Between these cameras...

<p>Any of the mentioned cameras will serve you well. I happen to like the Minolta series of cameras. The older SRT series are great cameras (if you don't mind the weight), there is a multitude of lenses on the used market and, if the batteries die, you can keep using them anyway!</p>

<p>Mike : D</p>

<p>Lets direct the discussion towards the tele lens performance from 85mm <-> 135mm. I would like to choose cameras(mechanical) based on lens performance.<br>

Mostly, I use it for human and nature portraits.</p>

<p>Raavi, the 'L' grip is a pretty rough home made affair that involved angle aluminum stock, nylon bolts and nuts, a 2 AAA holder from Radio Shack, and a lot of hack sawing, drilling, tapping, sanding, and generally messing about (I sure ain't no machinist) Rube Goldberg contraption. I'll take a few pictures with my digital camera and ask my computer nerd son how to post them on here. I've never posted a picture but he is coming over Friday to fix our laptop and I'll ask him then.</p>

<p>I bought an 85mm f/1.7 years ago.<br>

it is a joy to use especially so you can take close ups without folks at a wedding knowing<br>

Unfortunately finding a YS--> k or other adapter is nearly imposible<br>

I may just continmue using it with my present camera.</p>

<p>The Minolta SR-T 101. Have a look at this discussion:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Wc1p?</p>

Lenses? My favourite small set (i did use OM cameras) consisted of an f/2.8 35 mm and an f/2.8 100 mm Zuiko lens.<br>Excellent performers. Small. And as a two lens team, capable of tackling just about everything in the "human and nature portraits" branch of photography.

<p>The Minolta would be my choice from a purely cost standpoint. The SRT 102 will even give you a full information finder with shutter speed and aperture visible. The lenses are not as expensive, but in none of the systems you list will you be able to get an ~85mm portrait lens cheaply, that's one thing which is the same as it ever was. The rest of the Minolta lenses aren't going to set you back as much as Zuikos or Pentax SMC K-mounts. Battery issues can be dealt with. Zinc-air 675 batteries work fine on my SRT with a slight ASA adjustment. As for Pentax, their K-mount lenses will work on Pentax digital cameras so they're being snapped up by digital shooters and the cost of many has been driven up. This doesn't mean it hasn't happened to orphaned mounts like Minolta MC/MD, Canon FD, etc. "Lens hackers" have done many modifications (some of which were so amateurish they made me ill, it's nauseating to see metal chips all over the rear element of a Rokkor 85/1.7, something I have been witness to twice) to adapt orphan lenses to Sony and EOS digital mounts, so any fast/unusual lenses aren't going to be as cheap as they would have been a few years ago. They're still a better buy even with that.</p>

<p>Minolta SRT. I would go with <strong>SRT 102</strong>.</p>

<p>I vote for the OM-1</p>

<p>Olympus is the only SLR 35mm camera I have ever owned. I've had an OM-1 since 1975 and currently have 4 OM-1's, 3 OM-10's and an OM-4T.</p>

<p>Just last weekend I went out with the OM-4T and OM-1N on my shoulder. Those OM-1's are smooth as butter. The film advance is a joy and the shutter is nice and quiet.</p>

<p>The OM-4 (like John Robison said above) "feels like you're grinding coffee beans". Plus I worry about mine a little since it is in near-mint condition and they sell for a high price. (Each of my recent OM-1's cost less than $50)</p>

<p>I just love the silky operation and the way an OM-1 feels in my hands.</p>

<p>For a short telephoto option, consider the Zuiko 75-150 f/4.0 zoom. A lot of people put that lens down but I used mine a few weeks ago and was very happy with the sharpness and contrast. And it's only 1 stop slower than the 100 or 135 f/2.8's.</p>

<p>You can get them for a low price, play around with the different focal lengths and then decide what you want. For example, shoot a roll with the lens set at 85mm, then another at 100mm and a third at 135mm. That way you don't have to invest in an expensive 85mm f/2.0 just to learn you would have been happier with a 13mm f/3.5</p>

<p>The best part of the OM system, for me, is that the lenses are as compact as the cameras and you can carry a body and 3 lenses very easily in a small bag.</p>

<p>The meter battery is not a big deal since you can use hearing-aid batteries or get a converter. Or even go meterless!! Learn the Sunny/16 rule and free yourself.</p>

<p>Whatever you chose you're going to love shooting film with a classic SLR.</p>

 

<p>Another vote for the Olympus (and I'm a Pentax MX user). The Minolta's getting problematically ancient and may not last as long as the other two; the K1000's too 'primordially simple' - no self-timer, no mirror lock-up, no DOF preview and its viewfinder can't match the Olympus. The latter, along with the MX, was the finest fully mechanical SLR ever made in my opinion (and I'm a former Nikon FM2 owner also) </p>

<p>All are good choices, but I don't want to avoid the question so here goes: The K1000 is priced a bit high for its features. While it is a competent machine, there are other K-mount Pentaxes that are a better value. On the plus side it takes a modern MS 76 silver cell rather than the out of production mercury cell. Olympus is more compact, but the Minolta usually sells for less. Olympus does offer more system accessories for the OM-1, though. I own Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus equipment and it is a tough choice, but if you are sticking to the list, I'd opt for the Olympus OM-1, which sometimes is sold with a 1.5 volt conversion. </p>

<p>Right now I am looking for lenses. Soon, I will prepare a list and we continue the discussion about there performance.</p>

<p>Zuiko<br>

====<br>

- Olympus OM 1:2,8/135 mm auto-T Zuiko<br>

- Olympus E.Zuiko 135 mm f/3.5 Objektiv(average lens based on user opinions)<br>

- Vivitar 135mm Close Focus for Olmypus(very rare)<br>

- Vivitar 135mm Tele(not available for OM at this moment)</p>

<p>Rokkor<br>

=====<br>

- Minolta Tele Rokkor MD 2.8 135 mm(No idea about the performance)<br>

- Minolta Tele Rokkor MC 3.5 135 mm(No idea about the performance)<br>

- Vivitar MD 135mm 2.8(No idea about it too)</p>

<p>Pentax<br>

=====<br>

There are some m42 mount lens from vivitar, but I have no idea about its performance.</p>

<p>Please, help to add any other valuable lens @135mm.</p>

<p> </p>

Mohindar,<br><br>About that "average lens" bit.<br>It is, in as far as it was a 'staple' lens; everyone had one, so it was nothing special.<br>It's like the 'regular' 50 mm standard lenses all too often being discounted as nothing special, while in fact they are among the very best lenses that you could get. So too with the 'regular', f/3.5 135 mm Zuiko lens. There's nothing average about it's performance, and apart from 'bragging points', the more expensive and marginally faster f/2.8 has nothing that would make it a better choice.<br>And i don't know whether there's something a Vivitar lens could do better.<br><br>So if you want an OM with 135 mm Zuiko lens, you would not go wrong getting one of the omnipresent and cheap f/3.5 135 mm Zuikos.

<p>I just bought Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 OM mount with Serial: 28605553 for Euro 37 and then your message arrived. :-| I hope, Vivitar won't disappoint either.</p>

 

<p>Mohindar,<br>

Those Vivitars can be quite good, my brother had a M42 Vivitar 200/3.5 from which he used to sell shots to magazines, and I picked up an M42 28/2.8 (not a close focus version) that was surprisingly good. The only way you'll know is to test it. Your lens was likely made by Komine, which was one of Vivitar's better suppliers.</p>

<p>I have all three cameras (actually, a few examples of each), and between the three, I would go with the OM. The OM has a better finder, the lenses are excellent, and an OM camera with a lens fitted to it is a small, lightweight, and quiet package. For the OM lenses, I would choose a 35/2.8 (I have had hit-and-miss luck with the 35/2), the 85/2 (or 90/2 Macro if you have the cash), and the dirt cheap 135/3.5. The OM with the 35 lens attached is probably the same weight as an SRT without a lens.</p>

<p>It's always tough to decide on a camera when they all have their good and bad points. Personally I have owned only Pentax out of the three. A K1000, and a Spotmatic as a first camera. My problem with the K1000 is the meter. They often go bad, and there is no dof preview unless you use the screwmount lenses. The benefit of course is the screwmount lenses, both Pentax and others. My 135 Super Takumar is a hell of a lens which I tested, and has really nice bokeh and their cheap. Here is a link to the 135mm lens club elsewhere (http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/99057-135mm-lens-club.html) The newer SMC is suppose to be better. I believe the 85mm SMC is very popular and a listing in the KEH catalog shows one at $379 in E condition. The possibility of using all the M42 screwmounts lenses out there is why the brand is so popular still to this day.<br>

Based on the ads at KEH, Minolta and Pentax manual focus bodies have more listings then Olympus for equipment. Now all you have to do is research the lenses. Personally from reading so much over the years in the brands noted thru out forums, you'd would probably be better off with a Pentax, but a different model then the K1000. If anything you might want to pay attention to the shutter which can be quite loud in some brands and body size if you have small or large hands. I have been on the edge about getting a SRT body for awhile now, but I see no benefit to the mount. The newer AF cameras changed the mount and killed the old bayonet AFAIK. Still it and the OM were great cameras and can be useable as long as repair parts are available. The question then becomes whats cheaper, a repair or another used body which will probably need a cla.</p>

<p>I have no experience with the Minolta except for the Maxxum.<br /> But both the Pentax and the Olympus are good cameras.</p>

<p>However, as I found when I got an <a href="00Y2PJ">Olympus OM-1 MD</a>, that camera (OM-1 in general, that is) is not only one of the most beautiful cameras ever made, but a real sweetie to hold and use.</p>

<p>I wouldn't want to make things more complex, but Nikon F2 Photomic and the Nikkormat EL family are both very fine cameras, and the pre-AI lenses are generally cheaper than the later AI versions.</p>

<p>Any 85 will cost a lot. I came to like the 100/2.5 Rokkors so I now have three MC Rokkors and two MC Rokkor-X models. The OM-1 is more of a system camera because it has interchangeable focusing screens. The K1000 has no depth of field preview. If I did not care about changing screens I would get the Minolta. The MR-9 adapter works well with the SRTs so the battery is not an issue for me. If you can live with a lens in the 85 range which is slower than f/2 then you have more choices. The 90/2.5 Tamron SP will fit any of these cameras. Speed is also an issue for the cost of a 35. I have a late 35/2.8 Zuiko which did not cost too much. The 35/1.8 MC Rokkor is the fastest of my Minolta 35s. I also have two 35/1.9 Vivitars in Minolta mount. In K mount I have a 35/2 SMC M lens which is very nice. There are many good 135s for all three mounts which are not too expensive. I have the 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing in Minolta and OM mounts and a number of other mounts but not K. Even though I have many Rokkors I enjoy using my Celtics too. My 85s include an f/1.8 Konica Hexanon, f/1.8 Canon New FD, f/1.8 Canon FL and f/2 AI Nikkor. I would have to find a Rokkor or MD or Pentax 85 at a very reasonable price to be interested. </p>

<p>On the weekend I acquired Zuiko f/2.8 135mm for euro 43. I really do not know how this lens will be since it was offered for very low price. :-|</p>

<p>I just received Vivitar 135mm f/2.8. Wondering why they don't build such a lens these days.</p>

<p>Help, I just realized the grip for focusing is missing on Vivitar. Is it possible to replace grip for this lens...</p>

<p>You will either have to find a donor lens or make one.</p>

<p>Perhaps one can be fashioned from a piece of leather or sheet vinyl. Or maybe a bicycle inner-tube might work.</p>

<p>You're going to have to be creative.</p>