Your favourite non-zoom lenses of all time...
Martin Francis
what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
--
Martin Francis http://www.sixbysix.co.uk
"Go not to Usenet for counsel, for it will say both no, and yes, and
no, and yes...."
Joseph Kewfi
Don't know yet, haven't found them. I've been doing photography 11 years.
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Cadillac_Jones
<mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>Just out of interest, you understand;
>what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Nikon 50mm AF 1.8 followed closely by the Nikon 24mm AF...My 50mm
Series E is now a loop
"I'm the luckiest man in the world. I have a cigarette
lighter and a wife...and they both work!"
TP
>
>Just out of interest, you understand;
>what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
For 35mm:
Tamron 90mm f/2.5 macro - a near-unique combination of superb macro
lens and outstanding portrait lens.
Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.4 - excellent sharpness, outstanding bokeh.
Leica M 35mm f/2 ASPH - outstanding sharpness, outstanding bokeh,
outstanding micro-contrast, outstanding lack of distortion,
outstanding contrast, outstanding colour rendition, outstanding
resistance to flare. No compromises here. Because of its outstanding
all-round performance, it represents outstanding value for money.
;-)
Chris Brown
Martin Francis <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>Just out of interest, you understand;
>what are your favourite non-zoom lenses,
Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
>and why?
http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/angbridge.jpg
(not shot on film, so shoot me :-P)
Chris Loffredo
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
>
Zeiss 35 f/1.4: Great "atmosphere" & 3d rendering.
Zeiss 25 f/2.8: Look Mom, no distortion!
Schneider Curtagon 35 f/2.8: Very massive & solid rendering.
Zeiss Jena 200 f/2.8: East German miracle.
Nikkor 55 f/2.8, 105 f/2.5, 180 f/2.8 ED, 200 f/4.0: The best of Nikon.
Voigtländer/Cosina 15 f/4.5 & 21 f/4.0: Great value.
Leitz Summicron 35 f/2.0 & Tele-Elmarit 90 f/2.8: Tiny & excellent.
Vivitar 17 f/3.5 (older, very retrofocus, non-multicoated version):
Excellent, believe it or not!
Meyer Telemegor 300 f/4.5 & 400 f/5.5: Huge & heavy but sharp.
Several lenses in the 85mm to 105mm range, all of which tend to be
excellent (Nikkor, Zeiss, Leitz, Jupiter (Soviet), Voigtländer (the real
one))
Martin Francis
news:lhubp1-...@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
> Martin Francis <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
> >Just out of interest, you understand;
> >what are your favourite non-zoom lenses,
>
> Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
>
> >and why?
>
> http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/angbridge.jpg
Perhaps not the greatest picture ever, but *damn!* I like that look...
> (not shot on film, so shoot me :-P)
Well, I didn't specify format in the question, but if you insist...
*BLAM*
Alan Browne
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
>
Minolta Maxxum 100mm f/2.8 macro.
Sharpness, contrast, good bokeh.
Cheers,
Alan
--
--e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--
Rich Pos
<mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>Just out of interest, you understand;
>what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Canon FD 20mm 2.8... A great lens that I can't get off the camera
(figuratively). I like being able to set hyper focal distance and
shoot from different angles. Sharp, contrasty, compact.
Canon Fd 135mm 2.0... Fantastic portrait lens also great for low-light
shots.. particularly concerts, clubs, plays, etc.... Sharpest lens I
own at all f stops. Great bokeh. The only problem is it's weight.
Canon FD 50mm 1.8... My all around lens.... light, small, sharp and
fast.
All of the above lenses are well made and capable of taking lots of
abuse.
RP©
-
Tom
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Nikkor 105mm f2.5
Without a doubt, the best 35mmm portrait lens of all time.
Manual focus, and this lens is the only reason I kept a Nikon around after
switching to Canon (after shooting Nikons for 32 years).
I want to be buried with that lens.
For medium format, it would be my 180mm Zeis Sonar. No other lens can get
that 'look'.
Tom
Photodad
mcs...@com.btinternet wrote on 6/6/04 11:46 AM:
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Nikkor 55/3.5 Macro
Walt
Michael Scarpitti
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Nikkor 43-86mm f/3,5. Gloriously fuzzy and huge distorion. Nothing
else comes close to being as truly awful and therefore useful for that
special 'look'.
Bowzre
All three lenses for the Hasselblad XPan.
Various Leitz lenses for the Leica M series (too many to list).
Once you've seen what these can do, everything else is a serious compromise.
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Bowzre
"Michael Scarpitti" <mikesc...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2fd2ff8c.04060...@posting.google.com...
This is a non-zoom? Agreed, it sucked, though.
TP
>
>Nikkor 105mm f2.5
>
>Without a doubt, the best 35mmm portrait lens of all time.
There speaks a man who has never used the 85 mm f/1.4 AIS or AF-D, the
105mm f/2 DC AF-D, the 135mm f/2 DC AF-D, the 180mm f/2.8 ED AI(S) and
AF(-D), ...
... plus almost any modern portrait lens from Carl Zeiss or Leica ...
... plus many more from brands such as Pentax and Minolta and even
some independent brands, notably the 90mm f/2.8 macro lenses from
Tamron, Vivitar, Sigma and Tokina and the legendary 105mm f/2.5 Kiron.
The 105mm f/2.5 AI(S) Nikkor is a great lens, for sure, especially
coming from a brand of lenses whose out-of-focus effects are so often
very harsh. But there are a great many portrait lenses that will beat
it ... and some by a huge margin.
Martin Francis
news:2fd2ff8c.04060...@posting.google.com...
Zzzzzz... <wakes up> Sorry, did you say something, Michael?
Chris Brown
Martin Francis <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>"Chris Brown" <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
>news:lhubp1-...@narcissus.dyndns.org...
>> In article <c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com>,
>> Martin Francis <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>> >Just out of interest, you understand;
>> >what are your favourite non-zoom lenses,
>>
>> Canon EF 50mm f/1.4
>>
>> >and why?
>>
>> http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/angbridge.jpg
>
>Perhaps not the greatest picture ever, but *damn!* I like that look...
It seems to do that when used wide open, and that was pretty much straight
into the Sun as well.
William Graham
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
45 mm f/2.8 GN Nikkor, and 100 mm f/2.8 E type Nikkor. The first because
it's sharp as a tack, and very small (3/4 inch), and the second because of
sharpness, and good bokey, or out of focus backgrounds....
RSD99
Canon manual (FD) 200 mm Macro.
Other (6 cm x 6 cm, 6cm x 9 cm, 4" x 5")
Apo Symmar 150 mm
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Matt Clara
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
I guess it would have to be the Nikon AI-s 28 f2.8.
--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com
Gordon Moat
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Nikon 105 mm f2.5 AIS. I like the defocus rendition, and the wide open
aperture performance. Also, the tactile feel of the focus ring, and
width of the focus ring work nicely with my large hands. The only
complaint is that the extendable built-in hood is getting a little worn
out.
Leica 90 mm f2.8 Tele-Elmarit M (2nd version, mostly Canada labelled).
Used very briefly (borrowed), but made a big impression on me with the
flattering rendition of portrait subjects, and the nice defocus (even at
f4) rendition. Tactile feel fairly good, and fits the hands nicely. One
of the lower priced Leica lenses on the used market.
Nikon 180 mm f2.8 (any manual focus version). I rented many of these
prior to finally buying one (used). The separation of the subject from
the background is amazing. Also, this lens works great really stopped
down and used for panning shots. Only complaint is that the older
version I have now is somewhat large and heavy, which is one reason I
rate the 105 mm higher.
Nikon 50 mm f2.0 AI (long barrel version only). Took a while to find a
good one of these, since it is mostly a one year lens, and the short
barrel version was more common. After much searching, I am very happy
with the results in the images. As usual, I use this mostly wide open,
and the backgrounds are very smooth. More than that, I like the
separation of the subject from the background, since the falloff of DOF
is very short with this lens. My guess is that it would be not so good
when really sharp images and stopped down images are desired, though I
have a 50 mm f1.4 AIS (good one after many marginal ones) that covers
that realm better. The long barrel works really well for grip
ergonomics, and shades the lens well in most situations, though I really
think it helps to have the proper lens shade; after another search, I
found an old metal lens shade for it.
Leica 50 mm f2.0 Summicron (2nd version). Almost regret selling it. Nice
lens for urban imagery, and better slightly stopped down than most 50 mm
lenses. Tactile feel of the focus ring could have been better, but this
was a very old lens when I first got it. Sold after bad failure of my
M3, though I would consider getting another.
Nikkor 35 mm f2.8 PC (shift lens). Amazingly good and very useful lens.
Even without the shift provision being used, the results are very
satisfying. At f2.8, it actually makes a good low light lens, with just
enough DOF, smooth defocus rendition, good flare avoidance, and no
visible distortion. Stopped down, or shifted results make you wish every
lens was a shift lens. Complaints are that the scalloped focus ring
could be thicker, and the aperture ring is a little loose (same on every
one of these I have ever seen, which makes me think it was designed that
way). While this lens can slow you down, and be tough to use, I find
that it gets used frequently, and not just for architecture.
That is all for the ones I have owned, borrowed, rented, or used
briefly. Of lenses where I have seen results from the images of other
photographers, I find a few that I have liked greatly. The older manual
focus Pentax 85 mm f1.4 is one of those. The newer Voigtländer 15 mm and
21 mm for Leica screw mount are two others that really impress me.
Additionally, the Hasselblad Xpan 45 mm and 90 mm images I have seen so
far I have found much to my liking, enough so to interest me in getting
an Xpan. The Leica 75 mm f1.4 Summilux has impressed me with the few
images I have seen from it, though not with the very high pricing (even
used). The ultra rare Noct Nikkor 58 mm f1.2 is another on my desire
list, but likely I would never get one due to the high used prices.
Outside of the ones I mentioned, there are a few medium format and large
format lenses I really like, and a few others that I would like to own.
Of course, cost structure is very different, and this is a 35 mm group,
so I will not mention any of those.
As you can probably tell, I like lenses that work well wide open, unless
they are wide angle lenses. I like great stopped down performance with
wide angle lenses. So I probably could use a slower wide angle zoom
lens, and I might be happy with one, though the ergonomics of an extra
turn ring have never been to my liking. I have a similar feeling with
longer focal length zoom lenses, though that other issue is that they
are often a smaller maximum aperture than I want to use. The Nikon 80 to
200 mm f2.8 is almost an exception, going by the few I have rented, but
I doubt I would ever buy one. I also really like manual focus, since I
am a control freak.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
A G Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Michael Benveniste
<mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
>Just out of interest, you understand;
>what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
I don't have a favorite lens, neither zoom nor non-zoom. Then again,
I don't have a favorite screwdriver or kitchen knife, either. If it
helps, the last non-zoom I used was a 135mm f/4.0 LS for a Pentax 645.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Michael Scarpitti
I understood the question, but this lens was so gloriously awful it
deserves special mention. Extreme barrel and pincushion distortion.
Poor corner sharpness. Flare. You name it!
Dallas
> Just out of interest, you understand; what are your favourite non-zoom
> lenses, and why?
1. The Nikkor 180mm f/2.8 EDIF. Use one and you'll know why.
2. The Canon 400mm f/2.8L. It makes all else in this size look ridiculous.
--
R.I.P. Ronald Wilson Reagan 1911-2004
You helped make the world a better place.
Dallas
Define "outstanding", pus face. Better yet, why don't you show us what
these items you've listed, but never used, are capable of?
If ever there was a case for justifiable euthenasia, you would be it.
John J
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
>
Very good question.
My favourite would probably be the Leica R 80/1.4, although the R 35/1.4 has
similar qualities. Both of these lenses exhibit unusually fine tonal
gradation with a very high level of highlight and shadow detail. Both are
sharp wide open, in the centre, but soften to the edges. Common properties
for most lenses of this speed. But both are very, very sharp at F2.0. At f8,
or so, they are just stunning.
JJ
Scott Schuckert
Over the years i've been most pleased with the pictures from two lenses:
105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (First AI version, typically used on an F2)
unbelievable sharpness, easy to focus - and I like short teles. I had
later versions of the lens, and the contrast was higher but never
seemed quite as sharp.
50mm f/2.8 Elmar, used on a Leica IIIg. This wasn't the world's most
famous lens, but it had a quality to the images I have never seen
elsewhere. Seemed to have more crisp detail in shadow areas than other
lenses.
The funny thing, the lens had been repaired. The IIlg wasn't 100% when
I got it, and the front element had a serious scratch. Leitz sent me a
letter saying they were phasing out service on SM cameras, and would I
like to have mine done whle I still could. The IIIg came back looking
factory new, and the lens had a new front element.
Maybe I wound up with something different from the typical Elmar?
Christoph Breitkopf
> 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor (First AI version, typically used on an F2)
> unbelievable sharpness, easy to focus - and I like short teles. I had
> later versions of the lens, and the contrast was higher but never
> seemed quite as sharp.
There were no changes to the lens' optics since 1971 - long before AI.
Only the coating might have improved. So you probably saw sample
variations.
Regards,
Chris
--
Bokeh test images: http://www.bokeh.de/en/bokeh_images.html
Dallas
Oh look! It's Tony Polson the portrait lens expert!
Drew Saunders
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote:
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
Small:
Leica 24mm/2.8 ASPH, 35/2 ASPH, 50/2 current version, and 90/2.8 tele
"fat" (the early '70's version). In theory I should get the modern
90/2.8 but I've never been unhappy with my older 90, and I can fit the
M6 and all 4 of these in a small case (Domke F5). I also really like my
Canon 100/4 macro FD, which I rarely use now because of...
Medium:
Mamiya 120/4 macro for the 645. I'm having a lot of fun with this lens,
really sharp, and I figure if I want to lug around an SLR and do macro,
I might as well get a bigger negative.
Large:
Nikkor 200/8 M. The M-Nikkor's are probably the best Tessar-type lenses
ever made. Compact, bright enough for good focusing, and a good angle of
view for 4x5. Even more fun is that I got a Nikon technica-type lens
board to go with the Nikkor lens, which really confuses people when they
see "Nikon" on a wood camera.
--
Drew W. Saunders
dru (at) stanford (dot) eee dee you
Chris Loffredo
> Define "outstanding", pus face. Better yet, why don't you show us what
> these items you've listed, but never used, are capable of?
>
> If ever there was a case for justifiable euthenasia, you would be it.
>
Hmmm...
Civilised and insightful post.
Plonk!!!
Matt Clara
news:2ik27gF...@uni-berlin.de...
Yeah, Dallas needs to tone it down a bit, but he's a good guy, and isn't
likely to speak that way to anyone but Tony Polson (TP). His Reagan sig
file doesn't help, either, but then, I'm "agin" the 'publican party.
Kelvin
"Martin Francis" <mcs...@com.btinternet> wrote in message
news:c9ve8b$k6c$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> Just out of interest, you understand;
> what are your favourite non-zoom lenses, and why?
>
Dallas
>> Hmmm...
>>
>> Civilised and insightful post.
>>
>> Plonk!!!
>>
>
> Yeah, Dallas needs to tone it down a bit, but he's a good guy, and isn't
> likely to speak that way to anyone but Tony Polson (TP). His Reagan sig
> file doesn't help, either, but then, I'm "agin" the 'publican party.
Sorry if anyone was splattered in the a-polson-ation. I will try to be
civil when insulting the crazy-assed MF in future. I can't guarantee it
though!
Political views aside, I stand by the view that Ronald Reagan was prolly
one of the better guys you had as a leader. I admired his approach. BTW,
if I was an American I would probably vote Democrat in any case.
Skip M
sharper than lenses I've bought since.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com