Lenses

[BTM_Pix]

20 hours ago, Marcio Kabke Pinheiro said:

I have this one, got almost mint in 2015. Is probably my sharpest vintage lens, used it to shoot concerts and is insanely good. Still in the same price range that I've got (around US$ 160), for me is a no brainer.

Yeah, thats roughly the same price that I paid for mine too.

The longer focal length Contax Zeiss lenses offer great value.

I've got my eye on the 200mm f3.5 or possibly the 100-300 f4.5-5.6 if I can get one for the right price.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

19 hours ago, kye said:

Yeah, I'm on some vintage lenses groups and people are constantly buying lenses, matching, cinemodding / rehousing, and completing sets, which then get casually listed for 4 or 5, or even 6-figures.  There are also people new to things and just buying their first Helios or CZ, it's a real mixture.

A month or two ago someone posted asking for info on a prototype lens which he believed to be from Panavision.  Apparently it was a development prototype of a lens that never made it to production and something happened and the person was told to throw it out, so they put it in their bin at their desk and someone else immediately took it out and took it home lol.

After seeing the value of the 35m f/2, I was somewhat torn; if I could sell it for the market prices, it would help to get a newer camera, and probably the lens could arrive in better hands to use it (remember, I'm an amateur, and with Covid and other work issues I barely shoot at all).

But I've got the lens, put it in my X-S10 with a passive adapter, and made some clips of my daughter, my wife and my mother-in-law, inside the house. Looking at the images, I understood all the hype, the footage was beautiful. 🙂 Lens will stay here, except if the prices goes much more crazy.

Little side note - did not used my vintage ones since I moved to Fuji, but looks like that all the talk about thickness of the sensor stack (Fuji is much thinner than m4/3) is real - the footage from the lens was much sharper than the same lens on my Panasonics. Very sharp, but not in a digital way.

[Matt Kieley]

I recently rebought the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 which was the first native wide angle prime I ever bought back in my GH1 days. This is from a lighting test but I like how it looks, so here you go.  This is shot wide open on the G9 in 4K, CineV. Graded with FilmConvert Nitrate (Fuji Astia 100).

[PannySVHS]

Not commenting on affordable FD lenses since prices are high enough already.😊 55mm 1.2 asph, sheesh. One sold for "cheap" last weekend for 1600 EUR. They usually go for 3500 and more. Afaik all the Fd 35mm f2 lenses and other FDs as well will have mechanical faults due to use of rubber in the focussing mechanisms. My 35 70 f4 has a gnarling focussing sound and lens elements are rattling.

[noone]

On 2/16/2022 at 7:50 AM, PannySVHS said:

Not commenting on affordable FD lenses since prices are high enough already.😊 55mm 1.2 asph, sheesh. One sold for "cheap" last weekend for 1600 EUR. They usually go for 3500 and more. Afaik all the Fd 35mm f2 lenses and other FDs as well will have mechanical faults due to use of rubber in the focussing mechanisms. My 35 70 f4 has a gnarling focussing sound and lens elements are rattling.

On some Fds, the brass bearings are coated in rubber and the rubber dissolves over time.

It does not affect every copy it seems (or at least some take much longer for it to happen).

It happened with my 85 1.2 L and I just gave the lens away to the bloke I sold my FD24 1.4 L too (that did not have the bearing issue) and I got a Sony GM 85 1.4 from the buyer as well as some cash.

I could still use the FD 85 but it was very annoying that the focus was very loose and the GM 85 1.4 is spectacular to me by comparison so was never going to use it again anyway.

Some of those FD 24 1.4 asphercials have sold for around $20,000 which is plain nuts!

[HockeyFan12]

1 hour ago, noone said:

On some Fds, the brass bearings are coated in rubber and the rubber dissolves over time.

It does not affect every copy it seems (or at least some take much longer for it to happen).

It happened with my 85 1.2 L and I just gave the lens away to the bloke I sold my FD24 1.4 L too (that did not have the bearing issue) and I got a Sony GM 85 1.4 from the buyer as well as some cash.

I could still use the FD 85 but it was very annoying that the focus was very loose and the GM 85 1.4 is spectacular to me by comparison so was never going to use it again anyway.

Some of those FD 24 1.4 asphercials have sold for around $20,000 which is plain nuts!

How do the Sony and FD L 85mms compare?

Does anyone know what the ideal humidity is for lenses? I have my FD lenses in a humidity locker now but I'm seeing some signs of aging on them and am worried they're too dry.

[kye]

8 hours ago, noone said:

On some Fds, the brass bearings are coated in rubber and the rubber dissolves over time.

It does not affect every copy it seems (or at least some take much longer for it to happen).

It happened with my 85 1.2 L and I just gave the lens away to the bloke I sold my FD24 1.4 L too (that did not have the bearing issue) and I got a Sony GM 85 1.4 from the buyer as well as some cash.

I could still use the FD 85 but it was very annoying that the focus was very loose and the GM 85 1.4 is spectacular to me by comparison so was never going to use it again anyway.

Some of those FD 24 1.4 asphercials have sold for around $20,000 which is plain nuts!

I used to be an IT tech and we used to have to do major services on printers that were old, even if they had low page-counts, because all the rubber in the rollers used to push the paper around had dried out and cracked and no longer worked reliably.

What was interesting was that we had similar printers of similar ages in lots of different buildings with different types of air-conditioning systems (refrigerative, evaporative) and this really impacted the lifetime of the rubber rollers.

[PannySVHS]

The rubber dissolving is in regard to some silver ring Fd lenes as well, not just nFd. Yeah, prices are nuts for these 24mm 1.4 Fd lenses. I love my nFd 28mm 2.8 which i got for 20eu six years ago. It gives a beautiful image. Mechanically it is typical nFd and rather a bit dull and no contest to other marvels but still great to hold and operate.

I read the 28mm f2 is not worth the extra money unless you are in need for the extra stop in light gathering. I would love to believe that.😊

[HockeyFan12]

14 hours ago, kye said:

I used to be an IT tech and we used to have to do major services on printers that were old, even if they had low page-counts, because all the rubber in the rollers used to push the paper around had dried out and cracked and no longer worked reliably.

What was interesting was that we had similar printers of similar ages in lots of different buildings with different types of air-conditioning systems (refrigerative, evaporative) and this really impacted the lifetime of the rubber rollers.

Do you know what the correlation was? Humidity or something else? I have a few I want to keep in good condition and am worried too low humidity might dry the bearings out somehow?

I just sold a 28mm f2.0 FD L for I think $99 a year or two ago. 😞

[PannySVHS]

The 28 f2 is supposed to be a bulked up 2.8 with an additional lens element. It's not as good at the same apertures as the 2.8 regarding some lens nerds. I love the 28mm 2.8, which is one of my favorite lenses and still goes for little prices. A price of 99 USD for the f2 is way too low though! It's not so common neither. How did you come up to selling it for that low price?

[PannySVHS]

Here is my nFd 28mm f2.8 in action. It especially shines wide open for close ups of faces on 0.71 speedboosted M43. I did this video couple years ago and I posted it before on this forum. Grading is a bit over the top and too much to handle for the humble Lumix G6

But anyhow, to illustrate the magical goodness of this affordable plasticy Canon Fd 28mm 2.8

[kye]

1 hour ago, HockeyFan12 said:

Do you know what the correlation was? Humidity or something else? I have a few I want to keep in good condition and am worried too low humidity might dry the bearings out somehow?

I just sold a 28mm f2.0 FD L for I think $99 a year or two ago. 😞

It's too long ago for me to remember accurately, but mostly I think they dried up.

Of course, in a lens it's more complicated because you shouldn't humidify them too much or you'll get fungus.  Also, when @PannySVHS says the rubber "dissolved" that's something I think is literally true - which is very different to rubber drying out.

It's probably a case of reading the advice from known good sources, which considering the level of completely wrong info posted all over the internet about it, I'd only get from lens manufacturers directly.

[noone]

23 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

How do the Sony and FD L 85mms compare?

Does anyone know what the ideal humidity is for lenses? I have my FD lenses in a humidity locker now but I'm seeing some signs of aging on them and am worried they're too dry.

I have had a LOT of 85mm lenses FD 1.2 L, Nikon 1.8, Sony FE 85 1.8, Sony A mount 85 2.8, Minolta 85 1.7 (I thhink?) and from a photographers point of view (not so much video), the GM is light years better than any of the others and I loved the FE and the FD ones.       I can not wait to find portrait victims and use it (and do a comparison test against other portrait lenses i have). 

The GM is expensive and does make noises when focusing (not as bad as i expected reading reviews but it is there) but is very sharp and 11 rounded blades make for lovely bokeh even stopped down a bit.

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

FD 35mm f/2 concave, with a Fujifilm X-S10, full pic and center crop.

I guess I could call it a sharp lens (and looks like that Fuji peaking works very well)

[kye]

@Marcio Kabke Pinheiro wow - that is sharp - was that wide-open?

 

 

[Marcio Kabke Pinheiro]

17 hours ago, kye said:

@Marcio Kabke Pinheiro wow - that is sharp - was that wide-open?

 

 

Yep, handheld wide open at f/2.

[PannySVHS]

Darn. Bought a Canon FD 35 to 105m F3.5. Lens is very light and tiny compared to the Konica 35-100 2.8, even compared to my Soligor 35-70 f2.5-3.5 it is tiny. It feels and is very plasticy.

My sample unfortunately does not focus beyond 9feet when at 35mm. At 105mm it misses infinty and focuses up to around 30m, 100feet when at f11. My adapter is top notch but lens is not alligned. So i will resell it.

[mercer]

12 hours ago, PannySVHS said:

Darn. Bought a Canon FD 35 to 105m F3.5. Lens is very light and tiny compared to the Konica 35-100 2.8, even compared to my Soligor 35-70 f2.5-3.5 it is tiny. It feels and is very plasticy.

My sample unfortunately does not focus beyond 9feet when at 35mm. At 105mm it misses infinty and focuses up to around 30m, 100feet when at f11. My adapter is top notch but lens is not alligned. So i will resell it.

That's a great lens. It's rumored that Canon was so impressed by it that it had been considered to receive the L moniker.

[PannySVHS]

8 hours ago, mercer said:

That's a great lens. It's rumored that Canon was so impressed by it that it had been considered to receive the L moniker.

Mechanically it is rather unthrilling. I also have the beautiful Canon FD 35-70 F4 because off your advice. It has a rattling lens element but still manages to focus and perform flawlessly. The 35-105 feels even more plasticy than the 35-70.

Both have the classy classic FD look, creamy but with nice resolving power for motion picture images, nice contrast and great colour. Ergonomically and size wise they are both perfect in handy. Focus through on the 35- 105 is very long though. Unfortunately not only the 35- 70 but also the 35- 105 suffer from dissolved rubber material of the bearings after a period of time.

Handling wise it would be much more comfortable than the impressive mechanical marvel which the Konica 35- 100 F2.8 is. The Konica is as varifocal as it was constructed to be. The focus plane changes by a huge amount when focal length changes. So a slight change in focal lenght has a much more effect on the focus plan than on the Canon. The Konica does not seem like a run and gun lens. Testing the handling before a filmshoot is highly recommended.

[mercer]

32 minutes ago, PannySVHS said:

Mechanically it is rather unthrilling. I also have the beautiful Canon FD 35-70 F4 because off your advice. It has a rattling lens element but still manages to focus and perform flawlessly. The 35-105 feels even more plasticy than the 35-70.

Both have the classy classic FD look, creamy but with nice resolving power for motion picture images, nice contrast and great colour. Ergonomically and size wise they are both perfect in handy. Focus through on the 35- 105 is very long though. Unfortunately not only the 35- 70 but also the 35- 105 suffer from dissolved rubber material of the bearings after a period of time.

Handling wise it would be much more comfortable than the impressive mechanical marvel which the Konica 35- 100 F2.8 is. The Konica is as varifocal as it was constructed to be. The focus plane changes by a huge amount when focal length changes. So a slight change in focal lenght has a much more effect on the focus plan than on the Canon. The Konica does not seem like a run and gun lens. Testing the handling before a filmshoot is highly recommended.

The f/4 was a nice lens, although I haven't used it in a long time.

Sadly, a lot of these lenses are becoming more and more disposable with every passing year, and other than a few gems, from the golden days, a lot are often interchangeable, or indistinguishable, on a modern camera... especially on video at higher resolutions.

I understand why people consistently build Zeiss or Leica sets. If I knew then what I know now, I would probably build a small set of Contax Zeiss or Nikkors and be done with it.

With that said, there really are some gems from every manufacturer and I find myself using single primes more than building sets of lenses because I'm rarely straying from a specific focal range.