Really. I eventually end up buying the expensive option ithat I wanted in first place. But only after wasting time and money trying to get lesser options to work.
I can't imagine a mainstream publication whose reader are interested in alt. lenses. Alt lifestyles maybe, but not alt lenses.
I don't find most Zuikos better than there Canon counterpart. Some specific Zuiko lenses are outstanding, of course. For quality most people end up with Zeiss or Leica. But these are not the bargains that they were a few years ago.
I'm staying out of the Rokkor rukus.
But I am writing an article on hot women. Please have all the hot women you know call me.
Helios-44M-5 58mm f/2 is.. great! I have a _very_ sharp rokkor 58 1.2, and this is as sharp as my rokkor is at f/2 (that is wide open for the helios.. quite amazing for a cheapo russian lens :P )
If it lens doesn't perform the way I need it to then it's no deal. Some of these may not be cheap, but they provide truly excellent results for FF:
1. Zuiko 18/3.5
2. Nikon 28/4 shift (non AI)
3. Nikon 35/2.8 shift (non AI)
4. Nikon 85/1.8 AI
5. Angenieux 180/2.3 (small for a very useable f2.3 at 180mm : all the f2.0's are HUGE, and the f/2.8's are - well f/2.8 )
I'll cheat and add a 6th: Vivitar 135/2.3 Series1. I keep telling myself I don't need this focal length, but every time I shoot some pics with this lens I question why I would sell it for the going prices. This lens has some fine glass in it.
I don't see them go that low ever, at least not for a nice one (and I can't remember seeing a trashed one... people tend to take care of their Leica gear).
I was looking more for a Summicron-R 90, but if I found a nice Elmarit-R 90 for $150 I would probably buy it instead. The Nikon lens won't work so well on my R4, will it?
That Sigma 30mm f1.4 has a rep for edge softness, but not on Sigma SD14 1.7x crop factor, which crops the soft area off.
The only low price Carl Zeiss lenses I have bought are 28mm f2.8 and 50mm f1.7. Both work as well as any Zeiss lens.
In contrast, you could buy a Zuiko 50mm f1.2 for $650 or more. It's worth it to people who pay hundreds or a thousand or more for lenses, but the CZ 50mm f1.7 is about the same. Tomioka 55mm f1.2 fetches prices like Zuiko 50mm f1.2, but f1.4 Tomioka and f1.4 and f1.8 Zuikos are values in 5*mm. How about Porst 50mm f1.2? It's probably Cosina. It might be better than Tomioka 55mm f1.4(f1.4!) because of the extra half a stop but feels tacky in comparison.
Zuiko 180mm and 200mm f4. All of those Zuikos mentioned, like 28's. The 100mm f2.8 is really sharp and has nice color. Zuiko needs better light than Zeiss, but if you can light the subject, that's when it earns the Japanese Leica moniker.
europanorama wrote:
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)....Show more →
Incredible you started with CZ 35/1.4, one of the best Zeiss lenses, and then 85/1.4 is stellar. I don't like the Zuikos you don't like. I have those Zeiss lenses and more, and I like Zuiko 21mm f2 ED. I like Zeiss 28/2.8, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 but have to convert Contax mounts to Sigma SD14. I have CZ 100/2 and 180/2.8. There is no doubt that the Zeiss lenses will get it done, but I will use a few Zuikos, too. Zeiss saturates that 3D look.
mh2000 wrote:
Where are Elmarit-R 90's going for $150
I don't see them go that low ever, at least not for a nice one (and I can't remember seeing a trashed one... people tend to take care of their Leica gear).
>>Leica R 90/2.8 - $150 (great price)
Yes, it was a great price for both lenses. You see, I got the 90mm and a 135/2.8 for $300/ Included in the deal for both lenses was also a fotodiox pro adapter.
I don't remember if the lenses were listed here or at a Leica site but I do not when I saw the ad it was my chance to move into the Leica realm. I've now added a 180/3.4 APO and a 560/6.8 lens to my kit and have the wonderful 60/2.8 macro on the way. None of them as good of a deal as the 90/2.8 and 135/2.8 deal.
As too beat up Leicas, both lenses show wear on the body but the optics are great and for the price it was well worth it. Same thing with the 180/3.4 APO I picked up from Kevins camera. It was in worse shape than his rating implied (I'm used to KEH standards) and the price was a bit high but I was having trouble finding one. The 560/6.8 came from KEH, cost under $1000 and looks pretty much brand new.
Manual Focus lenses on cameras just don`t work, period and any of your readers should put them on the open market for peanuts just to move them
OK! of all my alternative manual focus lenses I reckon bang for buck with no drop in quality for price I have to give it to my contax 35-70 zoom. It is just an amazing lens and to be quite honest sees me leaving my 28 2.8 Contax at home and moving back a touch when needed(not on the pier though
Alright this is shameless self promotion, but since there may be some looking for these lenses after reading this string I will post it.
On the Buy Sell forum, I am selling a Contax Zeiss 18mm f4 Distagon, and a Contax Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4 Vario-Sonnar lens. Since these two show up fairly frequently in this string, I thought I would mention it.
Sorry if this is off topic and a foul. ( no Yellow Card... please)
Personally I like the Pentax Super Takumar lenses. The adapters are cheap and the lenses are inexpensive, solidly built and sharp. The 50/1.4 has a nice bokeh and good sharpness and they have that lovely warm color cast so famous in the SMC lenses. I've used the 50/1.4, the 35/3.5 and the 200/4 personally.
The Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 is a fantastic alternative to the high priced fisheye lenses offered by the major manufacturers. Mine's been a gem and seems to be sharp and solidly built. A little tweaking of the hood to get it square and I was good to go.
Finally, the much coveted Rokkor 50/1.2. Although I've never used one, it's been my ultimate goal to grab one and give it a shot. Read around here. You'll find out everything you need to know about it.
matthewm wrote:
Personally I like the Pentax Super Takumar lenses. The adapters are cheap and the lenses are inexpensive, solidly built and sharp. The 50/1.4 has a nice bokeh and good sharpness and they have that lovely warm color cast so famous in the SMC lenses. I've used the 50/1.4, the 35/3.5 and the 200/4 personally.
The Zenitar 16mm f/2.8 is a fantastic alternative to the high priced fisheye lenses offered by the major manufacturers. Mine's been a gem and seems to be sharp and solidly built. A little tweaking of the hood to get it square and I was good to go.
Finally, the much coveted Rokkor 50/1.2. Although I've never used one, it's been my ultimate goal to grab one and give it a shot. Read around here. You'll find out everything you need to know about it.
)
