H. G. Dietz
http://aggregate.org/hankd/
Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering
Center for Visualization & Virtual Environments
University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506-0046
Initial release: September 16, 2010
Latest update: April 5, 2012
This document should be cited using something like the bibtex entry:
@techreport{mylenses20100916,
author={Henry Gordon Dietz},
title={{My Lenses}},
month={September},
day={16},
year={2010},
institution={University of Kentucky},
howpublished={Aggregate.Org online technical report},
URL={http://aggregate.org/DIT/MYLENSES/}
}
This document is a summary of the lenses that I, Professor Hank Dietz, had or have either personally or for my research at the University of Kentucky. The opinions expressed here are my own and should not be construed as anything more than that -- my opinions. In most cases, rather than commenting here, I've linked to where my reviews are posted along with others.
However, very informally, the entries here are marked with a minimal
evaluation of quality in two dimensions:
Build quality:
D
C
B
A
best-in-class
Image quality:
D
C
B
A
best-in-class
Lens mounts are identified as:
Canon (manual focus):
FL,
FD,
FDn (the bayonet version)
Kiev:
Kiev-10 / Kiev-15 (the one with no commercial adapters)
M42:
Preset,
Auto/Man,
Auto
Minolta (manual focus):
SR,
MC,
MD
Sony Alpha (auto focus):
A (also Minolta MA),
E
As a reference as to how exotic each lens is, I have also noted the approximate pricing of the lenses. The notation is [$original in $year; $what_I_paid in $year]. The original numbers are highly unreliable, scrounged from various WWW sites, but they are interesting. Sources: Third Party Lenses, Canon Camera prices 1970s, Canon FD 1986 price list, Ad from January 1987 Popular Photography, B&H Canon FD price list August 1992, various Minolta price lists, Minolta Maxxum, Minolta AF lenses, 1971 Pentax retail prices pages 1, 2, and 3, Sony/Minolta AF lens price guide. Yes, there are large price differences between different sources; that should be no surprise to anyone who has ever shopped for a lens. Many of my purchases were about getting a quantity of lenses for my experiments rather than about getting specific lenses. I often overpaid when getting specifc lenses I wanted, whereas many of the lenses I didn't seek out were exceptional bargains.
There are a few other notable references on the WWW. For example, various old lens reviews from when they were new were scanned from Modern Photography.
Although I think that fisheye lenses are uniquely well suited for various uses (for example, most of the images I capture under computer control are through various forms of fisheye lenses), fisheye lenses are definitely considered special-purpose by most photographers. The result is that they tend to be expensive. Often, the lenses are implemented as converters, perhaps because that allows use with a wide range of cameras without having to manufacture many different mounts. The best converters certainly seem to produce images that compete well with the best prime lens implementations, although the best converters are at least as expensive as prime fisheye lenses. In general, cheap fisheyes have poorer image quality around the edges, often with poor sharpness and color fringing, but it also is common that vignetting makes the official view angle a potentially serious overstatement of what's really imaged. I actually use $4 door peepholes as fisheye converters for webcams, but keep in mind that their optical quality is barely good enough for even a sub-megapixel webcam and yields a view angle that is far less than advertised for the peephole (e.g., 220 degress becomes 170 degrees). It is also useful to point-out that centering of fisheye lenses is often poor, and even well-centered fisheyes can use any of several diffierent projection formulas, so de-fishing typically requires calibration in order to achieve the best accuracy.
Accura 12mm f/8 () [$225 in 1968; $65 in 2010]
Deltana Super Wide Angle Door Viewer (special mount) [$4 in 2006]
FIT Ultra Wide Converter Lens F.A.=185 degrees (special mount)
Nikon Fisheye Converter FC-E8 0.21x (28mm & 52mm filter thread)
Raynox DCR-CF185PRO High-Definition Fish Eye Conversion Lens (various filter thread)
Spiratone Auxiliary Fish-Eye Lens (52mm filter thread)
Spiratone Birds Eye Attachment (Series VII filter thread) [; $123 in 2011]
Wide-angle lenses for SLRs need to have a longer gap between their rear element and the film/sensor than their focal length... which means that they tend to be retrofocal designs that can be thought of as combining a simple wide angle with an inverted telephoto to reproject the image. In other words, they have lots of elements. That's an unhappy thing for older lenses that predate good coatings, because contrast can be lost on diffuse internal reflections. Because design of ultra-wides is hard, pre-computer-design lenses generally don't get too wide... especially when used on APS-C or 4/3 crop sensors.
Spiratone YS 18mm f/3.5 (YS: )) [$170 in 1977; $60 in 2011]
Vivitar 19mm f/3.8 () [; $10 in 2011]
Mir 20 20mm f/3.5 () [; $10 in 2012]
Auto Vivitar 20mm f/3.8 (, ) [$225 in 1970]
Vivitar 24mm f/2 () [$160 in 1976; $40 in 2010]
Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 S.S.C. (
) [$287 in 1986]
Mitakon MC 24mm f/2.8 () [; $10 in 2011]
Spiratone Plura Coat 24mm f/2.8 (YS: ) [$110 in 1975; $25 in 2011]
Auto Tamron 24mm f/3.5 () [; $22 in 2010]
Minolta MC W Rokkor Si 28mm f/2.5 () [$154 in 1970]
Vivitar 28mm f/2.5 (, ) [$144 in 1977; $50 in 2009]
Starblitz Auto Macro 28mm f/2.8 ()
Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 () [$89 in 1987]
Super Takumar 28mm f/3.5 () [$79 in 1971; $40 in 2009]
Vivitar 35mm f/1.9
(also reviewed here)
() [$165 in 1975; $10 in 2011]
S-M-C Takumar 35mm f/2 () [$121 in 1971; $125 in 2009]
Canon FD 35mm f/2.8 () [$80 in 1986]
?
Canon FD 35mm f/3.5 "chrome nose" () [; $10 in 2012]
Super Takumar 35mm f/3.5 () [$51 in 1971; $40 in 2009]
Mir 1 37mm f/2.8 () [; $10 in 2012]
For whatever reasons, normal lenses tend to be optically very good. The only "normal" focal length lenses I've seen with poor image quality are the very abnormal re-purposed surplus lenses from X-Ray equipment. That said, "glow" and "bokeh CA" seem to be common issues for fast normals. Despite being a sharp (even wide open) lens with exceptionally smooth bokeh, my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 is a textbook example of both issues.
Using a 14MP APS-C sensor, the halation-like glow of this FL lens intrudes as much as about 8 pixels past high-contrast edges. I suspect the combination of this glow with minor user focus errors is why this lens is called sharp by some and very soft by others.... Glow problems seem to be specific to particular lens models; for example, my Minolta MC Rokkor-X PF 50mm f/1.7 has much more glow than my Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f/1.4. The bokeh CA of this FL lens also are obvious in many scenes, with the out-of-focus PSF biased toward red in front of the focus point and cyan behind. The bokeh CA problem seems generally to be worse for faster lenses, although I've also seen severe examples in photos taken with relatively short telephoto lenses.
Kowa 1:0.75 42mm f/0.75 (converted to )
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 "chrome nose" () [; $30 in 2012]
Canon FDn 50mm f/1.4 () [; $50 in 2012 (returned due to fungus)]
SMC/S-M-C Takumar 50mm f/1.4 () [$87 in 1971; $30 in 2009]
Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f/1.4 () [$110 in 1976]
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 50mm f/1.7 () [$73 in 1976]
Minolta MC Rokkor-X PF 50mm f/1.7 () [$73 in 1976]
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7 (, ) [$74 in 1985]
Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 () [$88 in 1985; $30 in 2011]
Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 RS () [$80 in 2005; $60 in 2010]
Canon FD 50mm f/1.8 () [$54 in 1986]
Helios 81 50mm f/2 () [; $10 in 2012]
Minolta MC Macro Rokkor-X QF f/3.5 () [$291 in 1985; $30 in 2011]
Kowa 1:1 55mm f/1.0 (converted to )
Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 ()
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f/1.4 () [; $30 in 2011]
Auto Mamiya/Sekor 55mm f/1.8 (, ) [; $12 in 2009]
Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 () [$51 in 1971]
Super Takumar 55mm f/2 () [$45 in 1971]
Helios 44M-4 58mm f/2 () [; $33 in 2010]
Helios 44M-7 58mm f/2 () [; $33 in 2010]
Telephoto lenses tend to be really simple optical designs, with few elements and correspondingly less advantage in newer coatings. There are image quality issues, especially involving CA, but things are not bad and newer designs don't seem to be much better (if they're different in any way at all).
Samyang / Opteka 85mm f/1.4 Aspherical IF () [$250 in 2010]
Jupiter 9 85mm f/2 () [; $10 in 2012]
Rodagon XR Heligon 95mm ~f/1.3 (converted to )
Vivitar Macro 100mm f/3.5
(manual focus version of the "plastic fantastic") () [; $35 in 2010]
SMC Macro Takumar 100mm f/4 () [; $100 in 2010]
Spiratone 135mm f/1.8 (YS: ) [$135 in 1973; $150 in 2010]
Super Takumar 135mm f/2.5 () [$94 in 1971; $72 in 2009]
Elicar 135 f/2.8 ()
Sears 135mm f/2.8 Auto Multicoated () [; $8 in 2009]
Soligor 135mm f/2.8 Telephoto () [$117 in 1977?; $10 in 2009]
Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 Auto Telephoto (, , , ) [$124 in 1975; $15 in 2009]
Canon FD 135mm f/3.5 (, ) [$185 in 1986; $10 in 2012]
Minolta MC Tele Rokkor QD 135mm f/3.5 () [$137 in 1976]
Super Takumar 135mm f/3.5 () [$58 in 1971; $40 in 2009]
Jupiter 11 135mm f/4 () [; $10 in 2012]
Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 Auto Telephoto (, , ) [$169 in 1976; $20 in 2009]
S-M-C Takumar 300mm f/4 () [$200 in 1971; $185 in 2009]
Spiratone Minitel-S Plura-Coat 300mm f/5.6 () [; $150 in 2011]
Tele-Astranar 400mm f/6.3 () [$76 in 1980; $15 in 2010]
Soligor 400mm f/6.3 () [$180 in 1972; $15 in 2010]
Opteka (Samyang) 500mm f/6.3 DX () [$180 in 2009]
For similar reasons to wide angle lenses, old zooms are largely bad news. However, the consumer preference for zooms has really made the image quality of zooms much closer to that of fixed-focal-length lenses than one would expect. From the old Vivitar Series 1 zooms on, it was more a matter of cost and weight being higher than of image quality being much lower. However, image quality at the long end of many zooms is markedly inferior to what you get at the short end. Many zooms also have significant changes in the secondary image characteristics (e.g., large-scale contrast and bokeh) as one zooms.
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC () [$450 in 2009?]
Sony E OSS 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ()
Sony AF DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 SAL-1870 (, ) [$200]
Sun Wide Zoom Macro 24-40mm f/3.5 ()
Soligor C/D Zoom+Macro 28-55mm f/3.3-4.5 () [; $5 in 2011]
Sigma 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 ()
Tokina 28-85mm f/4 ()
Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-f/5.6 Macro D Aspherical IF ()
Canon FD 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 () [$170 in 1986]
Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4 (baby beercan) () [$175 in 1985; $22 in 2010]
Minolta AF 35-80mm f/4-f/5.6 II (silver) () [; $10 in 2011]
Sony AF DT 55-200mm f/4-5.6 SAL-55200 () [$230]
Rokunar 60-150mm Macro f/4 () [$276 in 1968]
Vivitar Series 1 Q-DOS 70-210mm f/2.8-4.0 (Cosina; 5th version) () [; $290 in 2011]
Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f/3.5 (Kiron; 1st version) (, , ) [$340 in 1977; $33 in 2010]
Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 (beercan) () [$263 in 1985; $160 in 2010]
?
Vivitar 75-205mm f/3.8 Close Focusing Auto Zoom ()
Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 D () [$150 in 2005]
Soligor C/D Zoom+Macro 80-200mm f/4.5 () [; $10 in 2011]
Promaster 85-210mm f/4.5 () [$180 in 1978]
?
Canon FDn 100-300mm f/5.6 () [; $10 in 2012]
Telephoto converters, which mount behind the lens and increase the effective focal length by magnifying the image, are very convenient. For example, throwing a little converter in your bag can essentially double the number of lenses you're carrying. Another neat feature is that it is not too difficult to use a teleconverter to adapt a lens in one mount to a camera with another; such "glass adapters" can be made to allow infinity focus even for lenses that have a much shorter back focus than the camera body's mounting flange distance. However, there are issues with using any type of teleconverter.
Teleconverters multiply the focal length without changing the physical aperture, so the images get darker: a typical "glass adapter" is around 1.2X and costs about 1/2 stop, 1.4X costs 1 stop, 2X costs 2 stops, and 3X costs approximately 3 stops. For example, a 50mm f/1.4 with a 2X converter becomes a 100mm f/2.8. Further, magnifying the image is amplifying the defects, so problems like color fringing are correspondingly more severe using a teleconverter. Traditional wisdom is that teleconverters should only be used with normal or longer focal lengths, but I think the issue is really that shorter lenses have more elements, and teleconverters are adding to that count -- aberrations, transmission, etc. all are hurt by having so many elements. In other words, teleconverters on zoom lenses might not be the best idea either. Finally, teleconverters seem to cause significant glow when used with fast lenses near wide open; this is probably a reflection issue, and might involve a reflection of the imaging sensor (making the effect body dependent). The good news about the glow is that sometimes it is an artistically desirable effect, and teleconverters often seem to also soften the edges of the PSF of most lenses, yielding smoother bokeh.
Spiratone ~1.22X ( lens to body) [; $12.50 in 2010]
Vivitar macro focusing 2X ()
Vivitar 2X-4 (, )
There are a wide variety of glassless lens mounting devices intended to either provide closer focus (greater magnification) or the allow use of lenses with a mount different from that on the camera body. None of these should have a dramatic impact on image quality, although lenses often are not as sharp nor well-corrected at higher-than-intended magnifications. Bellows are incredibly versatile for macro photography -- especially the Spiratone below, which has rapid coarse adjustment of length by simply pressing in on the focus knobs -- but all bellows change air volume dramatically as you focus and thus are dust infusers. Tubes are less flexible, but often cheaper and more convenient. I had hoped that the cheap tubes that use screw threads for the extension parts would use the same thread for different mounts, thus also being macro adapters between different mounts, but the tube diameter changes with the mount. Automatic extension tubes provide coupling between the body and lens -- which very few bellows do -- but the coupling doesn't do anything when the tubes are mounted on a digital camera using a mount adapter.
It is worth noting that some of the adapters have quirks. For example, I don't
know why, but adapters for and lenses to are often loose unless an
undocumented adjustment is made by using the tip of a screwdriver inserted in
a thin slot on the edge of the internal bayonette to slightly widen the
flange. Similarly, adapters for and lenses often have mounted lenses stop at random
rotational positions; there are some variants that allow the rotational stop
to be adjusted. Some of those adapters also have a ledge to depress the rear
stop-down pin, which makes lenses behave like
manual lenses, but can interfere with some lens back ends. Like I said, some
adapters are quirky.
The lens mount is particularly problematic.
These Kiev lenses are relatively tiny but are fully self-contained with all
optical elements, focus helicoid, and aperture iris. Unfortunately, the
aperture control is completely inside the mount, which makes adapting hard.
There has never been much call for adapters, because this unnamed mount was
only used on the Kiev-10 and Kiev-15 cameras which were not intended for
export out of the USSR. I got such a good deal on a set of five lenses in this
mount that I built my own adapter.
Given that none of these adapters has any glass, rating the optical quality
would be pointless... build quality ratings here are if there is any play or optically-visible imprecision (the worst
case being lack of infinity focus on an adapter advertised as allowing it),
for a basic but solid device, and for units with exceptionally nice build and features.
Fotasy (eBay rainbowimaging) Tilt Adapter (Canon EOS lens to body) [$79.99 in 2011]
Generic (eBay) Adapter ( lens to body)
Homemade adapter using Kiev flange in a drilled body cap ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Chipped 50mm Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Chipped 100mm Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Chipped 500mm Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay) Adapter ( lens to body)
Petri Adapter ( lens to Petri bayonette body)
Generic (eBay) Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay rainbowimaging) Adapter (Nikon lens to Canon EOS body)
Sony LA-EA1 Adapter ( lens to body)
Generic (eBay adplo) Macro Extension Tube Set () [$6.90 in 2010]
Generic (eBay adplo) Macro Extension Tube Set () [$7.99 in 2010]
Generic (eBay henry-digital) Macro Extension Tube Set () [$5.98 in 2010]
Generic (eBay rainbowimaging) Macro Extension Tube Set () [$10.99 in 2011]
Vivitar Automatic Extension Tube Set ()
Vivitar Automatic Extension Tube Set () [; $22.32 in 2011]
Spiratone "Rapid Rail" Macrobel (Pentax K, )
This section doesn't really belong here, but I don't want to make another page for these bodies that can mount the above lenses... most of which I don't use. In particular, I really don't see much point in shooting film anymore. Anyway, most of the following came with lenses I wanted.... It is worth noting a couple of things about this list.
First, although I used Canon DSLRs for years, the lack of electronic controls on DSLRs compared to compacts made me prefer compacts. They were simply more versatile for the tethered shooting that was my primary application. For personal use, APS-C DSLRs were particularly discouraging because I like wide angles, and there pretty much were none for APS-C. It was the release of the Sigma 10-20mm that made DSLRs worthwhile for me personally, and the Sony A100 seemed to be the highest-quality sensor one could put behind it at that time. I also always liked Minolta handling, and the A100 was very Minolta. I have not purchased a non-Sony DSLR since then, and I'm now more centered on mirrorless digital bodies. A NEX-7 is clearly in my future.
Second, I collected most of the film cameras below because I wanted the lenses they were bundled with on eBay -- which explains the heavy bias toward M42 mounts and certain brands. However, there's also a clear trend here. I have not a single bad Kiev, Pentax, Mamiya/Sekor, Zenit, or Sony body. Of 11 Minolta bodies, only one doesn't work (the mirror is stuck up, which might actually be a very minor issue). Of 5 Canons, two have problems: one has the eyepiece glass loose and the other is completely inoperative. The only Petri looks beautiful, but is completely dead with a shutter problem. Read what you will into all that.
Canon FTb (two working) [1971]
Canon TLb (one not working) [1974]
Canon AE-1 (one with broken viewfinder) [1976]
Canon T70 (one working) [1984]
Kiev 15 (one working) [1978]
Mamiya/Sekor 1000 TL (one working) [1966]
Mamiya/Sekor 1000 DTL (one working) [1968]
Minolta SRT101 (mine from the 1970s, another via eBay) [1966]
Minolta XK (mine from new and still great) [1973]
Minolta X370 (one working) [1974?]
Minolta X7a (one working with motor, another not working) [1974?]
Minolta XE5 (one with broken self-timer) [1975]
Minolta Maxxum 3000i (one working) [1989]
Minolta Maxxum 5000i (one working) [1989]
Minolta Maxxum 7 (one working and still great) [2000]
Minolta Maxxum 70 (one working) [2004]
Pentax Spotmatic (my dad's from new) [1964]
Pentax Spotmatic SP II (one working) [1971]
Pentax ES (one working) [1971]
Pentax Spotmatic SP F (one working) [1973]
Petri MF-1 (one not working) [1977]
Sony A100 (mine from new) [2005]
Sony A350 (mine from new) [2008]
Sony A55 (mine from new) [2010]
Sony NEX-5 (mine from new) [2010]
Sony NEX-7 (mine from new) [2012]
Zenit 122 (one working) [1990]
Since I have so many lenses, I have noticed a number of trends. Here's the quick summary....
and Nikon non-ai mounts usually differ
significantly in price, and the more-adaptable is the cheaper one! I'll get lenses in these mount
iff the price is right, and that hasn't happened yet in two
years searching eBay.
I have a variety of other links relative to my work in digital imaging, computational photography, etc., at http://aggregate.org/DIT/MYLENSES/. That includes various things about use of old lenses with modern digital cameras and sensors.
The only thing set in stone is our name.
