Vintage Lenses

Im not sure which exactly 28-70 you are refering (I think its the early Vivitar built by Angie?) to but I would guess its a stills lens for FF35 - I cant see vignette being an issue

GH crop mode is the middle 1080 of the 4/3 sensor - probably around 2/3 size - that would/not vignette on 16mm/ENg lenses..

S
 
morgan_moore said:
Im not sure which exactly 28-70 you are refering (I think its the early Vivitar built by Angie?) to but I would guess its a stills lens for FF35 - I cant see vignette being an issue

GH crop mode is the middle 1080 of the 4/3 sensor - probably around 2/3 size - that would/not vignette on 16mm/ENg lenses..

S
Click to expand...

I think I've mixed my lenses. I was also looking at a 17-68mm C Mount Angie which I was worried about vignetting.

I nearly bought a Tokina 28-70 which was designed by Angie. But I suspect Edwin has the pukka Angie 28-70 which is way out of my vintage lens budget. By all accounts, it's a stonking lens.
 
Nirv said:
I think I've mixed my lenses. I was also looking at a 17-68mm C Mount Angie which I was worried about vignetting.

I nearly bought a Tokina 28-70 which was designed by Angie. But I suspect Edwin has the pukka Angie 28-70 which is way out of my vintage lens budget. By all accounts, it's a stonking lens.
Click to expand...

The samples i've seen of it were all a bit meh. It's also supposed to be a bit of a nightmare with flare, hence the original having the square matte on the front. It's nice mechanically though.

I'm very fond of a Zeiss Contax 28-70, it's tiny for a zoom, it's f3.5 to f4.5 so a varifocal more but actually in terms of light gathering i reckon that it's about the same as the 2470ZA at f2.8 (perhaps because it's a simpler design - in other words it's T stop is not far off 3.5 and the 2470ZA is around the same). It has a macro feature too. There are some bigger CZ zooms too which i don't have but they're more like the push to zoom type although optically they're supposed to be even better. I think a 35-70 is one of the sharpest out there at that time.

All the CZ primes seem solid performers although i do feel they suffer from field curvature a bit but i think distagons are known for that. I'm hunting for a decent prices 28 f2 though as that's my favourite focal length.

I did various comparisons for DOF and sharpness which gave me interested results, i discovered that the modern 2470z has less DOF for a given aperture then a prime at the same aperture. I could repeat this consistently and i think i probably posted about that here.

I'm on crunch mode now so don't have time to dig the samples out but i will later. I think the samples are more useful if they are comparisons because then we can see the characteristics of lenses easier.

Good call on the Pen F range too, i was always meaning to give those a spin.

cheers
paul
 
Yes, Distagons do have some field curvature but it is more noticeable on full frame bodies. The 28mm and 25mm, in particular. The 35mm less so. And the 21mm is so sharp that the curvature is irrelevant.

The 50/1.7 might be the best value for money in the world of lenses. It is undoubtedly the sharpest SLR lens I have. Also light and small.
Cons include: full stops only, less light transmission at equivalent stops compared to larger lenses, some vignetting (even on crops). But for the price, it is out of this world.
It is so sharp that scaled down pictures may have aliasing in them (shot at f2) ;)
http://img820.imageshack.us/img820/338/img0846a1.jpg

The 28/2.8, 35/1.4 (love the OOF rendering on this one; rare for a 35mm), 85/1.4 are all great. The 21/2.8 and 100/2 are exceptional.

The 28mm (at 2.8):
http://img542.imageshack.us/img542/5122/img3859d.jpg
 
Yes, the curvature on the 28 is very noticeable, it works well for certain subjects though and contributes to the zeiss 3D look. Those lenses are on my list, for the primes i have 28 f2.8, 35 f2.8, 85 f1.4, 135 f2.8, 50 f1.4, 50 f1.7 i ought to sell one of the 50s and you're not the first to mention the 1.7 as better. Wide open, all planers suffer quite a bit, from all manufacturers.

Loved the venice picture - brings back memories, just had to post this one (12mm CV but cropped a little), remarkably similar position i imagine :)

Classic Venice.jpg

I have a 85f14ZA too and the biggest benefit of that is a closer focusing distance than the CZ one (about 0.7m instead of 1m). Perhaps i can find to do a comparison between the samyang, CZ and ZA versions. Although an 85 f1.4 isn't that difficult to make really, they're all much of a muchness in general.

I really need to take stock of my lens drawer and sell some... especially as i've just preordered a 700 (finally)

cheers
paul
 
Hi Guys,

looking to sell my ex1 to fund an fs100. I have a few ef lenses that i will use with a metabones adapter.

Also i have some vintage m42 glass such as Flektigons 35m 2.4, Pentacon 50m 1.8, Car zeiss jena 2.8 50mm and 135. 2.8 What adapter do you use for m42 glass?

I am hoping to build up a Nikon Set. Anybody using them
 
@paul:
Very similar viewpoint indeed. :)

The 50/1.7 is surely sharper than the 50/1.4 but then if you plan on using them for video, you may want to keep the 1.4. The edge of the 1.7 will disapear in video (compression and low video resolution). I like it mainly for travel because of the weight and size.
Here is one with the 50/1.7 (same location)
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/9968/img4012rb.jpg

My favorite 85mm is the Summilux R 80/1.4 (yeah, not a 85 technically). Also my favorite portrait lens. I am yet to find something else around this focal length that equals it in character.
A couple of shots:
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9723/img3512hw.jpg (excuse the crappy crop)
http://img137.imageshack.us/img137/1839/img3448c.jpg


@ollywood88:
m42 adapters are the easiest to make. Doesn't really matter which one. Finding one with the perfect thickness to preserve the distance scale and the hard stop at infinity is pure luck anyway.
 
Well, I said I'd post some Angenieux samples. Perhaps I should've done some daylight stuff to really see the quality of it, but I ended up testing it at night as I was eager to see how it handles. It was my first go with the FS100. Am psyched to shoot some proper stuff with it later.
@Nirv Yes, I was talking about the Angie 28-70. I had owned both versions of the Tokina's before manning up to the Angie. I love the lens, though. Hard to explain it. Some of my fashion clients recognise it and they specifically request me to use it. It's sharp but not like, harsh digital sharp. And it renders skin so well. Meh, subjective.
@paulcurtis is correct about the flaring, a green goblin appears when hitting a direct light. I also did a Tokina vs Angenieux comparison if you're interested (shot with the 5N) https://vimeo.com/38152106

 
Last edited:
the contax zeiss 50mm 1.7 is a superb 50mm and will surpass any other 50mm on current full frame or s35 sensor. It is 'the sharpest 50mm ever'. and can be had for less that 150gbp.
 
richg101 said:
the contax zeiss 50mm 1.7 is a superb 50mm and will surpass any other 50mm on current full frame or s35 sensor. It is 'the sharpest 50mm ever'. and can be had for less that 150gbp.
Click to expand...

The sharpest 50mm ever?

Sorry I don't think so. We have come a long way in the last 35 years.
 
I prefer the warm and creamy look of Leica R glass, sharp as Ziess low contrast and very fimic. I read a review on the lenses by Richard Allen Crook when I was looking at getting some Ziess Glass years ago, anyway I ended up buying a set of lenses and never looked back. The Leica R glass is some of the best I've seen for the money. Outstanding quality at a great price if you shop around. Below is a link to one of Richards informative reviews of the glass.



http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/2011/07/13/leica-r-lenses-cinema-glass-in-a-still-lens-size/
 
Gary W said:
I prefer the warm and creamy look of Leica R glass, sharp as Ziess low contrast and very fimic. I read a review on the lenses by Richard Allen Crook when I was looking at getting some Ziess Glass years ago, anyway I ended up buying a set of lenses and never looked back. The Leica R glass is some of the best I've seen for the money. Outstanding quality at a great price if you shop around. Below is a link to one of Richards informative reviews of the glass.
http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/2011/07/13/leica-r-lenses-cinema-glass-in-a-still-lens-size/
Click to expand...

I've never really been able to get my hands on a decent reasonable priced Leica R range to test with. Funny but i'd always thought the warmth was the other way around, Zeiss warmer than Leica - perhaps that's Leica Ms. I'd agree that they have the best feel (from the one i have to test with).

What kind of set do you have? Whilst the 50s appear quite often, the other ranges seem more difficult to hunt down.
Have you ever compared them against anything else?

My reasoning for sticking to zeiss was mainly to ease in matching the sony ZA zooms and the other modern zeiss glass and price/performance was pretty good.

a 35mm f2 Leica R just went for £1000, a 35mm f1.4 CZ would be closer to £600. There aren't many Rs that are f1.4 fast either and the wide angle options are quite limited (like most vintage lenses).

Of course now i'm tempted again...

cheers
paul
 
David W. Jones said:
The sharpest 50mm ever?

Sorry I don't think so. We have come a long way in the last 35 years.
Click to expand...

There's a really fun shootout on lens rentals, comparing 50s from all over the place (including cine lenses), the zeiss does very well but is bested by the Leicas. The cine lenses did very poorly which just shows that sharpness is really not important for us in general.

Over the past 35 years the main improvement are lens coatings, design wise the 50s especially are all pretty much the same planar design. I'm not sure how different the zeiss T* is these days compared to the Contax days - they seem pretty similar.

I would also venture that in some cases, especially zooms, we are quite a bit more complicated these days in design with many more elements which lowers the transmission characteristics quite a bit. This is for autofocus, stabilisation, close focus etc,. Sometimes simple is better and faster for us shooters. I cited the example of a CZ zoom compared to a ZA zoom - the CZ, despite being f3.5, visually seems to have a T stop similar to the ZA f2.8.

cheers
paul
 
paulcurtis said:
I've never really been able to get my hands on a decent reasonable priced Leica R range to test with. Funny but i'd always thought the warmth was the other way around, Zeiss warmer than Leica - perhaps that's Leica Ms. I'd agree than they have the best feel (from the one i have to test with).

What kind of set do you have? Whilst the 50s appear quite often, the other ranges seem more difficult to hunt down.
Have you ever compared them against anything else?

My reasoning for sticking to zeiss was mainly to ease in matching the sony ZA zooms and the other modern zeiss glass and price/performance was pretty good.

a 35mm f2 Leica R just went for £1000, a 35mm f1.4 CZ would be closer to £600. There aren't many Rs that are f1.4 fast either and the wide angle options are quite limited (like most vintage lenses).

Of course now i'm tempted again...

cheers
paul
Click to expand...

I have a LEICA SUMMICRON R 50MM F2.O, Leica SUMMICRON-R 35mm f/2, and a Leica Elmarit-R 19 mm F/2.8 and they are definitely warmer that ziess, and sharp from edge to edge. Yes there a little pricey, but when I bought them I was comparing them to the ziess pricing.

Not having and unlimited price budget to work with I consider these to be the best value out there you just have to shop around for the deals. It took me over a month to get mine, and I was looking every day.
 
Last edited:
I am really enjoying this thread, great info, although I fear it is going to cost me some cash in the coming months.

I am leaning towards a set of Rokkor primes and wondered if there is such thing as an adapter with smooth aperture like my Novoflex NIK/NEX?
 
All my Contax Zeiss lenses are noticeably warmer than all my Leica R lenses. The difference is somewhere around 22 mireds.
The Leicas also have a slight but noticeable green tint.


My Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 on the other hand is close to the Leicas in terms of red<->blue rendering (a wee bit warmer), but lacks the green tint.
 
cpc said:
All my Contax Zeiss lenses are noticeably warmer than all my Leica R lenses. The difference is somewhere around 22 mireds.
The Leicas also have a slight but noticeable green tint.


My Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35/2.4 on the other hand is close to the Leicas in terms of red<->blue rendering (a wee bit warmer), but lacks the green tint.
Click to expand...

Interesting, I have shot a lot of stuff with mine and have never notice the green tint you speak of. but then again there are different versons of leica R. All I can say is that the ones I have are warm and definitely have no green tint to them, but that's not to say that some don't have this issue. I have just never seen it in mine.
 
ollywood88 said:
Hi Guys, ..

...I am hoping to build up a Nikon Set. Anybody using them
Click to expand...

Yes, I have a set of Nikon glass.

Lenses cropped.jpg

Those are a 20mm f2.8 AIS, a 100mm f2.8 Series E, a 24mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.4, a 50mm f2.0 and a 35mm f2.8. The two zooms are Vivitar Series One Zooms. The big one is a 70-210mm (Kiron manufacture) and the smaller one is a fantastic 28-105mm f2.8-3.8 (Cosina manufacture). I am with Frank on this, the Vivitar Series One zooms are outstanding lenses. I got the 70-210 for $35.00 and the 28-105 for $120.00.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top