The lenses I use

Some say that cameras are nothing but a light-tight box; it is the lens that counts. I disagree with that, cameras are very sophisticated devices that operate with accuracy and can expand to suit our needs. The pinhole cameras teach us that a lens is not necessary to take a picture but on the other hand, the lenses made today produce pictures that astound us with their clarity and level of detail they record. New, CAD aided programs offer new designs and “better” – if we can say - lenses. Or not?

I think it is only fair to make a post about the lenses I’ve used so far and compare them with each other to give a sense of scale. I am basing my scoring on usability, personal preference and most important performance for the price.  I will limit this post only to the prime lenses I use; maybe at some point I will start adding the plasticy zoom lenses.. we’ll see.

•  Prakticar 50 f/1.8

I start with this lens because it is historically the first prime I ever used. Most of my slide shots during the 90’s are shot with an old Praktica BMS with this lens. Quite plastic in construction and small in dimensions, it performs well even wide open. Soft at f1.8 as all lenses are, it handles contrast quite well and it is reasonably sharp at f5.6. You can see a picture here. Big bonus is the price that you can spend for one of these. I got mine for £5.00 with camera plus bag included. A great all around lens that is unfortunately crippled by the fact that it can only be used on Praktica bayonet cameras (B-series).  Use it on a BX-20s camera and be surprised. If you are not going to invest on a Praktica, then probably look else where. Score 5 out of 10

•  Helios 44-M4 58 f/2

The lens that came with my Zenit, this is a copy of the Zeiss Biotar. There are multiple copies of this lens, I think 6 in total, mine is the second most common one (M4) with 44-M6 being the latest and the multicoated one. Mine is simple coated and has difficulty handling high contrast. In general I tend to avoid using this lens in bright sunlight as it tends to flare a lot. But use this lens in a cloudy day and you will probably be surprised with the nice tonalities it produces. Sharpness is not its virtue either but still use this lens in low contrast scenes and you’ll love the tones it produces. You can see some of the pictures here and here to see what I mean. The 58mm focal length does make a difference when you compose, everything seems more tight. The lens is quite well made without reaching the level of some other lenses in here. Its lens mount is the universal M42 which means that it can be used in plenty cheap and nice cameras out there. A very nice lens to own that can be bought for peanuts although I am not using it a lot due to its inability to handle high contrast scenes. Score 6 out of 10
 

• Pentax Super Takumar 50 f/1.4 

So, where do you turn to if you want, excellent build quality, a very sharp lens that easily handles high contrast, fast and cheap. You don’t really have that many options, you probably need one of these. This lens is built from metal and glass, it has a superb coating and it is sharp even wide open. Comparing this lens at f/1.8 with the canon and Minolta, the Takumar wins hands down. At f/5.6 it is as sharp as the Canon and think that this lens was made in the 60’s. I got mine for £30 pounds although I understand that there is high demand which drives the prices up. Another M42 lens that can be used on a variety of cameras, from Pentaxes to Fujicas and from Prakticas to Zenits. Just choose your weapon. You can see some pictures here and here. I cannot fault this lens. Score 9 out of 10.

• Minolta AF 50 f/1.7 

Another well-made lens from the late 80’s, mine is the RS-series of the lens. Focuses relatively fast on my Minolta 9xi and it is as sharp as you would expect a 50mm prime to be. Wide open is soft but it produces pleasant tones. At f8 is sharp. Another big bonus, it has an integrated hood, just pull it out. Not extremely effective but it does its job. A bit noisy when focusing too. In total I find this lens to be less sharp that its Canon counterpart but those who are thinking to buy it will not be disappointed. It also handles contrast quite well – no complaints either. I suppose the biggest challenge with this lens is to get one at the right price. Since its productions has stopped, the used ones on the internet go for about £80 - £120 pounds which I think it is a lot. You can get the Canon new for £80 to give a sense of price. I got mine for £60 so I am very happy with it. You can see some pictures taken with this lens here and here. Score 7 out of 10

• Sigma 24 f/2.8 Super Wide II

A lens with a cult following on the internet which unfortunately failed to impress me. The focusing was very slow on all my Minoltas and the corners of the frame were blurry even at f/8.The distortion the lens produces is evident even to the untrained eye (like mine). The macro ability is a welcome addition but overall I thing Sigma has produced far better lenses. Here is a picture to show you what i mean. It is taken at f/4. I think that it's 28mm sibling is a much better option. Score 4 out of 10.

•  Yashica AF 50 f/1.7 

Everything I wrote for the Minolta AF 50 f/1.7 apply for this lens too. Actually the Yashica is a clone of the Minolta prime, even it includes the integrated lens hood. It performs the same although it is a bit nosier that the Minolta (having said that, I tested this lens on a Yashica 200AF noise beast). You can see a picture here. Unfortunately it can be used only on 4 cameras (200AF, 230AF, 270AF and 300AF). Very limiting choice unless you’ve got a Yashica AF. If not, the acquisition of a camera body adds to the price….. score 5 out of 10

• Sigma 28 f/2.8 Mini Wide II

 That is a beautiful lens for Minolta MD mount. Sharp across the frame and with good flare control, the £5 that I paid for it was an absolute steal. If you don't mind the extra 4mm, I would recommend this lens over its 24mm sibling. There is some distortion evident but it does not bother me. This is a well made lens with a comfortable rubber grip. The only thing that i find annoying is the fact that MD lenses open and close the aperture in the opposite direction than most of my other lenses, so this takes a bit to get used to. A sample picture here. Score  6 out of 10

• Canon EF 50 f/1.8 

A must have if you are a Canon EOS user. You can have it new for £70-£90 it is ridiculously sharp and handles contrast very well. Sharp even wide open in the centre. The motor on the lens is a bit noisy but the AF on the EOS 5 is fast and accurate. Pity about all this plastic. It feels more like a toy rather than a tool. Lens mount is also made of plastic. Having said that, I have it for 3 years now and I’ve been using it on 3 different bodies (EOS 5, 300v, 10D) and I have no issues whatsoever. A sample picture here and here to show you what I mean. A classic. Score 8 out of 10

•   Leica Elmar 50 f/3.5

This is the post-war single coated version of the lens that closes down to f/22. A modified Cook-triplet anastigmat the lens is reasonable sharp at f8 but gets softer at f/4 and f/3.5. Do not be put off though, the lens handles contrast very nicely and on low contrast it records nicely all the middle toned greys. Some pictures here and here to see what I mean. This is the collapsible version so make sure that you lock it once you pull it out otherwise you are heading for blurry pictures. Some teething problems with ergonomics too, the aperture ring is next to the front element which makes it difficult to change it. Made out of brass and glass, nothing else. I prefer it with b&w film rather than colour. It might not be the sharpest of them all but it has class and makes nice pictures. Leica’s reputation was built on this lens.  Score 7 out of 10.

• Soligor 35 f/2.8

The absolute bargain of my lens collection and a great alternative to the very expensive Takumars. Got it on a car boot sale for the amount of £0.50. Excellent build quality, reasonably sharp wide open, sharp at f/8 and f/11, this M42 can give a run for their money to any other lens. Produced by Soligor to be sold with the Miranda cameras, this combo was meant to compete with the Nikkormat’s in the 70’s although they didn’t do that well. The Nikkors are in a different league altogether but it does give you an idea of the high standards that this lens is made to and you should expect an excellent performer especially if you think of the price. On the internet they can be found for £5 to max £25. I bought this lens to use it with an L39-to-M42 adaptor on my Leica but this lens is heavy and makes the hold of the camera awkward. It balances much better on the Fed-3b where it resides permanently now.  See some pictures here and here. You can’t go wrong with this lens considering its price tag. Score 8 out of 10
 

• Photax-Paragon 35 f/2.8 

This is an odd lens. It is a M42 lens but it comes with an adaptor ring. I have no idea what mount thread is it without the adaptor. Well-made lens, it feels solid and well-constructed. Mine appears to have the auto-diaphragm lever stuck. It also seems that someone has been in there before, all screws seem to have been unscrewed. I don’t mind the stuck lever as I am using it on my rangefinder and at f/8 and f/11 it is reasonably sharp. I haven’t used it wide open. The handling of contrast is relatively ok. Cloudy days and middle toned greys are its specialty. See it as something like a 35mm version of the Helios above. Not good not bad either. A picture here. Score 4 out of 10

• Industar-61 52 f/2.8 

There are load of reports and websites on the internet about this lens and it’s siblings so I won’t go into great details. Sharp as a Tessar lens can be and handles the contrast very well. After all the hype on the internet, the prices are climbing up and up to heights that cannot be justified (I’ve seen many go for as high as £ 80). I have three of these and all three suffer from the same issue – dry lubricants. The grease becomes so gummed up that I ended up unscrewing the lens from the camera while trying to focus. Quite easy to fix though, I am not a DIY person but I managed that. Make sure you collimate it before using it. This is a well-made lens, only the distance ring is made out of plastic. A good lens altogether although I personally prefer the look and feel of the Elmar or the Helios. Some sample pictures here and here. Score 6 out of 10

• Pentacon Auto 50mm f/1.8 Multicoated 

Unfortunately I have no picture of this lens as it came to me as  a loan. Used it to shot one film so my experience with this lens is limited.  Quite well build and sharp lens, reminds me a lot of the Prakticar 50 f/1.8 although handling high contrast is not it bread and butter.  Might be a better choice than the Prakticar though as it is a universal M42 mount and it can be found dead cheap on some MTL or LTL Praktica. It represents good value for money and is a good general performer although I’ve seen better ones. Some Prakticas were offered with the more sought after  Meyer Optik Oreston 50 f/1.8 which I think is the same lens design. Not sure, I haven’t used one. Did I say it’s sharp? It is. The Pentacon is good and versatile lens and represents good value for money. A picture can be found here. Score 6 out of 10. 


*    X-Fujinon 50 f/1.9

Fujinon lenses, either M42 or X-mount are not the most common sights to see but they are beautiful lenses, well made and very sharp. This one is no exception. This is the non-EBC version, I think there is an f/1.4 and f/1.2 EBC ones which are very expensive to get but this one handles contrast very well and it is plenty sharp from f/3.5 upwards. I keep this lens in very high regard, especially with the amount of money I paid to get it but unfortunately it is only meant to be used on the X-mount Fujicas which was sold with. The M42 version of this lens scores higher on my list. A sample picture can be found here. Score 6.5 out of 10.

• Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar 50 f/2.8:   

Where this lens really shines is in build quality. Made only from metal and glass, this is a heavy lens to hold and has a quality feel to it. My sample came with stuck aperture which appears to be typical for this lens but all glass was clean. I've shot a few pictures with my FED-3b on a M42-to-M39 adaptor. The pictures were nice and sharp and it seems to control flare quite well. Does it out-perform the rest 50's lenses i've used? No. I've found other lenses of the same vintage to be just as good if not better performers (the Industar-61, the Takumar and the Fujinon come to mind) but by F/8 all the differences between standard lenses become minimal. The Tessar is a good lens but i cannot say that i would be happy to pay for it £50 on the net to get it. The Pentacon Auto 50mm f/1.8 Multicoated is just as good option in M42 mount and is much cheaper.  If you don't mind the 35mm view of field then the Solingor is a more sensible option for your money. A sample pic can be found here. A rather over-estimated lens in my humble opinion. Score 5 (or maybe 6) out of 10.

Conclusion

This is going to be an on-going post that I will be updating once I use another lens.  Are there any winners/losers? Not really, lens performance is highly subjective, something that I find fantastic, you might find it useless. So please, don’t write asking why I gave lens “a” a score higher than lens “b”. The best way to see how a lens performs for you is to actually get one. I think that what history has taught me is that you don’t need to pay a lot of money these days to get a good lens. They seem to be plenty out there which perform as good as their contemporary ones and can be had for lunch money. The Soligor is a good example but I am sure that there are plenty out there waiting to be discovered.