Smallest 35mm interchangeable lens options please!

blockend · Dec 6, 2018

The smallest, lightest SLR combo I've found is the Canon 3000 series and 40mm pancake. The Nikon F55 is slightly smaller, but there's no pancake option. The problem for SLRs is lenses can only be reduced to a point, and the rear flange distance is limited by the mirror box.

Cholentpot · Dec 6, 2018

In for the Pentax ME series. Also the OM-1 is pretty small and light.

R.Gould · Dec 6, 2018

Leica or Canon LTM rangefinders are about the smallest rangefinders I know of, and unless you intend to use Leica lenses the lenses can be pretty affordable, use the FSU Ltm lenses and great, I have induster folding leica copy lens on my leica IIIf which cost me peanuts, and is great, s Komura 80 mm lems again cost peanuts and good lens, an old Canon 135 and an Jupiter 35mm lens, all great lenses, buy a body and get a lenses, or the other tiny camera I use is the Werramat, terrific camera and with 2 extra lens, a 35mm and a 100, both made by Carl Zeiss, Can't really help with SR's as I haven't used one for many
Richard

Pentode · Dec 6, 2018

Thomas Keidan said:
Any rangefinder options anyone?

Yes: post #8 in this thread.

Pentode said:
As rangefinders go I think the Braun Super Paxette might be as small as it gets.

Far smaller than any LTM body and there's actually a fairly wide assortment of lenses available. As far as budget goes, you could get one in really good shape and a trio of lenses and still have a lot of money left over for film with your budget.

macfred · Dec 6, 2018

blockend said:
... The Nikon F55 is slightly smaller, but there's no pancake option ...

The ultracompact Nikkor 45mm f/2.8 P "pancake" lens will work with the N55 I guess.

ic-racer · Dec 6, 2018

Yashica FX-3 is nice and small and very repairable. I have a few of them. Here it looks like it is between two 6x6 cameras, but all three are 35mm! Other good news, all three take ZEISS lenses!!

ic-racer · Dec 6, 2018

N75/N55 are nice also.

Gerry M · Dec 6, 2018

ic-racer said:
Yashica FX-3 is nice and small and very repairable. I have a few of them. Here it looks like it is between two 6x6 cameras, but all three are 35mm! Other good news, all three take ZEISS lenses!!

View attachment 212425

ic-racer, in your post #31, what model is the Rolleiflex to the left?

TheRook · Dec 6, 2018

Pentode said:
Yes: post #8 in this thread.

Far smaller than any LTM body and there's actually a fairly wide assortment of lenses available. As far as budget goes, you could get one in really good shape and a trio of lenses and still have a lot of money left over for film with your budget.

Finding lenses for the Super Paxette may be a bit of a challenge. But I agree, it is a very small, compact camera!

dmr · Dec 6, 2018

macfred said:
Pentax ME or MX is worth a look - I guess the SMX Pentax M 40mm f/2.8 is a very small -pancake- lens.

Here's the Pentax MX sitting beside the Mamiya 1000 DTL. The DTL is about the usual size for an early 1970s SLR and the MX is significantly more compact. Of course this MX has a "flamethrower" lens on it. With a normal lens it's much easier to carry.

Down Under · Dec 6, 2018

A Nikon F65 (aka N65) with Nikon Series E lenses.

I have two of those and the Nikon 28, 35, 50 and 100 E lenses. The cameras (Ebay purchases) cost less A$50 each and I've never paid more than A$100 for any E lens.All the standard (52mm) Nikon accessories can be used. One cameras has an old (pre AI) 300mm permanently on it and lives on a tripod, for grab shots and the occasional 'roo taken in our back yard in rural Tasmania.

The F65/N65 while somewhat 'basic' to use, can be played with and exposure adjustments made to suit.

They are also as light as any SLR can be. When I go backpacking or exploring in Asia, I often take one with a 28mm, in a dish towel and tucked into a plastic bag in my backpack. Weight is negligible. Often the films I carry with me weigh almost as much as the gear.

Results speak for themselves. In the days when I shot stock, I sold many images with this kit.

An F65 with a 28 E will go a long way. Then add suitable lenses as you go. As I did - 50, 100, 35. Two zooms are also available, both (so I'm told) very sharp.

Save money, shoot lots of good images. As the local yokels say in these parts, Bob's your uncle!

Kodachromeguy · Dec 6, 2018

Oh, my, you have received a jumble of recommendations that bounce all over the place. Maybe this will help. You want small, with changeable lenses, so I will try to rank in increasing size. This list is for commonly available models, not really obscure items. And note that I may have missed some brands.

Rangefinder cameras (excluding the FSU models because I have no experience with them):
1. Leica or Minolta CL
2. Minolta CLE (if you can find one that works)
3. Leica thread-mount. (Note you can use a collapsible 50 mm lens)
4. (Maybe) One of the Kodak Retina cameras
5. Canon thread-mount rangefinders
6. One of the Cosina-made Bessa cameras from the 2000s
7. Leica M or Canon 7
8. Nikon rangefinders

SLR cameras:
1. Pentax MX or ME (they are the same size)
2 Contax S2 and S2b
3. Olympus OM1, OM2, OM3, OM4
4. Yashica FX-3 and similar models (I am not sure how many varieties were sold)
5. Nikon EM (not exactly sure of size), FG, and FG-20
6. Pentax LX
7. Pentax Spotmatic
8. Various Minolta and Nikon FM, FE models (I consider them mid-size)

(I added a few more SLRs as I remembered more or were reminded by readers who added comments.)

Pentode · Dec 6, 2018

I was in a camera shop earlier this evening and handled a Pentax MX with a 45mm 'pancake' lens on it and it was, in fact, quite small.

MattKing · Dec 6, 2018

Kodachromeguy said:
2. Olympus OM1, OM2, OM3, OM4

Look for an OM-G/OM-20. The same size as the other 4, but a fair bit lighter. Much more of a camera for the amateur enthusiast than the others, but that isn't necessarily bad. And like the 2, 3 and 4, the OM-G takes readily available batteries.
With respect to the Olympus Zuiko OM lenses, there is a relatively rare and really expensive 40mm pancake lens, but the 35mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.8 lenses aren't much bigger and are considerably better priced. My smallest lens is my 24mm f/2.8, but that is kind of special purpose.
On the other hand, my favourite kit of a 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 with an OM body fit all together in a very compact bag, with room for film, filters, accesories and a small flash.
The 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2 command a price premium, but substitute a 35mm f/2.8 or 50mm f/1.8 for the 35mm f/2, and a 100 mm f/2.8 or 135mm f/3.5 for the 85mm f/2, and the whole kit would still be nice and small.

Theo Sulphate · Dec 7, 2018

Kodachromeguy said:
...
SLR cameras:
1. Pentax MX or ME (they are the same size)
2. Olympus OM1, OM2, OM3, OM4
3. Yashica FX-3 and similar models (I am not sure how many varieties were sold)
4. Pentax LX
5. Pentax Spotmatic
6. Various Minolta and Nikon FM, FE models (I consider them mid-size)

I would add Nikon FG or FG-20, which is slightly larger than the tiny ME and about the same size as the OM-1.

Sewin · Dec 7, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
I would add Nikon FG or FG-20,

I agree ( I mentioned this one earlier). With a pancake lens it is small.

AgX · Dec 7, 2018

Thomas Keidan said:
Any rangefinder options anyone?

??
You already got several.

Aside of this:
My experience is that one must have held a camera in hand, and at ones eye. Advices are of very limited use.

And as chances to have a great variety to chose from are very limited, just look around. Rangefinder cameras you likely will come across locally, a rangefinder with a set of three lenses would be a rarity.
If you come across something that fits you, take it.
Tenthousands of camera models were made and here at Apug typically only the common suspects are hinted at.

Ste_S · Dec 7, 2018

I think the OP needs to think about what he needs some more. For a start, an AF or MF body ?
There's plenty of small SLRs out there, decide on your feature set first.

For a start, given your budget, I'd forget about the Contax body. Zeiss lenses fetch a premium.
I'd also forget about Rangefinders - for an equivalent spec to an SLR they're significantly more expensive. At your budget also the rangefinders you'll be picking up will be 60+ years old and will need to factor in the cost of a service.

dynachrome · Dec 7, 2018

A Konica TC with the small and very sharp 40/1.8 Hexanon makes a small and light package. Find a TC and send it to Greg Weber. He will overhaul it and change the meter so it takes 1.5 volt batteries. If you want some extra features you can get a T4 instead but use the same lens. I second the recommendation of the Yashica FX-3. It has a bright finder and is better made than the earlier or later Yashica models. The 50/1.9 c lens is small and light and a decent performer. The Olympus OMG is light and doesn't require a manual adapter like the OM-10. A late 50/1.8 will be a good start for a lens. The 35/2.8 Zuiko is also nice. A good combination of Zuikos which will be light and small and not too expensive would be 35/2.8, 501.8 and 100/2.8. One very light combination I have s a Vivitar V4000S camera with the rarely seen 40/2.5 Vivitar. The lens is smaller, faster and lighter than the 40/2.8 SMC Pentax-M. If you can find one on good condition, a Nikon FG is also small and light. A 50/2 AI or 50/1.8 AI or AIS is a good start for the FG. You can also consider the small 100/2.8 Series E Nikon lens and maybe a 28/3.5 AI Nikkor to round things out.

bimmey · Dec 7, 2018

Owning a Contax RTS II and 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 2.8 I can say it's a great image making kit, but does not meet the small size criteria. Mostly because of the size of the lenses. I use an OM4T kit for traveling light. Lenses are relatively small and cheap. However ergonomics and control layout is more important than size and weight. imho.

StanMac · Dec 7, 2018

I would second the recommendation for an M-series Pentax, notably the MX and ME Super for small size and weight. Pentax glass is very good stuff. Olympus also has well respected quality and ability in a small package, but I don't have any experience with them. I don't have any experience with the interchangeable lens rangefinder genre either - most are way out of my budget capability.

Stan

PaulQ · Dec 7, 2018

AgX said:
The Werra models are small and leightweight.

About 2cm narrower than an om4, not much in it in depth or height though, a few millimetres smaller (both with 50mm lenses).

Les Sarile · Dec 7, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
I would add Nikon FG or FG-20, which is slightly larger than the tiny ME and about the same size as the OM-1.

The FG was a little narrower but not really much smaller then the other Nikons. Certainly the weight might have made it feel smaller.

Thomas Keidan · Dec 8, 2018

Ste_S said:
I think the OP needs to think about what he needs some more. For a start, an AF or MF body ?
There's plenty of small SLRs out there, decide on your feature set first.

For a start, given your budget, I'd forget about the Contax body. Zeiss lenses fetch a premium.
I'd also forget about Rangefinders - for an equivalent spec to an SLR they're significantly more expensive. At your budget also the rangefinders you'll be picking up will be 60+ years old and will need to factor in the cost of a service.

I have been looking at the g1 and am considering saving a bit more. But before i decide, are there any alternatives to the g1 to look at? Bessa R2? Konica Hexar?

Les Sarile · Dec 8, 2018

If you haven't already seen Stephen's site, it is a great resource particularly for rangefinder style cameras as well as a few SLRs -> https://cameraquest.com/classics.htm
Almost all the way down is a section of Compact 35's.

Smallest 35mm interchangeable lens options please!

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency