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:
JohnJ wrote:... looking for the cheap option can end up being a false economy.

and a waste of precious time.


Edited by pdmphoto on Aug 31, 2008 at 07:51 PM GMT

I love my old Nikkor 28 f2.8 AIS -ok not so alternative but damn good and can be found for under $200. I dont know why noone else is praising it.

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.


telyt wrote:
JohnJ wrote:... looking for the cheap option can end up being a false economy.

and a waste of precious time.


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

tag

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).

Have you checked out a forum devoted to manual focus lenses?...
http://forum.manualfocus.org/

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,

Good luck with your article.

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.

R

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.

How much do the Zuiko 35mm shift lenses go for?

Contax 25 f2.8
Old version Leica 28 R f2.8
Oly 28 f2.8
Contax 50 f1.7
Leica R 80 old version

(yes - I am trying to keep the market sane)

1.Leica 35 Elmarit E55
2.Leica 50 Summicron E55
3.Leica 90 Elmarit E55
4.Leica 135 Elmarit E55
5.Leica 180 Elmar E55

telyt wrote:
JohnJ wrote:... looking for the cheap option can end up being a false economy.

and a waste of precious time.

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.

I forgot to add:

I LIKE THE LENS BABY.

There, I said it. You snobs can go play with your fancy Leicas. But I still find Lens Baby cool.

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.

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)

Probably because they are an 90mm f/2.8 lens. The Nikon 85/1.8 AI is so much more versatile.

not *why*, but *where*?

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).

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.