Let's discuss MANUAL-FOCUS ONLY, THIRD PARTY ONLY, Super-Wide-Angle Lenses

[flavio81]

I have liked Olympus because of their Pen series -- and several of them had very fast lenses too. But their lenses only went to 20mm. That's super-wide on a full-frame, but not on a half-frame. I could use adapters/converters, but I decided to improvise -- see:

I love the fixed-lens Olympus cameras. I think those are the best machines Olympus did and where they did their best.

The OM-1, however, while being influential (it steered the market into compact machines) wasn't the best implementation of what a "compact SLR" could be. Pentax did this task better, with the MX, ME variants and the LX.

It seems, however, that Olympus had the best marketing department, so people out there believe some outlandish claims about the OM system.

 

[xkaes]

The 17mm Tamron S.P. I have, the rubber hood takes 82 mm filters.

Yes, but as has been mentioned above, they are a royal PITA to use.

 

[flavio81]

The reason I mentioned Olympus though, was the number of lenses no one else had at the time they came out, like their numerous f/2 lenses like the 21/2, 24/2, 50/2 macro, 180/2 and 250/2. And their array of 6 macro bellows lenses, from 20/2 to 135/4.5
I've never owned Olympus, but I highly respect what they accomplished with the OM system.

However, if you check out the story of many manufacturers you'll find each one has quite a few "industry first".

For example Canon was the first to introduce the fastest lens for SLR cameras (58/1.2 Super-Canomatic R) and the widest retrofocus lens at some time (FL 19/3.5R), first fluorite lenses (FL-F), first digital CNC machines to manufacture aspheric surfaces, first standard lens with floating system (FD 55/1.2 aspherical) etc.

Nikon was the first to introduce a 35/2 and 35/1.4 lens. They introduced the floating system ("CRC" system). First one to introduce a shift-lens, too. And I'm sure they have a lot of 'firsts'.

Pentax was the first to introduce a japanese retrofocus wideangle lens (35/4) and the first to introduce a 50/1.4 lens, way before Canon Nikon and the others. First one to introduce a 50/1.2 lens too, while neither Canon or Nikon had such a thing (they had 55/1.2 lenses).

And if we use "exotic lenses" as a measure, Canon and Nikon get the award, for example Nikon's 6mm/2.8 220-degree fisheye, 10/5.6 OP-Fisheye, Canon's 85/1.2L, 24/1.4L, 200/1.8L, 5200mm reflex lens and many many other exotics.

The prestige of "widest rectilinear SLR lens" has passed from Pentax (15/3.5) to Canon (14/2.8) to Nikon (13/5.6) through the 70s and 80s for example.

 

[benjiboy]

Yes, but as has been mentioned above, they are a royal PITA to use.

Not to mention ruinously expensive.

 

[xkaes]

Not to mention very hard to find.

That's why I decided to attach a 67-to-77mm step-up ring to my Tamron 17mm -- it has a 67mm front with no thread. Now I can add on any 77mm filter and shade.

 

[btaylor]

Not to mention very hard to find.

That's why I decided to attach a 67-to-77mm step-up ring to my Tamron 17mm -- it has a 67mm front with no thread. Now I can add on any 77mm filter and shade.

Which is exactly what I am putting together for mine. I ordered the step up ring and a 77mm lens hood on eBay, I’ll know in a week how that works out. The lens hood is on eBay for $75, but it hardly seems worth it, especially since I don’t have any 82mm filters. I’ll see how my $15 purchase works out and report here.

 

[lxdude]

However, if you check out the story of many manufacturers you'll find each one has quite a few "industry first".

I brought up Olympus as being worthy of being included in a "top five" rather than the "top four" you mentioned, because of Olympus's audacious and extensive lens line, which separates it from other brands such as the Yashica/Tomioka and "others as well" mentioned by the person I was replying to. Konica, Topcon, Fujinon, among others were highly regarded for their optical and build quality (I first had EBC Fujinons, bought in the early to mid 70s and I still enjoy using them). But they all offered pretty much the same lens lines, which while adequate, generally lacked exotic lenses, especially ultra-wide or high speed ones. There were exceptions: Fuji had a very nice 35/1.9 and a lovely 19/3.5, but there were no 24 or 28 f/2s, or 180 or 200 2.8s.
I just think Olympus put themselves in the rarefied atmosphere of top lens makers. It seems from your statement earlier that you don't see their lenses as being optically as good as the big four you mentioned, which excludes them from the company of the other four. Ok, difference of opinion.

 

[nsurit]

The Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 (51B model) has Normal, R60, Y2 filters. I've seen other 51Bs with different filters. I also have the Olympus OM 16mm and 18mm and most often would take the Tamron if I thought I might be going someplace with a higher chance of getting a lens banged up as the Tamron, although great glass was mechanically a little banged up. Think great glass but definately "user" grade.

 

[lxdude]

The OM-1, however, while being influential (it steered the market into compact machines) wasn't the best implementation of what a "compact SLR" could be. Pentax did this task better, with the MX, ME variants and the LX.

It seems, however, that Olympus had the best marketing department, so people out there believe some outlandish claims about the OM system.

I've never owned one, but back in the day I used a friend's OM-1 for an hour. There were things I really liked ergonomically, like the shutter speed selector around the lens mount and the aperture ring at the front of shorter lenses. It made the camera handle so well. Some folks hated those, but not me. (I disliked the shutter/ASA selector on the Nikkormat, so it wasn't just that it went around the lens mount). The viewfinder was astonishingly large and bright. The low vibration was noticeable. The OM-1 showed what could be done.
Yes, it had its limitations. It had an ordinary center-needle CdS meter, ordinary silk shutter to 1/1000, no shutter or aperture in the finder (but on the other hand that kept it mostly uncluttered).
Olympus certainly spent a lot of money advertising it, and it was very successful. It was never regarded as on the level of the F2, F-1, or XK, but it didn't have the features of those, either. The MX was clearly a competitor when it came to compactness and features, but I've always seen the LX as more a competitor to the F3 and F-1 while being the size of an FM/FE.

I don't really know what the outlandish claims were, but some folks lap up anything.
I knew a guy who said he bought a Minolta because they were the only company which made their own optical glass. I told him that wasn't true, but he showed me an ad wherein Minolta did indeed claim that. So I showed him Nikon and Fuji brochures I had in which they showed them making glass (and the exotic platinum crucibles they used to do it). Canon claimed to make their optical glass, and were promoting their big foray into fluorite elements. And there was some other maker I can't remember. Konica, maybe.
I think it's likely that they all bought glass as well, as that would make economic sense with readily available, more ordinary types. Two very highly regarded lens makers I can think of offhand never claimed, to my knowledge, to make their own glass: Pentax and Leica. So making optical glass is not a prerequisite to making excellent lenses. But claiming to be the only one to make your own glass sold some cameras to easily impressed people.
BTW, the guy was crestfallen and a little upset once he found out the indisputable truth about Minolta's claim. I told him don't worry about it, his lenses weren't any less excellent because the claim was false.

 

[xkaes]

Which is exactly what I am putting together for mine. I ordered the step up ring and a 77mm lens hood on eBay, I’ll know in a week how that works out. The lens hood is on eBay for $75, but it hardly seems worth it, especially since I don’t have any 82mm filters. I’ll see how my $15 purchase works out and report here.

I would guess that an 82-77mm step-DOWN ring would not cause any vignetting. I do not get any with my 67-77mm step-UP ring. Please report back -- others might appreciate it.

 

[xkaes]

The Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 (51B model) has Normal, R60, Y2 filters. I've seen other 51Bs with different filters. I also have the Olympus OM 16mm and 18mm and most often would take the Tamron if I thought I might be going someplace with a higher chance of getting a lens banged up as the Tamron, although great glass was mechanically a little banged up. Think great glass but definately "user" grade.

The Tarmon 17mm MANUAL-FOCUS came in at least four versions. Some had filters built-in, some did not. The ones that did shows filter changes over time. In any event, even if the lens has built-in filters, you are stuck with those filters and no others -- and none of them will be a polarizer, IR, etc. That's unfortunate, but it's easy enough to turn whatever Tamron 17mm you have into a lens that accepts front-end filters.

 

[xkaes]

I knew a guy who said he bought a Minolta because they were the only company which made their own optical glass.

This is getting off topic, but Minolta never claimed to be the only company that made all their own glass. However, their advertising made it easy -- for the easily influenced -- to read that into what they were saying, such as "If you want something done right, do it yourself -- Minolta Rokkor lenses". They never pointed out that early Minolta cameras had lenses made by Asahi (Pentax).

The only company I can think of that only used one lens manufacturer for all of their lenses was Yashica. Their lenses from the beginning were all made by Tomioka (which was much older than Yashica and later merged with Yashica) -- and over the years sold lots of glass to lots of other camera companies as well.

 

[nsurit]

The Tarmon 17mm MANUAL-FOCUS came in at least four versions. Some had filters built-in, some did not. The ones that did shows filter changes over time. In any event, even if the lens has built-in filters, you are stuck with those filters and no others -- and none of them will be a polarizer, IR, etc. That's unfortunate, but it's easy enough to turn whatever Tamron 17mm you have into a lens that accepts front-end filters.

Yes, and the 51B, which I have is one of the ones that has built in filters. The 151B did not have built in filters. It is a PITA to find the lens hood if you don't have one.

 

[Moose22]

Got a iiif and have been enjoying it more than I expected. So now I'm thinking of wider lenses than the 50 it's wearing. I'll eventually find me an ltm 28 or 35 for regular wide, but this thread has me thinking about superwide. And the baby Voigtlander 15mm fits the minimal-sized aesthetic of the little leica.

So, honestly, will the 15 get much use if I get that VC 15 ltm lens?

Loving Huss' samples, but this is my conundrum right now. 15mm or 21mm? I much enjoy shooting the 20s (that shall remain nameless as they first party name brand), so I know the 21mm would work, but that 15 sure is intriguing.

 

[Huss]

Got a iiif and have been enjoying it more than I expected. So now I'm thinking of wider lenses than the 50 it's wearing. I'll eventually find me an ltm 28 or 35 for regular wide, but this thread has me thinking about superwide. And the baby Voigtlander 15mm fits the minimal-sized aesthetic of the little leica.

So, honestly, will the 15 get much use if I get that VC 15 ltm lens?

Loving Huss' samples, but this is my conundrum right now. 15mm or 21mm? I much enjoy shooting the 20s (that shall remain nameless as they first party name brand), so I know the 21mm would work, but that 15 sure is intriguing.

With either the 15 or the 21, but especially the 15, you have to have something in the foreground otherwise it will look like you just took a pic of something very far away!
The iiif would be great with any of the 15, 21 or 25mm ltm lenses, and you don’t have to worry about using the rf as the DOF is so great zone focusing is a breeze.
The one crucial thing is make sure the ovf you get has frame lines. The standard plastic one that came w the 15 did not and it is really difficult to get your shots level if you do not have frame lines.

 

[Moose22]

With either the 15 or the 21, but especially the 15, you have to have something in the foreground otherwise it will look like you just took a pic of something very far away!

You aren't kidding about that. You have to get pretty close with the 20, and darned close with the 18.

I was experimenting with zone focusing, standing RIGHT over her shoulder. Thankfully Joanna likes me and didn't swing any sticks in my direction.

My fisheye is 12mm, and doesn't even have focus. Everything is always in focus, even the bug that landed on the outside glass looks like dirt on the sensor of a digital. And you have to get way closer than I realized to the subjects... even knowing this many shots were too far away.

That said, I'm still leaning to 15mm. Not that I will turn up my nose at a 21mm if a deal comes along, I'd be able adapt either one and use it on the M3, as well. But I have the 20 and 18 for the Nikon. Might as well fill an ultrawide hole.

 

[Huss]

The 15 basically is focus free. And tiny. You could jump into the middle of the action, take a shot, and be gone before they knew what hit them!

 

[Sirius Glass]

The 15 basically is focus free. And tiny. You could jump into the middle of the action, take a shot, and be gone before they knew what hit them!

 

[btaylor]

I would guess that an 82-77mm step-DOWN ring would not cause any vignetting. I do not get any with my 67-77mm step-UP ring. Please report back -- others might appreciate it.

Okay, concerning the Tamron 51B 17mm f/3.5 lens hood adaptation, it works! Thank you, xkaes. $15 (including shipping!) on eBay for both the wide angle 77mm hood (lens cap included) and a twin pack of 67-77mm step up rings. Black silicone sparingly applied around the 67mm threads keeps it secure.
No vignetting. Great set up.

 

[xkaes]

And good-lookin' to boot!

Here's my Tamron 17mm f3.5 (right) on a Chaika 2M half-frame and Sigma 18mm f2.8 on a Zapa full-frame -- both with step up rings to 77mm:

 

[Huss]

Okay, concerning the Tamron 51B 17mm f/3.5 lens hood adaptation, it works! Thank you, xkaes. $15 (including shipping!) on eBay for both the wide angle 77mm hood (lens cap included) and a twin pack of 67-77mm step up rings. Black silicone sparingly applied around the 67mm threads keeps it secure.
No vignetting. Great set up. View attachment 319301 View attachment 319302 View attachment 319303

great looking camera!

 

[Patrick Robert James]

I have a Cambron 20mm 2.8 that I bought back in the 90s from KEH for my Yashica/Contax. I couldn't afford the Zeiss lens. Once stopped down a couple stops it is as good as anything. Of course the Cambron name was from that scheister New York camera store that I've forgotten the name of. I stlll have the lens. Never needed to get the Zeiss. I never could figure out who made the thing. I'm guessing Tokina but the couple times I looked I couldn't find anything that looked like it.

 

[xkaes]

You're thinking of Cambridge Camera Company. Like Spiratone, they sold a lot of re-badged gear -- from not-so-good to great -- but always at a good price. For example, Spiratone sold rebadged Yashica/Tomioka and Sigma lenses. Figuring out where their lenses came from can be a challenge, but a side-by-side comparison is usually a give-away. Is this what yours looks like?

 

[Patrick Robert James]

You're thinking of Cambridge Camera Company. Like Spiratone, they sold a lot of re-badged gear -- from not-so-good to great -- but always at a good price. For example, Spiratone sold rebadged Yashica/Tomioka and Sigma lenses. Figuring out where their lenses came from can be a challenge, but a side-by-side comparison is usually a give-away. Is this what yours looks like?

View attachment 319375

Except for the aperture ring it is just like that. Same colors and focusing ring. Tamioka? That would make sense since they made some great lenses.

 

[xkaes]

Except for the aperture ring it is just like that. Same colors and focusing ring. Tamioka? That would make sense since they made some great lenses.

The aperture ring would, of course, be different for different cameras. I don't know what this one is. Not Minolta. Canon???. Anyway it could have been Tomioka, of course, but Tokina comes to mind. They often had focusing grips that resembled Minolta Rokkor-X.