Best looking solid "non plastic" 35mm cameras under $150?

[flavio81]

Hi,
I see people mentioning "build quality". Are you planning on hammering nails or something? Your final image quality is the most important factor here.

It really depends. Really high build quality, for some, creates a kind of psychological, reassuring effect that encourages or 'catalyzes' good photography. Image quality is good with most lenses of most brands...

In the case of Nikon, it's true that most AI and pre-AI lenses are made better...but are they sharper and have better coatings...NO.

Sometimes they are sharp enough. And (single) coatings, for most of the Nikkor pre-AI lenses i own, are just fine, on the Nikkor-H 28/3.5, Nikkor-H 50/2, and Nikkor-Q 135/3.5.

I encourage other forumers who own these lenses to report their experience with them.

I have seen too many older Nikkors (and other brands of the same age) with tight focus because the lubrication has dried up or worse yet, oil on the aperture blades or fungus.

Two very easy things to repair yourself.
Then there are the older nikkors that didn't need any repair and are just fine, for example i have the 5.8cm f1.4 Nikkor with no indication of having been opened/repaired and totally perfect focusing ring.

I own most of the Nikon 50mm lenses from the 5cm S to present. My 50mm f1.8 AF=D is built like crap but it will out perform all of the older lenses

What is really "out perform"? Your 50/1.8 is certainly sharper (wide open) than my 5.8cm /1.4, but I can make a bet that the 5.8cm will produce overall nicer, much nicer portraits, because of a totally different, delicious rendering.

And If you are really concerned about sharpness, why are you shooting 35mm? Move to medium or large format...

 

[Pioneer]

You may need to report for some Nikon Anon meetings Flavio81.

 

[blockend]

Sometimes they are sharp enough. And (single) coatings, for most of the Nikkor pre-AI lenses i own, are just fine, on the Nikkor-H 28/3.5, Nikkor-H 50/2, and Nikkor-Q 135/3.5.

I encourage other forumers who own these lenses to report their experience with them.

I own Nikkor-H 28, 35 and 50mm pre-AI lenses, and like the way they render. Are they as sharp as my AF and AF-D Nikkors? Maybe, maybe not, I've never compared directly but they're certainly good enough to exploit the potential of 35mm film. I suspect they flare and lose contrast more quickly in direct sunlight than later versions. If data capture is a prerequisite go for the finest modern glass and a digital camera, I can shoot directly into the sun with those and pick up no more than a stray colour anomaly than can be cloned out in Photoshop. For build quality alone pre-AI Nikkors have few competitors and none in the modern era.

 

[flavio81]

You may need to report for some Nikon Anon meetings Flavio81.

LOL

I can't go because i'm full time at the Canon-anon meetings... in reality i'm more of a Canon fan (see my signature.)
This is what i have right now in each camp (i'm skipping my M42 collection for brevity):

Canon FD/FL/R:
FL 19/3.5R "Canon pride"
28/2.8
28/2.0
35/2.8
35/3.5 "humble tack-sharp"
50/1.4 "dignified friend"
FL 55/1.2 "f1,2 beautifier"
85/1.8 "ultimate"
100/2.8 "portable tack-sharp"
135/3.5
R 135/2.5 "135mm beautifier"
200/4
FL 200/3.5
FL 85-300/5 "the huge beast"
FD 35-105/3.5 "the envy of Nikon optical designers"
FD 35-70/3.5-4.5

Nikkors:
20/4
28/3.5 H
35/3.5 PC "secret weapon"
35/2.8 PC "improved revenge of the secret weapon"
35/2.0 O "35mm beautifier"
50/2.0 H "humble friend"
50/2.0 H-C "multicoated humble friend"
58/1.4 S "ultra beautifier"
135/3.5 Q
200/4

as you can see i have more Canons than Nikkors...
But some of the Nikkors (in bold) are my most interesting/loved lenses!

 

[flavio81]

I own Nikkor-H 28, 35 and 50mm pre-AI lenses, and like the way they render. Are they as sharp as my AF and AF-D Nikkors? Maybe, maybe not, I've never compared directly but they're certainly good enough to exploit the potential of 35mm film. I suspect they flare and lose contrast more quickly in direct sunlight than later versions.

The 28/3.5 is remarkably flare-resistant, and this is due to the design itself, not due to coatings (as people are usually led to believe...)
There is a story on the Nikon website about it (and it's flare resistance is also mentioned), in "the thousand and one nights"...

... which is now not available on the website because the Nikon guys have enforced a landing page to celebrate their 80 years of being behind Canon (just joking...)

 

[BMbikerider]

No question - a Nikon F2a plus a F1.4 prime lens

 

[blockend]

The 28/3.5 is remarkably flare-resistant, and this is due to the design itself, not due to coatings (as people are usually led to believe...)

I also have a 28 f3.5 AIS, the last generation, Nikon didn't make it for long before they phased out the 3.5 design. Great for zone focus on the street, it offers almost rangefinder-like front to back focus through the viewfinder. Why do you prefer Canon? I have Nikon and Canon gear, but don't have a preference. The FDn range aren't as tough as Nikkors, the old breech lock Canons run them close. Optically there's little to choose.

 

[darinwc]

Wow this thread has gone awry.
New or old, Nikon or Canon, there are gems and there are duds. Yes technology has improved quite a bit. But would you really notice a difference on a 35mm frame?

Now back to the OP thread. I picked up a Yashica-Mat 124.. and it is a remarkably blingy camera.

 

[flavio81]

Why do you prefer Canon? I have Nikon and Canon gear, but don't have a preference.

Easier to mount/dismount (on the New FD series)
Cuter (New FD series)
Nicely marked focal length on the side (New FD series)
All FD/FL/R lenses work on FD/FL cameras with no need for modifications (there are a lot of AI cameras i can't use because i own pre-AI lenses and don't want to butcher them.)

Also, during the 60s, Canon had a strong need to reaffirm themselves as a strong competitor against Nikon and Asahi Optical, and to prepare the public perception of Canon Lenses in advance for the 1971 Canon F-1 system. This results in some very interesting designs for the Canon lenses where, to me, it is clear that they tried the maximum possible optical correction disregarding considerations of size or weight.

The FDn range aren't as tough as Nikkors, the old breech lock Canons run them close. Optically there's little to choose.

I think by the time you get to the AI era (1977->) and the New FD era (1979->), their are about equal in terms of toughness and construction. And on the FD lenses it will depend on the price range of the lens. For example the FD 50/1.4 has better internals than the FD 50/1.8, and the FD 28/2.0 better internals than the FD 28/2.8. "Better internals" meaning, for example, really nice ball bearings for the aperture linkages to ride on.

However, for me the best built, smoothest SLR lenses are the M42 Pentax Super-Takumar or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar lenses.

 

[flavio81]

Wow this thread has gone awry.
New or old, Nikon or Canon, there are gems and there are duds. Yes technology has improved quite a bit. But would you really notice a difference on a 35mm frame?

Now back to the OP thread. I picked up a Yashica-Mat 124.. and it is a remarkably blingy camera.

The Non-G model? I think it was better built than the later "G" model.
I owned a 635.

 

[cooltouch]

The Non-G model? I think it was better built than the later "G" model.
I owned a 635.

I agree. I bought a 124G brand new back in 1985 and used it quite a bit before I sold it about five years later, when I bought my first Rolleiflex.

It was a very nice camera, but I always thought it felt (and looked) rather plasticky, and was probaby not very durable. Well, enough have survived since the end of production later in the 80s such that it would appear that, looking plasticky or no, it has withstood the test of time. But! Having said (written) all that, I must admit that I prefer the Yashica Mat 124 (no G). The 124 is built from metal and looks it. It just looks more durable, yet it has all the features of the 124 G (excepth the "gold" contacts, which supposedly is the reason for the name change). So I guess it was six or seven years ago, I started to look for a good TLR and the Yashica Mat 124 was close to the top of my want list. I was looking for a TLR that I knew took good pics but that I could pick up for less than $100. Well, I ended up paying a little more than $100 for my 124 including shipping. But I'm glad to have it in my collection.

 

[flavio81]

I agree. I bought a 124G brand new back in 1985 and used it quite a bit before I sold it about five years later, when I bought my first Rolleiflex.

It was a very nice camera, but I always thought it felt (and looked) rather plasticky, and was probaby not very durable. Well, enough have survived since the end of production later in the 80s such that it would appear that, looking plasticky or no, it has withstood the test of time. But! Having said (written) all that, I must admit that I prefer the Yashica Mat 124 (no G). The 124 is built from metal and looks it. It just looks more durable, yet it has all the features of the 124 G (excepth the "gold" contacts, which supposedly is the reason for the name change). So I guess it was six or seven years ago, I started to look for a good TLR and the Yashica Mat 124 was close to the top of my want list. I was looking for a TLR that I knew took good pics but that I could pick up for less than $100. Well, I ended up paying a little more than $100 for my 124 including shipping. But I'm glad to have it in my collection.

You know, there is another brand where "G" is a code that means "more plastic and inferior build quality": Nikon.

 

[cooltouch]

LOL

I can't go because i'm full time at the Canon-anon meetings... in reality i'm more of a Canon fan (see my signature.)

Hrm . . . I wonder if any are held in my neck-o-the-woods, cuz I should probably attend.

Canon FD/FL/R:
FL 19/3.5R "Canon pride"
FL 55/1.2 "f1,2 beautifier"
FL 85-300/5 "the huge beast"

I enjoyed reading through your list. We share many of the same lenses, both Canon and Nikon, and I agree with your comments. I quoted the above three, however, because I have or have had all of them. One FL lens that I'd strongly recommend you take a look at is the FL 35mm f/2.5. I bought my first copy in 1984 and, litteraly minutes after buying it, put it to use and ended up taking one of my favorite slides.

Regarding the FL 85-300mm f/5, I refer to mine as "The Bazooka" because it often seems to be the same size. I was lucky: the fitted leather case designed for it was included in the deal. I'd wondered idly before why the case is so wide on top and one day, when I had an FTb mounted to The Bazooka, I looked at the lens/camera combo, then looked at the case, then looked back at the lens/camera combo, then sort of just shrugged and dropped the combo into the case. And whaddya know? A perfect fit. So now it rests snuggly in its case and I keep a Canon FTb mounted to it as a rear lens cap.

The FL 19 R is a great lens. One of the nicest lenses I've ever owned. I wish I would have held onto it now. The FL 55mm f/1.2 is optically the same as the FD 55mm f/1.2 -- I've personally confirmed that photos taken with the two lenses of the same subject at the same time are identical. Another great lens which does a very good job even when shooting wide open.

 

[flavio81]

One FL lens that I'd strongly recommend you take a look at is the FL 35mm f/2.5. I bought my first copy in 1984 and, litteraly minutes after buying it, put it to use and ended up taking one of my favorite slides.

Michael McKewltouch,

It was because of YOUR posts applauding this lens on the 'net (i search forums before buying a lens) that i bought a FL 35/2.5 in the past!!! This is before i joined APUG!!

So "cooltouch" was a famous user to me. And i did read your comments on the 85-300 before buying it.

At the end i gave the 35 away to a friend because i didn't like it so much. I never found a peculiar quality to justify having it. And the stop down ring below the aperture ring was annoying.

The FL 55mm f/1.2 is optically the same as the FD 55mm f/1.2 -- I've personally confirmed that photos taken with the two lenses of the same subject at the same time are identical. Another great lens which does a very good job even when shooting wide open.

I've owned the FD as well. The FL feels smaller. The helicoid in my FD had some play, while the one on my FL is just fine.

btw, I think i've seen a multicoated FL 55/1.2 in the past. (!)

 

[flavio81]

@cooltouch

PS: The 35/2.5 FL is the same optical design than the R 35/2.5.

The R 35/2.5 was Canon's first SLR wideangle lens, introduced aug 1960. The Canonflex was introduced in 1959 without any wideangle lens (!), while the Nikon F was introduced that year with a wideangle lens (35/2.8)

I have strong reason to believe Canon was lagging Nikon and Pentax in wideangle lens designs, and that the FL19/3.5R (november 1965) was finally the revenge of Canon against the competition. I've some magazine review/test* where the Canon 19mm blows away the japanese equivalents and is perfectly on par with the Leitz and Zeiss Jena offerings (Super-Angulon-R 21/3.4 and Flekgoton 20/4). both of which are either slower and/or narrower. Btw it totally blowed away the Nikkor-O 21/4 which is not retrofocus.

Here are the results of my careful research regarding introduction of new lenses. This is a list of the introduction date for lenses:

extreme wide angles:
Nikkor 21/4 (non reflex) Oct 1959
-- non retrofocus
FL19/3.5 (non reflex) Aug 1964
-- Canon says 'me too', but this is basically a rangefinder lens
FL19/3.5R Nov 1965
-- THE REVENGE !!
Nikkor-UD 20/3.5 (reflex) Nov 1967
-- Two years later Nikkor attempts it, but this lens doesn't get too good reviews on the 'net. Haven't tried it.

In the 28-> 35mm category Pentax had the lead, Nikon the best designs, and Canon lagging:

28mm-35mm wide angles:
Pentax 35/4.0 1957 (4/4)}
-- first japanese retrofocus lens!! Pentax is the true pioneer on japanese SLR optics!
Nikkor-S 35/2.8 Oct 1959
-- this is for the introduction of the Nikon F. Nikon redesigned this lens many times over the 60s.
Pentax 35/2.3 1959 (6/5, primitive retrofocus angenieux-type)
-- fastest 35mm japanese lens, Canon didn't even have a 35mm lens (!)
Nikkor-H 28/3.5 March 1960
-- Nikon's breakthrough, because this lens is a good lens, even today. It is an improvement on the Angenieux Retrofocus design. The PC-Nikkor 35/3.5 is almost the same lens, enlarged.
R35/2.5 aug 1960
-- Canon's effort, which is similar to the Angenieux Retrofocus designs. No new ground here, no clever designs. I
Nikkor-O 35/2.0 Dec 1965
-- NIKON'S MASTERPIECE, in my opinion, a totally new, modern design.
FL28/3.5 Dic 1966}
-- A good lens, apparently, but it is 1966 and Canon only had the 19/3.5, 28/3.5 and 35/2.5, no f2.0 wideangle lens.

* Camera 35 Magazine, Dec. 1967, "ultra-wide lenses"

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
Here are the results of my careful research regarding introduction of new lenses. This is a list of the introduction date for lenses:
...

Flavio82,

You should write a book on this. Call it something like "Flavio's Lens Bluebook".

About 20 years ago I chatted with that McBroom fellow about a new edition to his camera book; he told me it wasn't going to happen.

 

[Robin Guymer]

My vote for the under $150 best looking is the black beauty, often ignored, Canon A1. All those dials, all those functions, TV & AV & P auto. Do you need any more confusion than that? Dress her up in a long black FD 35-105mm zoom, or the party girl in the short mini 50mm 1:1.4 and she's looking at you saying "take me out on the town honey and I'll show you a good time!"

 

[blockend]

My vote for the under $150 best looking is the black beauty, often ignored, Canon A1. All those dials, all those functions, TV & AV & P auto. Do you need any more confusion than that? Dress her up in a long black FD 35-105mm zoom, or the party girl in the short mini 50mm 1:1.4 and she's looking at you saying "take me out on the town honey and I'll show you a good time!"

History hasn't been kind to the A-1. It's a fine camera in many ways, and its claim to fame (or flaw, YMMV) was the ability (or necessity) to transfer control to multi-function wheels. I remember a college friend getting an A-1 when it first came out, and without looking at the handbook - we were guys after all - we thought we must be doing something wrong. I mean, there was an aperture ring round the lens so you must turn that to change the f-stop, surely? He never really "got" his A-1 and he said he wished he'd bought an OM1 like mine. Compared to a DSLR the A-1 looks almost primitive in retrospect, but it didn't in the late 70s. Now we assume a camera is all things to all people, from manual junkies to Program noobs and everything in between, but back then people expected to be in control of every aspect of their photography and not via little wheels. Ironically after 6 years of digital camera ownership I've concluded the only way to consistently achieve exactly what I want is full manual control.

I admire Canon's A-Series cameras more than I like them, and that's true of the T-Series, too. Both were incredibly innovative historically, but began the move away from engagement and toward automation. That said the A-1 lacks nothing in picture taking ability and the FDn lenses are mostly excellent.

 

[flavio81]

Flavio82,

You should write a book on this. Call it something like "Flavio's Lens Bluebook".

About 20 years ago I chatted with that McBroom fellow about a new edition to his camera book; he told me it wasn't going to happen.

View attachment 177018

LOL! Thanks for the suggestion!

I wonder what is covered inside the McBluebook?

 

[flavio81]

My vote for the under $150 best looking is the black beauty, often ignored, Canon A1. All those dials, all those functions, TV & AV & P auto. Do you need any more confusion than that?

A-1 is really straightforward to understand after a simple 30 second explanation.

The only puzzling things on the A1 would be:

- the switch to turn off the display (can give a heart attack to newbies). It is unlabeled so it's like a "secret" function.
- the EEEEE that happens when you stop down the lens and then want to return to normal operation.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
I wonder what is covered inside the McBluebook?

Flavio83,

You should get a copy. It's like a little encyclopedia of the more popular cameras, even covering medium and large format a bit. Over the last two decades I've spent many hours with mine, reading about cameras and their features that I eventually bought once prices came down.

A-1 is really straightforward to understand after a simple 30 second explanation.
...

Well, I think many do understand it but just don't like it. There are two controls for aperture settings. Most elegant to me are cameras that do this:

Full manual: set aperture on lens, set speed on body.
Aperture priority: set aperture on lens, set speed to A.
Shutter priority: set A on lens, set speed on body.
Program: set A on lens, set A on body.

 

[cooltouch]

About 20 years ago I chatted with that McBroom fellow about a new edition to his camera book; he told me it wasn't going to happen.

View attachment 177018

That would be me, by the way, and after I put the 2000 edition to bed, I told my publisher that there wouldn't be another. And it was because the entire industry was changing so fast. If you look through the 2000 edition, you'll see that I had begun trying to track some of the more popular digital cameras. Where are those cameras today? In junk piles, most likely. There's just no way I could keep up with an industry where you had makers cranking out new products every few months. Things seem to have settled down some now that a megapixel plateau of sorts has been reached, but updating that book had become a stupendous, daunting challenge. I didn't have a staff -- it was just me. I did all the research, all the writing of camera details, all the pricing updates -- all of it. It was just me, and by the year 2000 I was about as burnt out as a person can get.

But I'm glad I got that last edition out. Because all the info in the book has historical significance. Even some of the prices are accurate. Most aren't though. But even so, that's all historic information.

If you're interested in what's inside the book, you can go to Amazon and have a look. Here's a link (btw, I don't get any royalty from the sale of books Amazon sells because they're either close-outs or used).

https://www.amazon.com/McBrooms-Cam...690&sr=8-1&keywords=mcbroom's+camera+bluebook

 

[Theo Sulphate]

That would be me, by the way, ...

I knew that.

... after I put the 2000 edition to bed, I told my publisher that there wouldn't be another. And it was because the entire industry was changing so fast.

Yep, that's what you told me nearly 20 years ago. Still, I am happy to own an often-read copy of the 1995-1996 edition (bought new) as you can see in the photo.

It was from your book that I first learned of the slow speeds available on the F2's self-timer. So, I had to buy one...

 

[Andrew K]

best depends on the lens mount.

For Canon FD it would be a AE1 Program (even through it has plastic top/bottom covers). Otherwise you can find a rough New F1 for the price.

For Canon EOS a EOS 1 or 1N (again with a plastics top cover)

Minolta MC/MD - Any SRT series - I have a soft spot for a SRT 100X because it was my first "real" camera

Nikon - I'm partial to a Nikkormat FT3, although my Nikon F cost me $90..

Olympus - OM 2 (I like having auto)

Pentax K - I have a soft spot for ME Supers

Pentax Screw - not sure - I'm looking at the moment - probably a Fujica ST801 or 901 for the metering

Honorable mentions go to Topcon RE Super (mine has a motordrive), Praktica VLC (love the interchangeable prism), Retina 3C and my old Zorki 1

Having said all that it may not be all metal, it may not shoot manual easily, but for the price nothing beats a good working Canon T90 - it can do so much - multi spot metering, multiple exposure modes (with safety switch to stop you mucking up exposures) - and the built in motor is handy too. Oh - and it still looks as good as the day it first came out in the 1980's

 

[faberryman]

Having said all that it may not be all metal, it may not shoot manual easily, but for the price nothing beats a good working Canon T90 - it can do so much - multi spot metering, multiple exposure modes (with safety switch to stop you mucking up exposures) - and the built in motor is handy too. Oh - and it still looks as good as the day it first came out in the 1980's

Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. I think it looks like a plastic brick with a garish front logo. Give me an F-1 or a black FTb any day.