Which SLR camera system carries your favorite lenses and why?

[Radost]

When it come to SLR modern AF system with modern design lenses are hard to beat. Apart from fast 28mm wide open corner sharpness and coma. I personally like Minolta because their small SLR A5 has Spot Meter. Alos minolta has some great lenses.
Cheaper canon small models “ while great cameras” do not have a spot meter. But they have “IMHO” the best lens ever made - 40mm F2.8 pancake.

Now before people jump on me about manual focus SLR: I love them. I have more manual SLRs than any other cameras. Not including my 10 Minolta A5 and 10 Canon 300V that I use to buy for $10.
Some are ok to focus and have bright screens but some of them are impossible.
MOdern SLR with back button focus is far superior IMHO

 

[ic-racer]

My favorite lenses on 35mm format are 35mm to 18mm.

One should be able to make stunning prints with negatives from just about any lens. Sure, one needs a good negative, but great prints are created in the darkroom.

I got a Spiratone 28mm lens for my birthday in 1975. It produced fuzzy images, but it was all I could afford and I took it Europe in 1979 where I exposed the negative used to make this print:

 

[abruzzi]

can I vote for a 5x7 Graflex?

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

My favorite lens ecosystems are the manual focus Nikon F and Pentax M42. I think both of these lens systems were exceptionally well made (they completely spoil you for lens quality; everything made new today seems like junk by comparison).

I think the Nikon system has a couple of advantages. First, Nikon made their manual focus lenses for longer than anyone else, from 1959 through the early 2000s. Consequently, there are more of them available and many of them are newer than other manual focus lenses. Second, Nikon largely used the same 52mm filter size on most of their lenses so you can have a complete set of lenses from 20mm to 200mm with the same filter size. (Most other lens systems use two or more filter sizes.)

That said, I find the rendering of my Pentax Takumar M42 lenses slightly more pleasing to my eye. The Takumars are every bit as well built as the Nikkors (perhaps the tiniest bit better…) and also tend to be a bit smaller and lighter than the comparable Nikkors (although they also tend to be a bit slower in terms of maximum aperture). There are plenty of them out there at very reasonable prices.

I also have a Pentax K mount camera, and like some of those lenses a lot as well. However, the K-mount lenses I like best are the SMC Pentax M lenses. These were not made for that long, and thus there are fewer available now, and they generally cost as much or more than the comparable M42 or F mount lenses.

 

[Thwyllo]

It used to be Nikon... I was a long-term FE user and within the last couple of years I have bought two or three FE bodies, at least one FM and two F's... so I've started using some of my older glass on an F80 but I have to confess I now use most of it, as well as a large collection of Hexanon glass on my d*g*tal cameras, specifically a D750 and a Sony a7ii. *embarrassed*

 

[Don_ih]

They're all practically the same.

 

[Thwyllo]

They're all practically the same.

What are?

 

[Don_ih]

What are?

See thread title.

I don't notice any significant difference between any of the 35mm slrs I have - Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Contax, Yashica, whatever ones I've forgotten about.

 

[MattKing]

Don and I agree!!!!
The things that cause me to prefer my choice - Olympus OM cameras and certain Zuiko lenses - have almost everything lot to do with ergonomics and design choices and inner-system compatibilities and almost nothing to do with tiny differences in things like optical performance.

 

[Thwyllo]

See thread title.

I don't notice any significant difference between any of the 35mm slrs I have - Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, Contax, Yashica, whatever ones I've forgotten about.

Ah right, sorry I wasn't paying attention was I! I have to agree with you though. By and large they're all just lightproof boxes to contain the film and expose it. Sometimes they'll have higher shutter speeds or different metering but most of it is down to the glass isn't it.

Then again, some just feel so much nicer than others don't they

 

[Don_ih]

Ah right, sorry I wasn't paying attention was I! I have to agree with you though. By and large they're all just lightproof boxes to contain the film and expose it. Sometimes they'll have higher shutter speeds or different metering but most of it is down to the glass isn't it.

Then again, some just feel so much nicer than others don't they

Some are going to vary enough to meet your preferences more, but it likely has more to do with habit than the actual design. A person gets used to doing something a certain way (turning the lens a certain direction to focus, for instance), so may automatically hate anything that's different (The Exakta with the shutter button on the wrong side, for instance). But it generally doesn't take a lot of effort to grow accustomed to a particular camera's eccentricities, so it hardly gets in the way.

Don and I agree!!!!

It happens every couple of months, I think.

 

[guangong]

Leicaflex SL2 with Leitz lenses, but for a smaller package SLR a Nikon F or F2 with plain prism. Bought Leicaflex and Nikon F new way back when. If I were buying today, my choice would probably be a Pentax Spotmatic.
It just feels natural to focus a lens manually. I’m just not old enough for autofocus.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I think I am seeing a slightly richer color rendition using my Konica Hexanon lenses compared to my Pentax K-mount lenses (M-series). And my Konica lenses are at least as sharp as my Pentax lenses (maybe a tiny bit more?). l Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a Konica AR body which I like as much as my Pentax bodies (MX and KX). If I was still shooting slide film, it would go in the Konica T4. But for b&w, *if* the Konica lenses offer any advantage, it is not enough to bother with. My Pentax lenses are plenty good enough for the kind of photography I do.

 

[Thwyllo]

I think I am seeing a slightly richer color rendition using my Konica Hexanon lenses compared to my Pentax K-mount lenses (M-series). And my Konica lenses are at least as sharp as my Pentax lenses (maybe a tiny bit more?). l Unfortunately, I have not been able to find a Konica AR body which I like as much as my Pentax bodies (MX and KX). If I was still shooting slide film, it would go in the Konica T4. But for b&w, *if* the Konica lenses offer any advantage, it is not enough to bother with. My Pentax lenses are plenty good enough for the kind of photography I do.

The T4 is a lump on a par with the early Nikkormats, great for bashing nails in ...a comparable but much better bet is the Konica Autoreflex TC. It's much smaller and more manageable... Similar kind of size to a Nikon FE or an Olympus OM1/2. It's a very underrated camera and therefore available cheaply. Typically the only thing to watch out for is that the leather covering sometimes shrinks and looks a little bit unsightly but honestly you should be able to find a minter out there without any trouble. What Hexanon glass have you got? Sorry I'm a bit of an addict

 

[Thwyllo]

Leicaflex SL2 with Leitz lenses, but for a smaller package SLR a Nikon F or F2 with plain prism. Bought Leicaflex and Nikon F new way back when. If I were buying today, my choice would probably be a Pentax Spotmatic.
It just feels natural to focus a lens manually. I’m just not old enough for autofocus.

It makes me laugh when you hear the younger generation talking about how they couldn't possibly cope without autofocus....

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

It makes me laugh when you hear the younger generation talking about how they couldn't possibly cope without autofocus....

Yes. It's like they don't realize people were taking photos for 100 years before autofocus was invented.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The T4 is a lump on a par with the early Nikkormats, great for bashing nails in ...a comparable but much better bet is the Konica Autoreflex TC. It's much smaller and more manageable... Similar kind of size to a Nikon FE or an Olympus OM1/2. It's a very underrated camera and therefore available cheaply. Typically the only thing to watch out for is that the leather covering sometimes shrinks and looks a little bit unsightly but honestly you should be able to find a minter out there without any trouble. What Hexanon glass have you got? Sorry I'm a bit of an addict

I think you might be confusing the Autoreflex T4 with the T3(?) The T3 body weighs 740 g while the T4 body is 530g. I have owned both, and I think your description as a "nail basher" fits the T3 much better than the T4.
specs here: http://www.buhla.de/Foto/Konica/eKonicaUebersicht.html

I have never owned a TC, but it appears to be very similar to my T4. The buhla website shows the weight of the TC body as 510g. Presently, I no longer have the T3n, and I am looking for either a T4 or a TC as a second body.

My Konica Hexanon AR lenses are:
24 mm f2.8-16, 1979
40mm f1.8-22, 1981
50mm f1.7-16, compact version, 1977
50mm f1.8-22
100mm f/2.8-16, 1978

I was hoping the Konica 40mm might be "close enough" to substitute for a 35mm, but in my experience, it is not. So I am looking to pick up a 35mm f2.8. With my Pentax kit, I find myself using either the 35mm or the 50mm focal length for the vast majority of my photos. When I switch to my Konica kit, I really miss not having a 35mm.

 

[rulnacco]

My personal favorite SLR line--for which I have loads of lenses--is Nikon.

The Nikkor lenses have generally (with minor exceptions) been optically amongst the best in class in whatever era they were released--and many of those, including a lot of the manual focus lenses, can hold their own even today in terms of character, color rendition, and more than acceptable sharpness (even though some may, in the latter category, not entirely please those who are more interested in pixel-peeping and bragging about measured resolution, instead of just making aesthetically good photos). In addition, Nikkor lenses--even the "cheap" E Series lenses--were for the most part built to very high standards, often much higher than their competitors. (When I lived in London, I mentored a number of young photographers. I had to explain to several of them why the front of their AF Canon 50mm/F1.8 fell off.) The "professional" Nikkor manual focus lenses are extremely well-built and most are also very high performers optically. While not all of Nikon's autofocus lenses were built to the same standard, many of their earlier pro lenses--particularly those with the crinkle paint finish--were mechanically very solidly built indeed.

But the big thing was the extraordinarily long maintenance of the F mount, and the ability to use MF lenses on AF bodies, and AF lenses on MF bodies, at least up through the introduction of G lenses. (Which still could be used in a pinch, although with severe limitations, on MF bodies.) That allowed me to build up a large collection of Nikkor lenses that could be used, almost seamlessly, on any of my film or digital cameras. And in fact I occasionally carried a small film SLR (normally an FE) and a DSLR, knowing I could easily use the same lenses on both. This saved me huge expense in not having to maintain two (or three) separate lens lines for different kinds of bodies from the same manufacturer, and allowed me to buy a greater variety of lenses for different purposes. And use them whether I chose to shoot digital or film on a particular day--if I chose, I could stock a bag with a set of lenses, and then merely switch out bodies to manual focus, autofocus film, or digital, depending on which I wished to use.

I'll have to re-evaluate, possibly, with the introduction of mirrorless. But formerly, whenever a new/young photographer expressed a desire to try out film, I always recommended a Nikon FE--it would provide easy-to-use full manual operation (with some automation in terms of aperture priority), for a "consumer" camera which could still be purchased second-hand quite cheaply it was very well built and highly capable, and they could buy lenses (I usually recommended autofocus lenses) that would work perfectly well on the FE (or autofocus film camera), but would also work totally compatibly on a Nikon DSLR. I know that other brands have their aficionados--for good reason, each has its particular strengths--but overall, given my desire to shoot a variety of cameras and both film & digital, Nikon worked by far the best for me--and gave me all the image quality I could ask for.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Nikon F mount manual focus are my favorite. Reason? Not intentional it just happened. I bought a Nikon after wanting one forever then some glass. The AF stuff is nice however you will find MF mounted to my cameras most of the time.

 

[Graflex Garage]

can I vote for a 5x7 Graflex?

I'm with you on the graflex 5x7, I have a few

 

[benjiboy]

Canon FD, I have fifteen of them.so lack of decent lenses isn't what's hold me back from being a great photographer, and I have found out from experience that rather than the absolute photo technical quality of the lens what's more important is what you point it at

 

[titrisol]

Pentax, the king of compatibility
I love the old Takumars (M42 ) and most of the K-mount lenses are very good.
I can use them in the modern DSLRS and get good (to me) results