Minolta has some great wide-angles, 17mm rectilinear, 16mm fish eye and a 7.5 mm fish eye. On full frame the 7.5mm turns your image into a circle, kinda like an insta-360 gone wrong, hard to find and expensive!
They do have some great options. For this video I was only going with rectilinear lenses and also just wanted to include 15mm and below since if I go up to 17 or 18 there’s a tonnnn of other lenses
I just cheaped out and bought a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED for emount used for like $160 USD. I figured if I used it a ton then I would buy a vintage lens, turns out I would rather use my Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS when I need wide shots. So glad I kept that money.
The Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS is a screaming deal. I got mine used in mint condition with the original box and dice from a trusted source in Japan for a great price.
Love the video, wouldn't say that the Canon 14mm is the "widest" rectilinear vintage lens that was ever made. The 14mm is probably the widest that you can get your hands on. The Nikkor 13mm 5.6 might be a contender, but Nikon only made like 350 of them and just finding one is basically impossible.
This is the video i was looking for for like 2 years. Thank you! I also really liked the way you tested the lenses, no bullshit about sharpness with charts, what i need to know is "very sharp, sharp, kind of sharp, soft" so thanks again. The history may annoys some people, but it was consise and i enjoyed it
Once upon a time I had a Pentax15mm f3.5.It was so heavy and I was afraid I would loose the lenshood. I got the 15mm f3.5 DA lens and for practical purposes was the one I kept.
Very cool video! There's just something special about lenses with character. In an age of near-perfect lenses, taking a step back to revisit the past is a nice change of pace.
14:06 30k is wild for any lens... if it were true :) From what I can see in the 1980 Contax Yashica dealer price list, Distagon 15mm 3.5 cost 1325 USD, which is a little over 5k adjusted for inflation. What really is wild is that you managed to find and compare all these vintage lenses, thanks for the great video!
That price makes so much more sense! The only price I could find was from the Contax Zeiss media division video so thank you for the insight. Really glad you enjoyed the video, I had a blast making it and collecting all these lenses over the years
@@calebbrunkow the fact that you couldn't find the price for the Leica lens has been bugging me for a couple of days now, so I decided to do a little reseach. And who would have thunk that I'd find the answer on the same website that I did with the Zeiss 😅 In the 1981 through 1983 catalogues the price of Leica is listed as 2835 USD, but in 1987 catalogue the price shoots up to 6375 USD. This price increate is sort of in line with all other lenses and cameras, but that left me puzzled of what happened betweend 1983 and 1987 that caused such a sharp rize in prices. And just in case you're interested, the website is "pacific rim camera" - it's a treasure trove of all sorts of brochures and manuals for different camera systems. I especially love looking through the Mamiya section that is filled with weird and endearing fashion shots 😁
@@calebbrunkow the fact that you couldn't find the price for the Leica lens has been bugging me for a couple of days now, so I decided to do a little reseach. And who would have thunk that I'd find the answer on the same website that I did with the Zeiss :) In the 1981 through 1983 catalogues the price of Leica is listed as 2835 USD, but in 1987 catalogue the price shoots up to 6375 USD. This price increate is sort of in line with all other lenses and cameras, but that left me puzzled of what happened betweend 1983 and 1987 that caused such a sharp rize in prices. And just in case you're interested, the website is "pacific rim camera" - it's a treasure trove of all sorts of brochures and manuals for different camera systems. I especially love looking through the Mamiya section that is filled with a little naive and endearing fashion shots.
Great video Caleb. I’m a Contax guy so my workaround for my wides was to grab a CY 18/4 and a HFT 16 fisheye/2.8. Both of them together were less than the CY 15/3.5. The 16 fisheye I use on S35 and lens correct in Resolve Studio :)
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. That’s a great workaround for sure. The 18 is a really nice lens, I got one years ago cause I thought I was never gonna be able to buy the 15
Agreed. I love the 18 generally, but it has two slight disadvantages. It’s a bit slow. And focus moves the front barrel, so VNDs are out. Workarounds are pretty straightforward though. A touch higher ISO (if needed) and I bought a couple of standard NDs to screw into my Simmod front ring.
Awesome video! If you ever get the chance, you have to try the Kinoptik 9.8mm t2.3 (f1.8) super 35 ultrawide from the 60's (about 14.7mm full frame). It was the ultrawide lens of choice for cinema at the time. Used by Kubrick in The Clockwork Orange, The Shinning, and famously in Wong Kar Wai's Fallen Angels.
Wait, o my understanding F stopping down a lens with periferal fog will make it sharper, since you are in theory using less of that peripheral foggy area to create the image... contrary to scratches and dust, the wider the aperture the less visible they are because the mage is being formed with the "whole" glass/lens.
It was interesting that you considered that Canon’s EF 14mm f2.8 was not a new lens. I would say it’s a fair assessment, many of the FD lenses were “ported” over with minor refinements and coating updates. Now the question is what does the FD version have over say the Mk I version of the EF 14mm? An Exc copy of the EF is 1/10 of the price.
True, the EF MK I is a fantastic alternative to the FD 14, especially for people on a budget. I found my 14 for a price I couldn’t turn down so had to get that. Also from the flare comparison I’ve seen, the FD blows the EF out of the water, the flares on the EF are really bad in my opinion
True I would consider than an ultrawide as well. Point of this video was to get my hands on the widest ones I could from the 5 of the major players in the game at the time
Anything under 20mm is usually considered Ultra Wide Angle. Anything above 20mm to 30mm is usually deemed Wide Angle. And that new Laowa 10mm is just RIDICULOUSLY Wide Angle. 🤣
Was hoping to find the Konica UR hexanon 15mm f2,8 among the tested lenses! Otherwise enjoyed you video, even when not knowing how they compare to my Konica!
@@calebbrunkow Hahaha I mean there is no other video on the hole youtube talking about super ultra wide vintage lenses that's not fisheye! So this is the best one XD@calebbrunkow
uhh there were wider lenses, particularly if you include wide angle adapters. I think there was a Kinoptik one that produced a super35 lens with a 11mm ff equiv.
I don’t know if it’s exactly the same but it’s for sure close. Lens rehouse companies have the EF MK I 14mm available for rehouse since the FD is so pricey and the EF looks very similar
Yeah as I watch your full video your Nikon 15 is not good for comparison. I've used it extensively on commercial shoots and it looks nothing like your copy.
For finding lenses I just search eBay a ton as well as local selling spaces like Facebook, OfferUp, etc and see what comes up. For info on them I watch a lot of RU-vid videos and google certain lenses I’m interested in
To get the same field of view on the 15mm lenses (focusing at 12 inches) you need to make sure the position of the entrance pupils is the same. If the camera / sensor position remains fixed - and you have lenses which are slightly different physical lengths - the position of the front optics will vary and so will the perceived shot field of view.
