Let's see your... "vintage lenses on modern body" shots.

What are your feelings between the two?

I don't need another 28mm, but when I was last in a SH camera place looking at Minolta lenses, the owner said "you won't find a sharper lens than the Vivitar"

I can't see any discernable difference on the posted images. All nice.
 
Kell said:
I don't need another 28mm, but when I was last in a SH camera place looking at Minolta lenses, the owner said "you won't find a sharper lens than the Vivitar"
Click to expand...
Both true and false, depending.

When Ponder and Best invented the "Vivitar" brand, their intent appears to have been to produce a low cost range to compete with the lower end lenses from the big three (Minolta, Nikon and Pentax). Then, in the 1970s, they decided to go head to head with the premium ranges and commissioned some rather good lenses labelled "Series 1". The most spectacular of this new range was the Tokina-made 70-210mm f3.5, that became a firm friend of British press photographers at all levels.

However, despite their success, Vivitar soon cheapened the "Series 1" sub-brand and they became, once again, just other low cost third party supplier.
 
Kell said:
What are your feelings between the two?

I don't need another 28mm, but when I was last in a SH camera place looking at Minolta lenses, the owner said "you won't find a sharper lens than the Vivitar"

I can't see any discernable difference on the posted images. All nice.
Click to expand...

There are a few Vivitar 28mm lenses with various maximum apertures so the salesman's comment will need to be a bit more specific. I think there's a f2.5 and a f2.8 too but there may be more as looking at the pictures on ebay I think there are some lenses which look a bit different so there may be some duplication. I went for the f2 as I'd read that it's a bit soft wide open but is a characterful lens which is getting a bit of a cult following so I thought Id give one a try. It is a bit soft wide open but it's useable for me and who's going to look at a picture taken with a vintage wide aperture lens and criticise the sharpness? Not me :D

Of the Minolta 28mm f2.8 MC3 and Vivitar 28mm f2 I'd say that the Monolta is better because it's a bit better across the frame and just edges the Vivitar on CA and flare performance but the Vivitar is f2 and is IMO perfectly useable.

I have quite a few Minolta lenses ranging from the MK1's all the way through to the last of the line when the dropped the Rokkor designation. The pre MD ones are for me the best built but I'd say that the MD Rokkors and indeed the last non Rokkor MD's give the most modern look and are less prone to flare and other negatives. Of all the film era lenses I've had I think that the Minolta Rokkors and the Nikon AIS give the most modern look such as less fussy bokeh, better performance across the frame and better CA and flare resistance

Personally I'd just go for something with nice build quality and handling but if a more modern look is what you are aiming for then the Nikon and Minolta MD's are IMO the ones to be looking at.
 
I have a couple of Konica Hexanon AR lens, a 50mm f1.7 and a 28mm f3.5 - anyone used these on the Zf are they any good - (great to receive some feedback before I decide to buy an adapter)
 
woof woof said:
There are a few Vivitar 28mm lenses with various maximum apertures so the salesman's comment will need to be a bit more specific. I think there's a f2.5 and a f2.8 too but there may be more as looking at the pictures on ebay I think there are some lenses which look a bit different so there may be some duplication. I went for the f2 as I'd read that it's a bit soft wide open but is a characterful lens which is getting a bit of a cult following so I thought Id give one a try. It is a bit soft wide open but it's useable for me and who's going to look at a picture taken with a vintage wide aperture lens and criticise the sharpness? Not me :D

Of the Minolta 28mm f2.8 MC3 and Vivitar 28mm f2 I'd say that the Monolta is better because it's a bit better across the frame and just edges the Vivitar on CA and flare performance but the Vivitar is f2 and is IMO perfectly useable.

I have quite a few Minolta lenses ranging from the MK1's all the way through to the last of the line when the dropped the Rokkor designation. The pre MD ones are for me the best built but I'd say that the MD Rokkors and indeed the last non Rokkor MD's give the most modern look and are less prone to flare and other negatives. Of all the film era lenses I've had I think that the Minolta Rokkors and the Nikon AIS give the most modern look such as less fussy bokeh, better performance across the frame and better CA and flare resistance

Personally I'd just go for something with nice build quality and handling but if a more modern look is what you are aiming for then the Nikon and Minolta MD's are IMO the ones to be looking at.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the update.

I think he only mentioned the Vivitar as their prices for the Minoltas were so ludicrous I baulked when he told me how much he wanted.

I was just interested as this is the only time I’ve seen anyone I ‘know’ use two very similar lenses.

As it happens I want to stick with Minolta rather than third party MD fit.

All my Minolta lenses (I now have 11) are MD rather than MC and I don’t really see how most of them could really be any sharper.

Although I know I mentioned before my copy of the 50/1.4 is soft wide open - less noticeable on film.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Sony A7i + Minolta AR1 55/2 - from 1959.

Have to say I was unsure about this lens at first. Seemed really soft. But then I stepped it down to f8 and it's as sharp as you like and the colours ...

TP52 2024 WK 37 - people 03 by Kell, on Flickr
 
Just getting into this. I put Zeiss Contarex lenses on my Lumix S1

35mm f2.8 Distagon

CRX 35D CRX 35D Pont St Elisabeth LSF 2.jpg

CRX 35D Water Wheel PTF 4.jpg


And the 50mm f2.8 Planar

54018739419_413e920e1c_c.jpg

54018842390_e0ba9422ff_c.jpg

I'll be gettinga C/Y mount in the next few days that will give more options.
 
I still like the Minolta 35-105 (old version) on a Sony body - this one the A6600. It renders colours nicely, has good DoF and has a certain something about it that I can't quite put my finger on. Not bad for £15 off e-bay!

DSC01738.jpg
 
Kell said:
It's a slippery slope.

I had one 'vintage' lens at the start of this year.

I now have 14.

At least it's relatively cheap.
Click to expand...

I already have four of each C/Y & CRX lenses, plus a 2x converter, CPOL & extension tubes for the C/Y optics & a CPOL & close-up lens for the Contarex optics. And nothing Zeiss is cheap.
 
Kell said:
It's a slippery slope.

I had one 'vintage' lens at the start of this year.

I now have 14.

At least it's relatively cheap.
Click to expand...

Hi, I am not sure, could be 50 ... When mirrorless cameras were introduced, I bought many vintage lenses MINOLTA, NIKON, LEITZ, OLYMPUS, FUJI.

Over the years, I used them less, going more for native lenses ... ---
 
Kell said:
It's a slippery slope.

I had one 'vintage' lens at the start of this year.

I now have 14.

At least it's relatively cheap.
Click to expand...
Ha, slippery indeed just checked my 'obsession inventory' spreadsheet and I now have 59 unique lenses 99% of which are m42 mount.
I love buying cheap mucky/ damaged lenses and refurbing them if I can.

I barely use any canon native lenses anymore, only my 100-300L for motorsport and my 150mm macro for in the field shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top