lens recommendations

[CMoore]

I see these threads, frequently.
Somebody buys an SLR of a brand, or mount, they have not owned previously and they ask for a "Lens Recommendation".
Did..........
Minolta
Nikon
Leica
Olympus
Pentax
Canon ...........
Make a "Bad" lens with an aperture in the 1.4 to 2.8 range.?
I ask this as a complete amateur. .

What are people concerned with................the lens will make color film look bad.....black and white film will have lousy contrast.?
How many lens in the above f/stop range were a crappy lens.?
Thank You

 

[Sirius Glass]

Minolta Rokkor lenses have great coatings which give them great contrast
Nikon Nikkor lenses are similar

I have had very good experiences with Tamron lenses which are made by Bronica

I was disappointed with the Vivitar lenses made before the Series I lenses. Those lenses were much lower contrast than the Rokkor lenses from the same time.

Zeiss lenses even back to the mid 1930s were very sharp and of course the Zeiss lenses made for Leica, Rollei and Hasselblad are great lenses.

 

[BrianShaw]

A lot of times I think folks asking this kind of question are insecure, unwilling to do their own research, or overthinking the situation. And sometimes they just want to talk.

 

[250swb]

Every range will have a low point but there are no brands on that list to avoid. For each focal length you buy research it first, find out if the f/2.8 is better than the f/2, or do you need a fast lens that's big and heavy or would a smaller slower lens be better? In terms of quality there have been plenty of times in the past of photographers carrying Leica and Nikon cameras in the same environment (often both brands being used by the same photographer), so for example in a photo book or exhibition about the Vietnam war could you tell the difference which camera took which image? I doubt you could.

 

[Paul Howell]

Given the F stop range I'm guessing that your asking about a normal lens in the 48 to 57mm range. Other than Olympus I owned or owned all the other brands and have or had many examples of normal lens ranging from the 50s, Leica IIIG with 50mm to Minolta A mount and Sony AF 1.4. Coating have improved as had computer assisted designs, but my oldest lens a Pentax M42 mount 50 1.4 is very usable with film, has issues with color if shooting digital. Other factors when working with old lens is if dropped the aliment of the glass elements can shift. What complicated matters is there are winner and losers, every maker on your list made lens from fisheyes to super telephoto, do research, buy from a seller that allows returns, shoot a roll and see if you like the results.

 

[abruzzi]

I think people are looking for magic. This idea that there is a magical lens out there that makes up for any shortcoming the photographer might have. In the pentax system I have 50's ranging from f1.4 to f4, in the Nikon system I have 50's ranging from f1.2 to f3.5 and all of them take great photographs, and none of them are "magic". I frankly don't believe in magic lenses (except maybe the 50mm f2 Xenon on the Kodak Retina) and think you're better off learning all the other points of photography so you can take great photographs with a mediocre lens.

 

[BrianShaw]

Shhhhhhh… please don’t let the word out about the Retina Xenon… it will became a cult classic and Retinas will become ungodly expensive.

 

[Paul Howell]

The saving grace about Retina's that will keep Retina from becoming cult classic is getting one repaired, at this point there is only one repair tech that I know of in New Zealand who will work on the shutters. I have a IIIC big that someday I will send for servicing, slow shutter speeds and rangefinder adjustment.

 

[BrianShaw]

The saving grace about Retina's that will keep Retina from becoming cult classic is getting one repaired, at this point there is only one repair tech that I know of in New Zealand who will work on the shutters. I have a IIIC big that someday I will send for servicing, slow shutter speeds and rangefinder adjustment.

I had my IIIC go on a vacation to New Zealand. It came back perfectly refreshed. Price was right but shipping was where I got a bit of sticker shock. There is another Retina-specialist tech (US-based) who is a great guy but I don’t yet have experience with his services yet. The shutter is actually rather standard… it’s the body internals that are complex and quite unique.

 

[AZD]

I’m guilty of starting such a thread recently in regards to 50mm options for Leica. Honest answer to an honest question, I think it’s the particular mount that prompted my question. The classifieds in SLC (and many other places I’m sure) aren’t exactly flooded with M or L39 lenses, so the choice has to be a bit more targeted, and anything that doesn’t work out possibly harder to sell on. Contrast that with Nikon, where I have no problem buying a lens and running it through the paces. As long as it’s in good shape it’s a low risk proposition. I’ve added a few keepers that way, and not the ones you might expect - mostly pre-AI stuff.

Which kinda gets to the question again… If I’m happy with a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor-S Auto with single coating, why bother worrying about anything? On paper it’s not a great lens, but on darkroom prints I love it. This line of thought almost makes me want to choose the “worst” Leica fast 50 (Summarit 1.5, says the internet) and see just how not-crappy I can make it perform.

Which finally gets to the real question: What am I actually looking for? Magic? Perfection? Unique rendering? Something else that doesn’t exist? Maybe. Or maybe just a lens that works without getting in the way (weird ergonomics, quirky optical characteristics, strange filter sizes, etc.)

At some point I guess you have to accept the risk of getting a lemon and get on with it. It’s not the end of the world. There are other fruits to try.

Sometimes though just hearing other opinions is useful. It helps put the matter in context.

BTW, those Retinas are excellent little cameras. Even the lowly Tessar/Xenar models are good - sharp, excellent contrast, low/no distortion. And smaller, lighter, quieter, and cheaper than a Leica… They take some getting used to though.

 

[cowanw]

Almost all of these companies make almost all their lenses far too sharp. Things are especially bad since the 1930's.

 

[abruzzi]

There is someone here on Photrio that has been repairing Retinas, but I forget who, shutterfinger maybe? Mine has had the Chris Sherlock treatment, and the lens is pretty awesome. On my Nikon, I actually prefer the cheapest 50–the Nikkor-H 50/2, and on the Pentax, the 1.7 is every bit as good as the 1.4, and I suspect the 2.0 is just a 1.7 with a bit more mechanical vignetting.

I actually bought the WF Ektar for my LF cameras because it’s a double gauss, and the Retina Xenon is also a double gauss, and that xenon is the closest thing I’ve seen to a magic lens, so I wanted to recreate it on LF. So far I’m pleased with the 100, but haven’t had a chance to shoot the 190 yet.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

I've only been concerned with lens focal length, and that it's clean.

 

[BrianShaw]

There is someone here on Photrio that has been repairing Retinas

paulbarden

 

[gone]

I think people ask because it's one of the most important parts of the photography puzzle, and a lens makes a huge difference in image quality, bokeh, sharpness, all that. Or, because putting the wrong lens on your Nikon camera may be a big mistake if it won't come off, so good to ask about things like that first.

But recommendations are good only as far as they go, this is subjective, as well as objective. A lot of people love Zeiss lenses, I don't because the bokeh and background in general is too busy. So here's a case of two different recommendations, and neither is right or wrong.

I'll usually ask questions if I don't know, but so many times it's come down to simply buying the lens, trying it out, and selling it or keeping it based on that.

 

[Huss]

I see these threads, frequently.
Somebody buys an SLR of a brand, or mount, they have not owned previously and they ask for a "Lens Recommendation".
Did..........
Minolta
Nikon
Leica
Olympus
Pentax
Canon ...........
Make a "Bad" lens with an aperture in the 1.4 to 2.8 range.?
I ask this as a complete amateur. .

What are people concerned with................the lens will make color film look bad.....black and white film will have lousy contrast.?
How many lens in the above f/stop range were a crappy lens.?
Thank You

Honestly the most important thing is the condition of the lens. Is it haze/fungus free? Does it have scratches on the glass (the back matters much more than the front)? Does the aperture stop down and open correctly? Is there oil on the aperture blades (that can cause haze in the lens later). Does the focus ring turn smoothly?
All the above make great lenses that can take superb pics. What matters most is technique. No matter how sharp a lens can be, if you miss focus/have camera shake etc it does not matter..

 

[Sirius Glass]

Almost all of these companies make almost all their lenses far too sharp. Things are especially bad since the 1930's.

That is never a problem. One can put diffusion filters or disks into use. However if a lens is not sharp enough there is little that can be done.

 

[Paul Howell]

Maybe 10 years ago, likely more used the last of my microfilm to test all the 50ish mm lens I had, Konica, Minolta, Pentax M42, K, Miranda, Petri, Mamiya, Chinon, Cosina, Yashica. Although not at all under ideal lab bench conditions results showed that all of the 50mm I tested could resolve Tmax 200. What mattered were the coating and contrast. In terms of sharpness the Konica 50 1.7 was a bit sharper than the Miranda 50 1.9, a surprise was the Petri 50mm (forgot the speed, 1.8?) was right up there with Minolta, Mamiya, which were neck in neck with the others. I stored that lot of negatives and data sheet, too lazy to unpack the rental to look for it.

By the 70s I think all of the 50s on the market were very good. Build quality, hard to tell, the breech lock on the Petri is getting lose, the breech is on the camera not the lens. My Pentax M42 1.4 is a little wobbly as well, others have held up very well.
If I was starting out and wanted a entry level system with great lens, Konica AR. Pay extra for clean working T3, 50mm 1.7, early 28mm and 135mm 3.5. Then add lens depending on what you are shooting. On the other hand if planning on shooting sports, just go the Nikon F2, skip the 135 and go for a 200 or 300.

 

[Craig75]

My completely unfounded opinion is that none of those companies made a bad lens in the pro / enthusiast line ups. One company might push the boundaries of the tech or design but everyone else would catch up.

I think where it gets complicated is in third party lenses (even today) where there is the whole gamut from classics, to sleepers, to just poor quality gear.

 

[AZD]

What matters most is technique. No matter how sharp a lens can be, if you miss focus/have camera shake etc it does not matter..

This is absolutely true. Aside from features that make a lens (or camera, or anything else) hard to use, technique and subject determine everything else.

I’ve recently been looking through a book of HCB’s work from China during the revolution. He was every bit the legendary master of composition he’s made out to be. And many of his images are… kinda soft and out of focus? It’s true, but also irrelevant. Look at Gold Rush. Probably a too-slow shutter to get enough light in a dark alley. An incredible image all the same because of the subject matter. Would it be better if he nailed the focus and avoided blur? I’m not convinced that’s true. Time and time again the power of the images overcomes any technical imperfections.

Looking through photo books is a great way to understand the (ir)relevance of equipment for the type of images you enjoy.

 

[abruzzi]

My completely unfounded opinion is that none of those companies made a bad lens in the pro / enthusiast line ups.

Its a good thing you qualified it with "pro / enthusiast line ups" because my first thought was the Nikkor 43-86 zoom. Its not as bad as everyone thinks, but that doesn't make it good.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some times regardless of the equipment, a photograph is not made entirely in focus or with "the perfect focus", however the composition will be strong enough for the photograph. However when a camera lens is unable to obtain a sharp enough focus for the composition, nothing can help it. I believe that one should buy the best camera equipment that they can afford and are able to either use or grow into using and then work on the lighting, exposure, composition, ... I have seen a very few people who had the money to buy photographic equipment well beyond their abilities will ever get to be and just struggle. The point is that if the photographer cannot get the subject into good enough focus, the composition will not work. One can always soften the focus but without computer enhancement a blurry subject cannot be sharpened.

 

[Huss]

Its a good thing you qualified it with "pro / enthusiast line ups" because my first thought was the Nikkor 43-86 zoom. Its not as bad as everyone thinks, but that doesn't make it good.

The v1 43-86 was not good.
But the v2 43-86 was just fine. v2 does not have the silver filter ring.

 

[Huss]

Some times regardless of the equipment, a photograph is not made entirely in focus or with "the perfect focus", however the composition will be strong enough for the photograph. However when a camera lens is unable to obtain a sharp enough focus for the composition, nothing can help it. I believe that one should buy the best camera equipment that they can afford and are able to either use or grow into using and then work on the lighting, exposure, composition, ... I have seen a very few people who had the money to buy photographic equipment well beyond their abilities will ever get to be and just struggle. The point is that if the photographer cannot get the subject into good enough focus, the composition will not work. One can always soften the focus but without computer enhancement a blurry subject cannot be sharpened.

Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" - one of the most downloaded pics from the Library of Congress - is out of focus.
If you click on the image you will see the back of her child's head is what is in focus.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg

 

[Sirius Glass]

Some times regardless of the equipment, a photograph is not made entirely in focus or with "the perfect focus", however the composition will be strong enough for the photograph. However when a camera lens is unable to obtain a sharp enough focus for the composition, nothing can help it. I believe that one should buy the best camera equipment that they can afford and are able to either use or grow into using and then work on the lighting, exposure, composition, ... I have seen a very few people who had the money to buy photographic equipment well beyond their abilities will ever get to be and just struggle. The point is that if the photographer cannot get the subject into good enough focus, the composition will not work. One can always soften the focus but without computer enhancement a blurry subject cannot be sharpened.

Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother" - one of the most downloaded pics from the Library of Congress - is out of focus.
If you click on the image you will see the back of her child's head is what is in focus.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/Lange-MigrantMother02.jpg

A good example of my statement. Thank you.