it as being a deal so I suppose you are happy with your copy. Could you elaborate on how yours perfroms?
Also, I don't have anything to mount it to at this point in time... do you use an M42 to Canon EOS adapter? Thus far I have only adapted OM Zuiko, but I'm overjoyed with the results.
How about we keep it to 5 lenses like the original question asked? ( and lenses that I own)
1, Tamron 28-75 2.8
2, OL 24mm 2.8 ( late multicoated version only)
3, CZ 50mm 1.7
4, OL 35mm shift
5, Leica Elmarit 135 2.8
Why no OL 28 3.5 and CZ 28mm 2.8 I hear you ask?
Well the OL has poor flare control and the CZ has less than stellar corners.
