Tessar, designed by Paul Rudolph in 1902, like the Planar before 1900, and Planar used to be reference standards and saw a lot of used at Rollei and Hasselblad. Note that Zeiss-Jena was the physical post-WW2 successor of pre-WW2 Carl Zeiss company. The 2.8 avoids the strong curved edges of larger diameter elements and in that prevents a lot of chromatic aberration. The limited number of elements thus limits the number of surfaces that can cause glare.
Another set of excellently sharp and low cost lens are the Konica Hexanon 50mm f1.7 and Konica Hexanon 40mm f1.8 Hexanons are some of the best bang for your buck out there.
I use the Pentax 50mm macro on my Fuji XH1 where of course it becomes a 75mm optic allowing me to work further from the subject. Downside is that it then becomes even slower at about f5.6 but nevertheless it suits my style of close focus work.
Got myself Chinon 35 2.8 and Revuenon (aka Pentacon) 50 1.8 and so far very pleased with them! Shooting on APS-C Sony a6000 though, so for me it's equiv. 50mm and 75mm respectively. _PS There is no bell to ring_
I have a couple of Zeiss Jena Tessars. One from the early 1960s and the other being the latest produced from the 1990s. Most recent batch so to speak. Both great lenses. I also have a 1970s SMC Takumar 55mm f/1.8. It looks as good as my old Summicron. Except I paid $40 USD for it.
I have the exact same Takumar and it's very good. The flaring can be annoying but in the right conditions I have used it as part of the composition for some interesting results.
Actually could you (if and when you have time) tell me if this is what you meant? rover.ebay.com/rover/0/0/0?mpre=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ebay.com%2Fulk%2Fitm%2F313006943150.
My early camera in sixties and seventies was a Praktika Super TL WITH A PANCOLAR F1.8 which very sharp and let a lot of light in.... when i sold camera i kept the Lens and fitted it to another screw thread body a Pentax..
There's an earlier version of the Pentax Macro 50/f4 that does true 1:1 macro with the same optical design as the copy you have, but it lacks the auto aperture pin (it uses a preset aperture system instead) so it was replaced when the Spotmatic came out. Having the stop-down pin and aperture at the rear meant the barrel couldn't extreme as far, so the close focus was compromised down to 1:2 instead.
The Family Leica is/was a 1938 IIIa model originally saddled with a pre-World-War-II, uncoated "speed lens," a 50mm f/1.5-9 Taylor-Hobson Xenon that was both fuzzy and flare-ridden. The solution to this gale-force-density paper weight was a 1950's, coated 50mm f/3.5 collapsible Elmar, which has none of the problems of the Xenon. It produced fine Kodachrome slides and great black-and-white negatives, and expressive prints. Russian/Soviet Bloc cameras/lenses? In the 1950's and 1960's, that was "trading with the Enemy." Plus, those who had such equipment had fled to the West and weren't too keen on showing their optical gems.
Zenography I will ! You scored big time there. I don’t know if you have one but the Fujinon EBC 50/1.4 is a superb lens. Atleast as good as any I’ve come across so far !
The former Soviet republic lenses color rendition surprises me. For some reason, I have only thought of them as good to excellent for B&W photography only. I suppose this is a way of confessing that I have not used my FED 2 or my Kiev 2 for color shooting. Now I know, thanks to your wonderful video on the subject. By the way, I am just beginning to discover the Asahi line of cameras and lenses as well, the beneficial outcome of viewing another one of your videos, which highlighted the Asahi Pentax Spotmatic.
The sharpest lens I own since a few days , is a Voigtländer Color Ultra 50 1.8 , made in Germany in the 90th .Bought for 55€ .... After getting this I will now sell my Pancolar
Thanks again for your video! Since you are a great fan of vintage lenses, you are the best person i could ask this: would you agree to say that sharpness could differ from one copy of a vintage lens to another copy of the same model? I'm talking about lenses like Canon FD, Nikon non-AI/ AI/ AIS, Minolta MD. Are all vintage lenses equal on this matter? Thanks for sharing your experience here in the comment or in a video.
As with any manufactured object, there will be some slight variation between examples, even when new. As the years take their toll of course, some will be treated better than others, and further differences will creep in. In theory though there shouldn't be too much variation between examples of the same lens.
I've used the Industar-61L/D for a little while now, and it's a nice, solid lens with a distinct look that I enjoy. The specs may not be impressive on paper, but it produces very nice images. And they are indeed cheap... I have five of them with manufacture dates ranging from 1986 to 1990 for a total cost of approximately US$80, which included international shipping and a FED-3 (second version, ca. 1968-1978) camera that needs a bit of work. As such I've dedicated one each to full-frame and APS mirrorless cameras, another may get allocated as an enlarger lens someday, yet another will likely end up assigned to the FED-3 if I get it working, and I still have a spare left over. Can't complain about the value at all. :)
I am a viewer from China. This is my first time leaving comment but I bought like a dozen of vintage lenses at your advice and I enjoyed. One question: I’ve heard that industar-55 (I own both M39 retractable version and fixed version) and industar-22 are basically the same lens under different name, is this true?
Hi there, I'm glad you're enjoying vintage lenses! The Industar 50 was a development of the Industar 22. It's a similar lens, both are Tessar optical formulas, but the Industar 50 is slightly sharper. Thanks for looking in!
Yes, old Soviet lenses are good. Many of them were created in the years 50-60, but they look good today. "Helios-44-M", "Helios-44-2", "Юпитер-8" have a nice bokeh. "Индустар-61 Л/З МС" gives a sharper picture, but no bokeh. Sorry for my bad English :)
@@zenography7923 I agree with you. These lenses were produced in millions, and there cameras were in almost every family. Until now, many old cameras "Зенит", "Зоркий" or "ФЭД" with excellent lenses lying on the shelves. Recently I bought three Soviet lenses for a small amount. In Russia, this is not a problem. With macro rings, these lenses become good macro lenses.
Well the Takumar 50mm Macro currently retails on eBay are anywhere from $128 to over $250 bucks. Not good enough to warrant that price. $50, yes. $285 no. I'll stick with my standard Takumar 55 1.8 Super Mulitcoated lens. One killer piece of glass. I use my extension tubes for close up work.
Ebay asking prices are often rather high, it's true, however there are still bargains out there. I bought mine with three other Pentax lenses for £100 - they'd been advertised for three weeks and it seemed no one but me wanted them!
@@zenography7923 I like that you do these videos with the old glass but when you and others mention which ones to buy the prices go up. Yes, there are some to find but to find good quality ones is getting much harder because the prices are going way too high for what these pieces of glass can do for you. I have a few oldies I picked up before the rise in process.
Glad you enjoyed the video. The czj Tessar and the Pentax 50mm f4 won't focus on a rangefinder such as your Leica M, however the other two will work fine, with an L39 to M mount adaptor.
Ya, but what lens mount do these use? It all boils down to what cameras they will fit, no? Manual lens are fine as long as I can get an adapter to fit without losing focus at distance. First video of yours I've watched so maybe you have covered this.
@@zenography7923 - Currently the Canon 6D plus other Canon EF cameras (digital and film). So I guess I would need an adapter with a built in lens to fix the offset? I've never tried one, what do you recommend? Either that or I guess I would have to find a mirrorless camera as you say. Again any suggestions? Any good used mirrorless cameras you would recommend that would get me started cheap? I've got a wide variety of lenses for EF so getting into mirrorless or even an old film camera would be just for fun really. What camera and/or mount would you recommend that provides the most flexibility with older lenses in general? Sorry lots of questions. Thanks for your reply!
So I got a Jupiter 8 for my A7 because of you ( which is an awesome and surprisingly small lens ). However I mainly use M42 lenses. So I found the INDUSTAR-61 l/z for M42 which has really interesting and cool star like bokeh at f5.6 to f8. Problem is, they're expensive where I am ( 'round a 100 bucks plus postage ). Importing from Russia is a no-go for me because import cost are really high. But the INDUSTAR 61 l/d is really cheap here ( 30 bucks at most plus some postage ). Now I am wondering if the rangefinder version ( L/d version ) produces the same bokeh or if it has even better qualities. And if so which version of the INDUSTAR 61 L/D should I go for ?
Bokeh from the 61 l/d is nice and soft wide open, but I don't think it produces the star like pattern you mention. As I understand it, all versions from about the mid 70s to the end of production were optically identical, differing only in markings, although there were differences in coatings. Earlier versions had a blue/purple coating, later ones had a gold(ish) coloured coating, which changes colour balance, though only slightly.
can you do a video comparison or review of the pentax 28mm f2, by chance? picked up the m-series version this week, it makes me want to sell all my other lenses.
Punk Rachmaninoff I have the 2.8 version of that lens and like it lots too. But I don’t have a working k-mount body right now so can only use it on my Fuji X-T20, I look forward to getting a proper film camera for it and trying it out.
@@sparkleglitch13 you can get Pentax K30 very cheaply now (used), still awesome camera (16mpix) perfect for fooling around with old lenses (and there are tons of them!). Full frame K1's are keeping the price unfortunatelly. Wonderful thing is that even cheap K30 has stabilised sensor, so those old lenses get true stabilisation as result - it's like second youth for them.
DJRYGAR1 thanks, but I’m happy with it on the X-T20, what I want is a film body. I’m thinking the Pentax MX looks really good for my needs so will probably try to get that.
Would you be able to put come links in the description or a pinned post to where you finding the lenses for these prices. Searching eBay from Australia and the cheapest I can find an Industar-61 is about $48 AUD. The cheapest Tessar is about $65 AUD with most being higher. I recently managed to get an Industar-50-2 (so the m42 version) for $36 AUD shipped from Russia. So far it seems to be doing great on digital tests, but I need to get my film developed to see how it fared there.
I've found the best way to buy the Industar cheaply is to avoid buy it now listings, and to bid on a Fed 4 - they go very cheaply - I recently sold a mint example for £14!
What's the difference between the Industar 61 N vs L/Z? I have an L/Z. I noticed mine is 50mm, not 52mm but I read that this isn't really indicative of a difference in design?
The yellowing of my SMC 1.4, does it affect the image at all? It seems ok not yellow but i have nothing to compare it to. How long should i leave it in the sun to get rid of the yellow?
I used vintage lenses when they were new, at least the Pentax ones. If you lived at that time, you know how many truly crappy lenses were also sold to students studying photography.
I agree! I love my vintage lenses almost as much as I love my pristine Canon L lenses. The problem is when every one on EWE TUBE sings the praises of vintage lenses, they become harder to find and they become more expensive! ( There are still a few good brands under the radar and, you guessed it, I will not say who they are! )
if you can find and check rollei planar 50/1.8 non-hft version, you might get shocked by its unbelievable sharpness--blow away all other fifty mil lenses including Leica.
Hi. I question where it is possible to get the takumar 50mm f4 for £30-50 anywhere in the UK - unless you fluke one in an antique fair or other trade fair. Online prices are upwards of £100-130 about now. (Unless you can tell us your secret supplier, lol. ) :-)
Mine came in a job lot of four pentax lenses for which I paid £100 - and they'd been up there for at least three weeks! I never pay the prices most sellers are asking - just regularly trawl ebay and when a good deal appears, go for it! They are out there if you keep your eyes open, so to speak...
I'm very impressed with the Tessar, but I hear the Chinon is really nice too. Haven't used a dompilan so can't comment; I'd probably take the Tessar, if only for it's wonderful colours!
@@zenography7923 I think I'm leaning towards the Tessar... it may be a few dozen grams heavier and it has a stop of light less in it's pocket but I doubt it should really affect summer trips photography. Thanks!
You could use the Industar 22 and 61 on an M (with an L39 to M mount adaptor) as they're rangefinder lenses, but not the other two - they're made for SLRs and won't focus on the M.
Is there an adapter to fit most of these lenses to my Nikon Fmount? Would anyone happen to know where to get them as I'm very interested in using one of these vintage lenses.
Zenography I shoot with a digital. Looks like I will have to choose a different camera body then. I’m very curious about using vintage lenses after stumbling across your video.
Hart wie Kruppstahl depends on what you consider vintage but generally speaking good ultra wide lenses (over 24mm full frame) are of the more modern variety, maybe 70/80s onwards (later again for my own use). Prob limited by the amount of tech that goes into providing decent IQ from and ultra wide lens.
Dude if you want to experience insane sharpness for 10-20 bucks go and buy a konica hexanon AR 50mm 1.7 (not the 1.8, that one is way worse). It also has quite vibrant colors.
@zenography If you want to test it i could send you the one i have for free, the aperture blades are pretty oily but for use on mirrorless it really does not matter :D
As far as I'm aware, many SLR lenses will mount to the Canon (with an adaptor), but rangefinder lenses probably will not due to differences in focusing distance, so the CZJ and the Pentax would most likely be okay, but not the Industars.
It depends. Pro: you use the best part of the lens's image circle with the highest resolution and no vignetting. Con: the old lens may not have the utmost resolution that a top APS-C camera might give. Might give.
@@jpdj2715 Then I think it's worth a try if these lenses are cheap in my country, too. Also, I have an old Fuji XT1 16mp camera. Thanks for your reply!
@@errydm - welcome. Remember, it is about 50mm so out of the large image circle of a full frame lens you end uo using a portrait-tele angle. That is not a problem. The number 50mm gives you what you would normally expect with APS-C. The crop factor does not change the laws of physics, it is just a way to communicate a lens's effect to people who have a good notion of full frame lenses. Also note, you get the depth of field of a 50mm. Theory and people in the web say you need an 85/1.2 at full frame, or so, to get beautiful background blur (the ordinary English word blur has an ordinary Japanese translation: bokeh ;) ). In this video, you are shown the background blur in a few scenes and I have to say it looked good to me. That is the tone and blur you would get from your APS-C too. Also, remember, you yourself make the photo. Not the lens. You determine composition, mood, perspective, timing, subject, etc. If you already have a good lens, just use it and shoot more. If you have a zoomlens, then you can justify this lens. It forces you to learn its angle, to learn what it captures at what distance and what you can do with it. And it teaches you to use your feet, which is good for training your brain to see perspective.
@@jpdj2715 Yes, I only have a zoom lens and I also want to try a manual lens. If I get one of these lenses for cheap then I am going to buy one. Thanks again. It is always good to learn something new.
Takumar - some of them have radioactive matter in the glass. Before you buy these, read up on it, make sure the glass in the lens you buy has no physical damage. And gentlemen, keep them away from the family jewels.
