Which lens would you go for?

Q

qap15

Well-known member
Given these three lenses which one would one go for and at what price range?
Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 T* Planar Contax
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4
Rokkor MC 50mm f/1.4
 
canon 50mm 1.4, nikon 50mm 1.4 and rokkor 50mm 1.4 are all pretty cheap. if you shop around on ebay long enough you could pick up all three for 150$ and then sell the ones you don't like. I do believe they are all about the same though.

Personally I prefer nikon lenses though.
 
Zeiss is nice, but you'd probably spend triple the amount for it than the others, and you wouldn't see a huge quality increase (if any). 50mm is a standard focal length, and almost any manufacturer has mastered making lenses at 50mm to be excellent quality.
 
Sorry, fully disagree here - I love my Canon FDs and have a bunch but the Zeiss is in another league and the difference is obvious when you're using it. It's well worth the money and the contax mount stuff is still very cheap for real Zeiss optics, especially if you can find a West-German made one. You really have to be talking about a Canon L lens to do an honest comparison with a Zeiss. I don't see why people are so quick to say that they aren't worth the money, the really, really are.
 
One has to remember that there is a great deal of sample variation, even among the more expensive lenses these days. I have seen Nikkors outperform or match equivalent Zeiss lenses in every respect in some tests. So a lot depends on getting a good quality sample. I didn't say they weren't worth the money, however, everyone has to weigh the price/performance ratio and decide if it is worth it for them in their shooting situation. Sometimes a cheap lens will do, sometimes it absolutely won't, and sometimes extra money spent on a fancy pants lens is just wasted.
 
The Rokkor is the sleeper here. It compares very well to the Leica 50/1.4 in R-mount, and it's _stinking_ _cheap_.
 
It's funny... I've been looking at legacy glass alot recently and I've come to the conclusion that with the cost of some of these lenses being sooooo cheap, you have to factor into the equation the cost of the adapter to get it to m4/3 and also think about getting all the lenses in your "set" to work together and produce results that are workable in a single project timeline. I agree with thisisapocalypse that the zeiss contax stuff is AMAZING. For the most part I'd say that it's got that mojo going for it... Canon FD lenses are now getting higher and higher up there in price with everyone getting excited with their quality. Nikkors are still my favorite as far as a complete line of "cheaper" lenses go... The main problem that every user of the GH1 will run into (and it's been said time and again) is that you can't get wide for cheap. Sure You could buy that Zeiss 50mm but what are you going to do for a wide? Keep that in mind when buying... Which lens could you build a "set" off of and is it really within your price range? It's funny, but when you get down to it the kit lens is actually a pretty sweet deal... Add to that the 20mm f1.7 panny and you've got some pretty killer coverage from 14-140mm and lowlight (shallow dof) in only two lenses all for under 1,000. If you tried to do that with canon fd's you'd end up spending over 1,000 for the 14mm alone... Just my 2 cents.
 
True about the wide end, however, there are lenses like the Nikkor 12-24mm, Tokina 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm, etc., all of which will work on the GH1 with a Nikon G m4/3 adapter. The most expensive of these is the Nikkor, which is about $600 used.
 
lvlinux said:
True about the wide end, however, there are lenses like the Nikkor 12-24mm, Tokina 12-24mm, Sigma 10-20mm, etc., all of which will work on the GH1 with a Nikon G m4/3 adapter. The most expensive of these is the Nikkor, which is about $600 used.
Click to expand...


Nikkors are still my favorite as far as a complete line of "cheaper" lenses go...
 
Also none of those lenses will auto focus... For around 350 for the 20mm f1.7 and 475 for the 14-140 that's still a bargin at 825 total. I think that the nikon stuff is running pretty close though...
 
HDkilledFILM. said:
It's funny... I've been looking at legacy glass alot recently and I've come to the conclusion that with the cost of some of these lenses being sooooo cheap, you have to factor into the equation the cost of the adapter to get it to m4/3 and also think about getting all the lenses in your "set" to work together and produce results that are workable in a single project timeline. I agree with thisisapocalypse that the zeiss contax stuff is AMAZING. For the most part I'd say that it's got that mojo going for it... Canon FD lenses are now getting higher and higher up there in price with everyone getting excited with their quality. Nikkors are still my favorite as far as a complete line of "cheaper" lenses go... The main problem that every user of the GH1 will run into (and it's been said time and again) is that you can't get wide for cheap. Sure You could buy that Zeiss 50mm but what are you going to do for a wide? Keep that in mind when buying... Which lens could you build a "set" off of and is it really within your price range? It's funny, but when you get down to it the kit lens is actually a pretty sweet deal... Add to that the 20mm f1.7 panny and you've got some pretty killer coverage from 14-140mm and lowlight (shallow dof) in only two lenses all for under 1,000. If you tried to do that with canon fd's you'd end up spending over 1,000 for the 14mm alone... Just my 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Fully agree - going fast/wide on the older glass to make the set is pricey, especially Contax/Zeiss - the 18mm f/4, 21mm f/2.8 are great lenses but those still fetch pretty high prices.

The Canon FD 17mm f/4, 20mm f/2.8 are excellent and also still command high prices, but I think it's worth spending the $$ on a really good wide to match your set if you can.

I mostly use a Canon 24mm f/1.4 L - love it, but I picked up the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake for when I really need to get wide - the trouble with it is that while you can dial it in to match pretty close to the Canon FDs, it's definitely quite a bit higher in contrast so it's a bit tricky, I find it a bit too sharp in ways I'm not crazy about - I sorta just use it when I absolutely have to, and stick to the 24mm otherwise - I just really wanted the ability to open up to f/2.8 and so I picked it over the Canon FD 17mm f/4. Don't have the kit lens so can't comment on it, can just say that for narrative filmmaking the older lenses with slightly less contrast and sharpness than the ultra-modern lenses seem to deliver a more pleasing look for me.
 
Get a Nikkor over an FD for sure. The flange on the Nikkor is long enough that you know it will work on any system you might ever move to, including EOS, Nikon, etc...FD's don't work that well with the EF mount...need an optical adaptor or heavy modification. If you get the Zeiss get it in F-mount. Also Nikkor optics are pretty damn nice...someone was mentioning Canon L glass...that's about in the same league as a good Nikkor, only most old Nikkors are much much cheaper than Canon's or Zeiss'.
 
Ben_B said:
Get a Nikkor over an FD for sure. The flange on the Nikkor is long enough that you know it will work on any system you might ever move to, including EOS, Nikon, etc...FD's don't work that well with the EF mount...need an optical adaptor or heavy modification. If you get the Zeiss get it in F-mount. Also Nikkor optics are pretty damn nice...someone was mentioning Canon L glass...that's about in the same league as a good Nikkor, only most old Nikkors are much much cheaper than Canon's or Zeiss'.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top