PerroneFord
Deals in Lead
Same here brother... but without the chemicals... I shudder to think what was in some of that stuff. Especially in the enlarging room.. Paper developer and stop was NASTY stuff.
should i buy this lens?
- Thread starter chrismagicc
- Start date
Samuel H
Major Contributor
my main lens set consists of four vintage lenses:
* leitz elmarit-r 35mm f/2.8
* carl zeiss jena "zebra" pancolar 50mm f/1.8
* leitz elmarit-r 90mm f/2.8
* carl zeiss jena "zebra" sonnar 135mm f/4
the 35mm and the 50mm are WAY warmer than their same-brand longer counterparts (at least 200ºK)
so, even for relatively same-crop lenses, you can still have big consistency problems; the white balance cap might become your best friend, but even with that you can still find other consistency problems (at least my set seems to have similar contrast)
still, I love these lenses, because, apart from being relatively cheap (they cost me 400, 80, 180 and 120 eur respectively):
* they are sharp as the best, and have a very nice look, with amazing bokeh
* the long-throw focus makes a huge difference
* they will work on a full frame body, which I plan to get once the aliasing/moire problems are solved (5Dmk3 with digic-V not using line skipping, come to me!!)
* leitz elmarit-r 35mm f/2.8
* carl zeiss jena "zebra" pancolar 50mm f/1.8
* leitz elmarit-r 90mm f/2.8
* carl zeiss jena "zebra" sonnar 135mm f/4
the 35mm and the 50mm are WAY warmer than their same-brand longer counterparts (at least 200ºK)
so, even for relatively same-crop lenses, you can still have big consistency problems; the white balance cap might become your best friend, but even with that you can still find other consistency problems (at least my set seems to have similar contrast)
still, I love these lenses, because, apart from being relatively cheap (they cost me 400, 80, 180 and 120 eur respectively):
* they are sharp as the best, and have a very nice look, with amazing bokeh
* the long-throw focus makes a huge difference
* they will work on a full frame body, which I plan to get once the aliasing/moire problems are solved (5Dmk3 with digic-V not using line skipping, come to me!!)
I feel ya man.
and a big old +1 on the " im not feeling modern glass". it all looks the same and boring nowadays.
its like master primes. So clean perfect sharp and acurate, but so sterile. gimme a set of cooke s2's, Super Speeds, or standard primes any day. gimme a little grit....
I have had (all 50mm)
Nikon 1.4
Zeiss Planar 1.7
Canon 1.8
Yashica ML 1.4
Yashica ML 1.7
Minolta Rokkor (58mm) 1.4
I went from the Nikon (newer af version) to the Zeiss and never looked back (color characteristics being the main reason) At the time I opted for the 1.7 because it is typically sharper wide open than the 1.4.
The Canon was very good in general, but I did not really use it. It just wasn't grabbing me (very subjective lens preference can be).
I have to say that the real sleeper lenses (IMO) are the Yashica ML's. Both the 1.7 & 1.4 are very close to the Zeiss Planar, but they have slightly less contrast (for me the Planar has just a bit too much). They are both very sharp, the 1.7 having slightly better edge to edge wide open. The build quality is the same as Zeiss AND the focus throw is more than 180º.You can find near mint copies cheap if you hunt the pawn shops or are patient at watching on ebay.
The Rokkor (58) is also a new favorite. It has a bit less contrast than the Yashica's and is a tad soft all the way open, but I think it is sharper than the 1.2 (down to 5.6) and still has very nice bokeh. Also really cheap. The adapter for the 7D was $75 (self install) but you can find good rokkor 1.4 lenses for $30-$40 on ebay.
I declicked the Rokkor and am going to do the same to Yashica . . . Another advantage with vintage lenses.
The great thing is you can try different lenses in different situations and decide based on experience . . . YOUR experience (as always, aided by those out in front of you, via forums
Nikon 1.4
Zeiss Planar 1.7
Canon 1.8
Yashica ML 1.4
Yashica ML 1.7
Minolta Rokkor (58mm) 1.4
I went from the Nikon (newer af version) to the Zeiss and never looked back (color characteristics being the main reason) At the time I opted for the 1.7 because it is typically sharper wide open than the 1.4.
The Canon was very good in general, but I did not really use it. It just wasn't grabbing me (very subjective lens preference can be).
I have to say that the real sleeper lenses (IMO) are the Yashica ML's. Both the 1.7 & 1.4 are very close to the Zeiss Planar, but they have slightly less contrast (for me the Planar has just a bit too much). They are both very sharp, the 1.7 having slightly better edge to edge wide open. The build quality is the same as Zeiss AND the focus throw is more than 180º.You can find near mint copies cheap if you hunt the pawn shops or are patient at watching on ebay.
The Rokkor (58) is also a new favorite. It has a bit less contrast than the Yashica's and is a tad soft all the way open, but I think it is sharper than the 1.2 (down to 5.6) and still has very nice bokeh. Also really cheap. The adapter for the 7D was $75 (self install) but you can find good rokkor 1.4 lenses for $30-$40 on ebay.
I declicked the Rokkor and am going to do the same to Yashica . . . Another advantage with vintage lenses.
The great thing is you can try different lenses in different situations and decide based on experience . . . YOUR experience (as always, aided by those out in front of you, via forums
Last edited:
ROCKMORE
Veteran
What's your experience with Zuiko lenses on DSLRs?