|
Quick and dirty, here comes my list
| brand |
model |
serial no. |
tested? |
mark |
keep it? |
notes |
| Konica |
Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.7 |
|
|
|
no |
there are times when you don't need to throughly test a lens to tell that there is nothing special about it.
There are enthusiasts who point at this AR lens as one of the best ever made, but my copy doesn't show any strong point,
nor in terms of sharpness, nor for its bokeh. Colors seem a bit dull, too.
Since I possess many excellent 50mm, it is not worth to keep this one too.
I also have a Konica AR 50mm f/1.4, but it fell on the ground and the aperture ring got stuck. Though this one,
too, did not impress me at first, I wanted to give it a better try. Too late, alas.
|
| Minolta |
Rokkor MD 50/1.4 |
8012545 |
yes:
click here
|
9 |
yes! |
this is my nifty-fifty favourite. It is very sharp since f/2.8, it has beaten my Pentax 50/1.7 and the Nikkor AI 50/1.8 |
| Minolta |
Rokkor MD 50/1.7 |
8096801 |
yes: here |
8 |
not sure |
a bit of a delusion given the excellent performance of the faster f/1.4 version, indeed this is just a good 50mm like many others.
There are plenty of alternatives, some slightly or much better, but a cheap copy of the Rokkor may be worth your bucks |
| Minolta |
Rokkor MD 45/2 |
1484340 |
yes: here |
9 |
yes! |
the strength of this lens is in its compactness. Though not as sharp as some 50mm competitors, once stopped down a bit it shows
its optical quality, too. A very good companion, indeed |
| Minolta |
Rokkor-SG 28/3.5 |
8012545 |
no
|
5 |
no |
if you've read bad things about this lens, there is a reason why. I have taken a few shots at all apertures
and for subjects at different distances, and the outcome is clear: from the point of view of optics, this lens has no appeal at all!
The colours seem somewhat muted, sharpness goes from low (at f/3.5) to just good (go for f/5.6 at least), even in the center, reaching its peak
at f/8. Some sharpness can be recovered in post-processing since closing the diagphram the problem seems more to be contrast than sharpness itself.
The bokeh is good but nothing special, there are some double-edges. The background is better (in my opinion) of the foreground.
Also distorsion and lateral CA can be spot; the latter can be quite evident.
That said, the construction is excellent and the focus experience close to perfect, it can be an option for shooting videos where
you don't need super-sharpness or you look for some "vintage" feeling and brilliant colours may not be welcome.
On APS-C, soft portraiture at f/3.5 is another possible scenario.
|
| Pentax |
Pentax-K 24mm/2.8 |
|
tested
here
|
7 |
no |
The Pentax-K 24mm is a solid piece of metal with excellent mechanics, but optically it is not on par with
the offering from the (Cosina-made) Vivitar counterpart and other good 24mm around.
|
| Pentax |
Pentax-A 50/1.7 |
1506017, 1371040, 1539759 |
tested
here and also
here
|
8+ |
yes! |
I like this one just a bit more than the Nikkor AI 50/1.8 especially because
the Auto function works on Pentax digital bodies
(Pentax -now Ricoh- has kept unbelievable retro-compatibility, hurray!) and the lens needs no adapter for any Pentax reflex.
It is also a bit better at wide apertures than the Nikkor, IMHO.
I acquired a number of Pentax A 50/1.7 (three of them see the serial numbers) and I must say that they perform very consistently,
the differences are minimal. My guess is that this is indicative of a very well controlled production environment.
I later acquired the Minolta's and the Canon FD's 50/1.4;
they definitely do better but the Pentax-A stays in my short list
|
| Pentax |
Pentax DA 50/1.8 |
|
yes |
9 |
yes! |
for a digital Pentax body, this is a must. It is outrageously cheap but its sharpness can put to shame
a number of contenders. Here, optimizations for the digital sensors play a role.
Also consider that the autofocus is fast and accurate.
I take photos for a theatre director, sometimes, and this is one of my favourite glasses for the purpose, provided that I am
working during rehearsals (when the best shots can be taken). For the actual show the 50mm can be a bit short, though.
The only thing I don't like is the lack of the aperture ring, since like with most other modern lenses, the aperture
can be controlled by the camera only.
|
| Pentax |
Pentax-M 85mm f/2 |
|
tested here
|
|
yes! |
this is a renowed and uncommon lens, possibly even a rare item.
I've read enthusiastic reviews about it, and though it has some weak spots, it indeed compares well against
the Zeiss Sonnar 85mm/2.8 (that tops many other legacy lenses).
I can anticipate that this Pentax-M 85mm is an item to keep!
On its side, the Pentax has a great bokeh and the obvious advantages of a larger aperture (f/2) plus extreme compactness,
a quality not to be despised at all, unexpected in a lens with f/2, I must admit that at first it makes
you underestimate it at a first glance.
|
| Pentax |
Pentax HD DA 40/2.8 |
|
yes |
8 |
maybe |
the Pentax HD DA 40mm f/2.8 has the reputation of a very sharp lens across the
APSC frame, and when I had the chance to buy one almost new at less than half its price, namely 150 euro,
I did not hesitate.
I actually wondered how much such a short lens (this piece of engineering really is a pancake!) could deliver
astounding results as reported on the web, well... or I have a bad copy, or... it doesn't deliver!
Let me explain: though its sharpness can be very satisfying to excellent in the centre and, once stopped-down,
also in the corners, there is an evident problem with the distance at which they (centre and borders) are in focus,
but not on the same plane. It's not just a matter of sphericity, because distances don't match.
I took a shot, for instance, where the aperture is around 4 (if and when I'll post the review I'll better tell)
and I see excellent sharpness in the centre at more or less 200mt but the borders are not good at all,
also the middle of the frame suffers a bit.
But there also is some foliage from a tree that peers through less than 100mt away... well, also that is very sharp!
Besides, at short distances the quality looks a bit worse in general to me, possibly because the lens has no floating element,
I haven't checked the lens arrangement, maybe this aspect worth some digging.
I'd be prone to overlook this not so up-to-the-hype performance if the lens compactness was really useful,
which can't be since all current Pentax cameras are on the bulky side. A small mirrorless should definitely help here
and pair with the 40mm for a very pocketable solution. This is not a lens issue, but this absence of a small camera body
makes the glasse even less tempting.
|
| Pentax |
Pentax-A 135mm f/2.8 |
/ |
tested
here
|
7+ |
yes |
I have compared this lens to its cousins, the Pentax-M 135mm f/3.5 and the Chinon 135mm f/2.8.
In my opinion, the Pentax-A fares better, followed by the Chinon; the Pentax-M comes third.
Though not exceptional, especially if compared to modern lenses, it is reasonably compact and
pleasant to use.
|
| Zeiss Jena |
Flektogon 20/2.8 |
|
yes |
7+ |
yes! |
this is one of the odd lenses here. It is not sharp, it wasn't sharp even at its time, it has some more
issues so that you may think it would not qualify. But it has
a very distinguishable character and I definitely like the way it handles flare in videos. It has a very low distorsion,
a not-easy-to-achieve feature at the time, a very short minimal focus distance (19 cm, I recall). Manual focusing is
good though not excellent, anyway you can shoot wonderful videos with this lens.
If you're like and you know how to use it, you can also combine some flare effect with its odd bokeh when taking
pictures from a very short distance; I want to make an exception and show in this page what I mean, check this shot:
the "special" rendition of the background with the Flektogon 20mm
For these reasons, this Flektogon is one of the few lenses from the Esatern block that is still actively sought
by collectors and photographers, it is not cheap but not expensive either.
I got mine, in mint conditions, for 20 euro (more or less 20$). A steal, you cannot find it for this price!
|
| Zeiss |
Sonnar 80/2.8 |
|
yes |
9+ |
yes! |
from the point of view of sharpness and character, this is likely among my best lenses
and all the ones I came across.
The colours are very good and pleasant,
maybe a bit on the cold side. It has a couple of drawbacks: my Fuji XT-20 shows a darker image in the viewfinder with this lens(?!)
and sometimes this characteristic makes hard to focus; also, it is a bit heavier than I wished for. But it's absolutely a KEEP!
|
| Nikon |
Nikkor O C 35/2 |
|
not really |
7+ |
no |
The Nikkor O C 35mm f/2, a well-renowed and rather expeensive pre-AI lens,
according to the quick test I have run, is not a bad lens, but I think that there are better options at a much lower price,
unless you want an f/2 lens at all costs.
In my opinion, the sharpness at long distance is not satisfactory, but the lens has some qualities at middle and short
distances and you may want to consider it for portraits. Also, the sharpness can be partially recovered in post-processing,
this is a very good all-round lens.
For being an f/2 lens of the 70s, the control of aberrations is satisfactory, too; the bokeh is average. Notice the "C"
in the lens name indicates the presence of multi-layer coatings, that were absent in the first incarnation of the lens.
That said (about the optics), the lens is a pleasure to use, the barrel is splendid, construction is top-notch, even compared to many other
lenses of the same time, my sample is one of the best-feeling lenses I own. With an adapter for an APS-C camera it becomes
bit bulky but it's still handy.
|
| Nikon |
Nikkor AI 28/3.5 |
|
not really |
7+ |
no |
The Nikkor AI 28mm f/3.5, according to the quick test I have run, is not a bad lens, but I
think there are better options, at least on APS-C. It is a sharp lens but not as good as many faster (typically, f/2.8) counterparts
from other brands or from Nikon itslef. Lateral CA is pronounced, for instance. Also, in spite of its relatively small aperture,
it is not a small lens. Considering that the price is not low, I'd rather spend from much less to more money for another 28mm
that does better, unless I were the owner of a Nikon digital camera hat doesn't need an adapter, in such case
the Nikkor 28/3.5 can be a valid option. |
| Nikon |
Nikkor AI 50/1.8 |
|
yes:
click here and
also here
|
8 |
yes |
Slightly inferior to the Pentax-A 50/1.7 and definitely trailing the Minolta MD 50/1.4, this Nikkor is
indeed a good 50mm and worth keeping if you have it |
| Ricoh |
Ricoh Rikenon 50/1.4 |
|
yes:
click here
|
6 |
no |
This Rikenon 50mm has been a delusion. Maybe my copy was bad, anyway it was definitely softer
than other fifties at all apertures till f/8, so after the tests I sold it for
35 euro (more or less), I think it's the right price whereas a good f/1.4 should cost twice, according to me. |
| Nikon |
Nikkor AI 105/2.5 |
|
yes |
9 |
yes |
A bit on the heavy side, I admit that I have first misjudged this lens. A better test proved it is
a worthy contender, with a very good sharpness and good optical qualities in general, better, for instance, than the Pentax-A
135mm f/2.8 |
| 7artisans |
55/1.4 |
|
partly, here |
7- |
no |
I must admit that I, innocently, expected more from this lens, in spite of its
very low price (new item). I did not expect it to beat my best 50mm glasses, yet I hoped that advancements in
coating and some tweaks for the digital sensors could make this modern product show some advantages.
Well, though it is not a bad lens, it definitely trails my 50mm glasses from all points of view.
If you hate to fiddle with adapters, it is a very cheap and decent option, but if you don't mind the
extra, small annoyance of the adapter, go for a good legacy lens, instead. |
| Sigma |
Sigma Super Wide MC 24mm f/2.8 |
301480 |
partly, here |
7- |
yes |
this one I have for the Minolta MD bajonet. I suppose it is the same whatever the fit
|
| Canon |
Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 |
45099 |
partly here and
here
|
7+ |
possibly |
After a number of delusions with legacy wide-angle primes when paired with the APS-C sensor, I had almost given
up on this class of lenses with digital cameras, but I was pleasantly surprised by this Canon FD 24mm.
Though it cannot face the modern lenses intended for the digital world, if properly used it can give pleasant results.
I haven't investigated in deep yet, but my current impression is that it performs better on short/mid rather than long distance.
That said, I am not sure I want to keep this. The Sigma Super Wide MC 24mm is less sharp and worse light fall-off, but it has a better
bokeh. If I'd need sharpness, I'd go for a modern lens, if I'm in need of bokeh, I'd go for the Sigma... but you know what,
aomeway I like this Canon and I'll probably keep it
|
| Canon |
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 |
3877466 |
here and
here |
9 |
yes! |
I own one copy of this lens, it proved excellent! It trades blows with my favourite, the Minolta MD 50mm/1.4!
A friend of mine lent me another copy of the Canon 50/1.4; it is definitely softer,
likely it's been de-assembled and badly re-assembled. Who knows.
Never forget: you cannot base your judgement of a model on a single copy, so always vhrck for more reviews on the Internet!
|
| Canon |
Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 |
7877469 |
here and
here |
7- |
no |
The Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 has nothing special, and that would be not bad if it weren't in the arena
of the "nifty fifties" that hosts a number of real jewels, especially some faster f/1.4 siblings.
Also, at large apertures and at (APS-C) corners it is worse than I expected. I've seen worse,
but I have so many nice, inexpensive 50mm lenses that I have no reason to keep this one.
|
| Canon |
Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 |
34893 |
here and
here |
8 |
no? |
The Canon FD 55mm f/1.2 is a lens with a character!
I was surprised by some qualities of this lens, though it lacks where you'd expect it to, but it's f/1.2(!) and
miracles don't happen in optics.
There is some magic? Yes! Is it worthy? Yes, and it's why it comes at a price!
Will I keep it? Hard question. I don't like heavy lenses, they don't match my small cameras.
At the same time, the bokeh and and the (centre) sharpness of this lens are special, it's a great portrait lens. Then? I'm still pondering...
|
| Chinon |
Auto Chinon 135/2.8 |
|
|
no |
7+ |
This lens is not too shabby, it compares well to other mid-range 135mm
(I think they are countless!) of the Seventies. I have tested both the M42 variant and the Pentax PK variant,
in mint conditions, and they seem optically identical to me. I don't intend to keep it because I think the Pentax-A
135mm f/2.8 seems a bit better to me and is also a bit smaller, plus provides the auto aperture function,
while I must say the Pentax-M 135mm/3.5 seemed inferior (another one marked for sale, indeed).
|
| Fujinon |
X-Fujinon SW 24mm f/2.8 EBC |
|
yes, here |
|
8+ |
This lens is definitely rare, I couldn't find another test on the Internet.
It has its few flaws, but in general it is very pleasant to use and the image quality is very convincing, due to a combination of
sharpness in the center, very good contrast and bokeh (the last not exactly typical for a wide-angle).
If I was not in possession of the modern (auto-focus, optimized for the APS-C sensor) Fujifilm 23mm f/2, I'd certainly keep the
X-Fujinon SW 24mm f/2.8 EBC.
|
| Fujinon |
X-Fujinon 135mm f/2.5 EBC |
|
not yet |
|
|
This lens is not rare as the aforementioned X-Fujinon SW 24mm, but for sure
you won't find many of this either. By the time of writing, I am (quickly) testing it.
Spoiler: the lens is rather heavy, not well-balanced on a APS-C small body
|
| Fujifilm |
Super EBC XF R LM OIS asph. 18-55 f/2.8-4 |
47A22973 |
|
|
yes! |
Though I am not a fan of zoom lenses, especially not the "standard ones"
(I have a temptation for the shorter lengths, instead), and in spite of the fact that I haven't tested
this one throughly, just used it a lot, I can swear on the qualities of this gem, that does pretty well
in most occasions and at all focal lengths and also at full aperture. Geometric aberrations are very
well corrected by the camera firmware, but you may have to work a bit more if you start fro the RAW files.
For a test,
take a look here
It is not "small", though, and probably it would not be possible to do better with a smaller barrel;
also consider that the lens provides OIS (Optical Image Stabilization) and sports a higher minimal
aperture than the typical kit lens.
Though you can control the aperture from the lens itself, the lack of indications on the ring is not
a thing that I like, but it's better than nothing!
Anyway, if you own a Fuji-X camera, I think the 18-55mm f/2.8-4 is a super-recommendable option.
|
| Fujifilm |
Super EBC XC aspherical 16-45mm f/3.5-5.6 |
9AA19423 |
|
|
not sure |
a super-compact lens with decent optical performance but
the motorized zoom control is very uncomfortable for my taste; also I never liked
lenses without aperture control on the barrel. But you can't have it all, can we?
Not my kind of lens, though I keep it for the tiny
dimension (it is retractible) and because it is currently my "widest" option,
the next being the 18mm of the 18-55mm kit lens.
|
| Fujifilm |
Fujifilm 35mm f/2 |
76A12577 |
partially, here |
8+ |
yes! |
This nice litle lens is very compact, sports a wonderful retro style and is superbly built,
like most modern Fuji items. It has an aperture ring made the good old way, that I love the most.
The sharpness is very good across the frame and at the largest apertures it easily beats the legacy
competitors, though Fujifilm probably made a choice here and sacrificed aberration control.
Indeed, the barrel distorsion is too well-evident, and though the camera does a wonderful job in fixing it (using its JPEG files),
from a purely optical point of view, referring to the aspect of distorsion only, there is an ocean between the Fuji-X 35mm and
most other lenses covered here!
I have a little personal story about this lens. After the purchase I felt I made a mistake, I feared that this focal
length were almost useless to me on the APS-C (when I shot on film with 35mm reflex cameras, I did not use much the 50mm,
that's more or less equivalent); I kept on wondering why I didn't buy the 23mm, instead, for other purposes, and also
kept the 35mm in the bag! But suddenly I found it a very capable tool in theatre, where I most often adopted longer focals.
I usually take pictures from the stage, during rehearsal, and some scenes I could not fully cover on the stage,
being them too sparse since the actors coovering an area that was too large.
With the 35mm, I could increase the amount of recordable scenes; the 35mm in time it grew on me and I like its compactness a lot,
so I take it very often with me, especially at parties.
I still prefer the 50mm focal because I like to concentrate on single characters portraits, and yet I am not sacrificing too much of that
with this lens, though I find it, for the general use, rather lacking in character, hence the mark.
|
| Fujifilm |
Fujinon Super EBC XF 27mm f/2.8 |
7BA16214 |
yes:
click here
|
8 |
yes |
A very compact pancake lens (for real!) with good optical qualities. It puts to shame
most old wide-angle glasses of the past, simply because thay are not suited for the digital sensors but also because it is corrected
against spericity (the full print on the front includes "Fujinon aspherical lens").
So, hail the new optics? Don't be too enthusiastic: the uncorrected RAW images present a strong barrel distorsion here, that the
camera will fix for you.
That said, I have same other reservations regarding this tiny object: there is no aperture ring and the focus ring is very short; the manual
focus experience is in generally not pleasant. I also would have liked a bit larger aperture (2?).
This product shines from the point of view of compactness (it allows the camera fit in a mid-size pocket!) and price,
and though my taste looks the other way, I must admit that f/2 and a better focus ring would have deprived it of both these qualities,
so in the end, it deserves a decent mark.
|
| Fujifilm |
Fujinon Super EBC XF 1:2 aspherical 50mm f/2 |
9CB01362 |
|
|
yes |
|
| Tokina |
Tokina RMC 28mm f/2.8 |
|
no |
5 |
no |
The barrel of my copy of the Tokina RMC 28/2.8 (Olympus OM bajonet, mounted by means of an adapter on
the Fujifilm XT-20) is just slightly unstable but the glass looks clean.
I took a stroll with this optic and took some shots, I didn't check it thoroughly, but some times you don't need to:
this lens is rather dull from most points of view, and shows no special strength, hence I don't plan to keep it,
also because I own other 28mm that are somewhat useful.
Oh, vignetting looks irrelevant on APS-C, if that is a consolation. Sharpness increases as soon as the diaphragm
is closed but never becomes noteworthy, not even in the center. The corners are just decent, nothing special.
There is some visible lateral CA, typical for this type of lens.
The general IQ is good but flat, colours are OK and contrast is average.
Summing up, there are many better options by spending just a bit more: some Pentax 28mm, or the Zeiss Distagon 28/2.8
for Contax-Yashica if you can afford more; also, on the Fujifilm-X, the native, digital era 27mm produces
excellent JPEGs from the camera, though if you read my tests you know that the RAW performance is another story;
the Tokina RMC 28mm is just what it is: a decent performer you can have for a very small amount of money.
|
| Vivitar |
Vivitar MC 24mm f/2.8 |
9---* copy 1 |
yes:
click here
|
6 |
no |
* probably made by Cosina
This is for the Pentax K bajonet.
PLEASE, ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT THE COMMENT ABOUT ANOTHER COPY OF THIS LENS
JUST NEXT THIS ONE. THE SECOND COPY IS MUCH MUCH BETTER!
Not much to tell home about it, and definitely inferior, for instance, to the Canon 24mm f/2.8.
Unfairly, I have tested it against some 28mm, anyway some obvious conclusions can be made based on that review.
Speaking of APS-C, this lens is better suited for adaptation with mirrorless cameras because manual focusing without electronic assistance
is very difficult. The zoom facility of mirrorless camera perfectly solves the issue.
|
| Vivitar |
Vivitar MC 24mm f/2.8 PK/AR |
9---* copy 2 |
yes:
see here
|
8+ |
yes! |
* probably made by Cosina
This is a second copy of the Cosina-made Vivitar 24mm.
The first copy that I acquired must be flawed because this other one is optically very convincing, a strong performer
coupled with APS-C. Not terribly soft at f/2.8, it improves fast. The colour reproduction looks faithful to me,
flare is present but not unpleasant and definitely better than in most other lenses, it also has a character.
This lens performs better in short and mid-distance, the corners suffer from longer distances to infinity.
For the €12 I paid for it, a steal!
I haven't tested it throughly, but the images I took on day one speak for theirselves, it is a keep IF NOT A HIDDEN GEM!
Speaking of APS-C, this lens is better suited for adaptation with mirrorless cameras because manual focusing without electronic assistance
is very difficult. The zoom facility of mirrorless camera perfectly solves the issue.
Oh, I forgot, there is no mention in the writings, but this is a close focusing lens (19 cm!) and the results at
minimum distance are surprising, with an excellent background bokeh and unexpected sharpness.
|
| Pentax |
Takumar-A 28mm f/2.8 |
|
yes:
click here
|
8- |
no? |
read the review for comments.
By the time of writing, I have never tested a 28mm from the past that has a high reputation,
so I must suspend the judgment on this one, but given that it is possible to find some other 28mm
for a cheap price, such as the Pentax-M and Pentax-A 28mm, probably I'd go for them.
Apparently, though, the aforementioned lenses form Pentax have worse control over aberrations,
but should definitely come with much better coating -age counts!
|
|