Lens choice for my first vintage camera

I'd strongly recommend setting some money aside for a good course on photography, or some good learning books - or even better maybe: start with those. Buying prime lenses without knowing much about focal lengths, aperture and basically jumping into using a film camera without basic knowledge sounds like a great way to end up disappointed.

 

As much as I like to shoot film, for initial learning digital has clear advantages: no cost per photo, which gives you all liberty to expirement with different settings, and second instant feedback via the screen. Everything you learn with a digital camera with regards to composition, exposure and the settings involved with that carry over 1 on 1 to film cameras, so it's not like you learning "digital photography" and later will have to re-learn "film photography".

 

As much as I prefer primes myself, I'd get a zoom lens first to get started, so that you learn for yourself what to expect at different focal lengths, and what works for you, and what does not. For every person here that likes a 50mm as the standard go-to focal length, you can find a person who doesn't like it, etc. etc.

 

Look for a good book on photography, and even better a local class.

I like local classes, because you can ask questions of the instructor and get an immediate answer. You can't do that with a book or a YouTube video.

Sometimes you also need a 'hands on' demo, and it is a LOT easier to see and understand, in person.

Though finding a local class specifically for film cameras is much harder today, with the market being primarily digital.

 

I second the digital idea for learning.

The problem that I always had with film was that I had to wait days (now weeks) to get the film back from the lab to see how I did. Digital gives you INSTANT feedback; did I get the shot, was it under or overexposed, etc.

You just have to treat a digital camera like a film camera, and shoot in SINGLE shot mode and treat each press of the shutter button like it costs you a $2 per shot, rather than shooting off a dozen shots in hopes of getting one good shot (AKA, spray and pray).

With digital essentially being free shots, you can also shoot MORE, so you can get more practice and learn. You don't have to limit yourself to 20 shots, like we had to, in the old days.

 

But if you also want film, that means spending on both a digital and film system, which will be more expensive.

You have to make the decision yourself; film, digital, or both.

 

As for lenses.

• I started with a 50mm prime, and shot it for a year before getting a 2nd lens, a 135 tele.
  With my 2nd camera instead of a 50mm prime, I switched to a standard zoom, a 43-86 (today I would go with a 35-105).
  Neither is better, each (prime and zoom) has advantages and disadvantages that you have to understand and live with.
  

• My friend started with a 35, then later got a 105.
  But he had the prior experience on a school camera, to know what he wanted for HIS own camera.
  

• As @John Seaman said, most used film cameras that you will find, will come with a 50mm lens. So from a practical PoV you might as well start with that.
  

I have to agree with John, the FM and FE are smaller and lighter, very good cameras. Two truly excellent but larger cameras are Nikons F2 and F3, pro grade cameras, top of the line in their day. For lenses, a 50/1.4 and add a 28/2.8 or 3.5, a 135/2.8 and an 80-200.4.5. All manual focus and all of this is available from KEH in Atlanta, a very reputable outfit. Prices on all of this are very reasonable. I would avoid E Bay but have bought several cameras and lenses from members here and couldn't be happier. I should say that I'm not in agreement with Rodeo Joe but I still think I would enjoy having a beer or two with him.

 

Rick H.

My favorite place to buy cameras is from Goodwill auctions, either eBay or shopgoodwill.com.

If they are from my local store, I can pick them up and avoid shipping costs.

 

The FM and FE are good choices, though the prices stay a little higher than some others.

 

I suppose the Canon FTb or Nikon FT3 or EL2 might be too heavy for the OP, but they are

nice, and also tough, cameras. Used FTb are pretty easy to find.

 

Many FD (Canon) and AI (Nikon) lenses are available for reasonable prices.

 

For some cameras designed for mercury batteries, you can use alkaline batteries,

and get close enough exposure for negatives, with wide exposure latitude.

Might not be close enough for slides.

Another possibility, not discussed yet, is rangefinder cameras.

 

The Canon P is reasonably available, and tends to be pretty though.

 

There are also the FED and Zorki, pretty easy to find, and good prices.

Alas vintage lenses aren't as cheap as they used to be with lens adaptation onto mirrorless cameras, but Minolta lenses are still not super sought after so you could find some bargains there. Minolta had 2 lens lines. The more expensive Rokkers and the cheaper Celtics. Generally both were great optically but the Rokkers were a little better built. I ended up with a mix back in the day.

Hi everyone! I am going to buy my first ever film camera which I would like to be a Japanese vintage from around end of 70s or early 80s. I have narrowed down my search to the following models which seem to be quite good based on the reviews and forums I have read: Pentax MX, Olympus OM2, Minolta SRT. 102. I will buy the best option available (price, condition, case, lens).

 

I have however no idea about how to choose lens and what lens is the best, most practical and universal solution. I would like it to be quite light to carry. I would like to have 1 or max 2 lenses in the set, so I am looking for sort of best option for long and short distances. I have zero understanding of lenses and parameters e.g. mm and ft, so please someone help me! :)

 

On the other note, does someone know, do the cameras that I listed above require some sort of power charging or battery? if so, could you please tell me what? Ideally I would like something with zero maintenance. Is battery a sustainable choice long term?

 

Thank you in advance!

Alisa

 

You don't need a battery except for the meter with the Minolta. I have the SRT 101. If you buy a handheld light meter, don't worry about the camera battery. You just meter with your handheld. Easy-squeezy.

 

I have the Minolta and a bank of their lenses. There is a huge selection of Minolta mount lenses. HUGE. There are primes, zooms, ultra wides to extremely long lenses and even long zooms. They are excellent quality equipment.

 

Which two lenses depends on what you like to shoot. A 50mm or 55mm (Minolta actually made a 53mm, which I have, lol) is considered a sort of "normal" view, if you will.

 

Minolta has a 35-70mm zoom that is highly prized, so that might be a nice walk around lens for you.

I'm going to stick my oar in and suggest that the OP is overthinking this and in danger of tying him/herself in knots. Go out and find a working Nikon FM with a 50mm F/1.8, take plenty of pictures with it it and decide whether you need to go more telephoto or wide, or whether 50mm is fine - it has been for a vast number of people. You can't lose with an FM, tough, reliable, simple and it holds its value well. A 2X teleconverter will cheaply give you a 100mm lens.

 

Love the Nikon FM also.

I also like the idea of a Minolta starting kit, my X700 has a more modern feel about it and the lenses are excellent and not too expensive. I started with an OM1, it was and is jewel like, and my first lens was a 50 1.8. With this I could take pictures of friends, street shots and photos inside clubs without using a flash. After six months of learning I wanted to take some landscapes so purchased a 28mm. Then I wanted to take portraits and bought a 75-150mm zoom, and lastly, about two years after buying the OM1, I got a 200mm for sports shots. This set up, with the later addition of a second body, an OM10, gave me a decade of photography and a lot of fun. An OM1 today would not need a battery as I would think any beginning film photographer would use a light meter app on a phone. All the best on your film adventure, Charles.

Oh, I forgot about the OM1 - yes! I shot with the OM kit for a couple of years at one of the newspapers I staffed back in the early '90s. Dang, those things are just tanks and so lightweight. Sweet setup.

The Pentax MX is a cute little camera (I have a pair of those). - If you plan to use flash I would look for something offering TTL control instead, for convenience's sake. But I am not overly fond of that generation of Pentax bodies' reliability.

Lenses: I assume the Pentax 50/1.4 isn't great. - I'd call my AF version of it too soft wide open and prefer the 50/2.8 macro for sharper shots at f2.8. - Conclusion: either the 50/2 or 1.7 or, if you can find one for cheap; the 40/2.8 ultra compact pan cake.

If 2 lenses are your plan and the shopping situation permits I'd go for a 35 & 85 to 105mm (and anything in between) combo. The Pentax 35/2 is not ultra compact but easier to focus than an f2.8 or even f3.5. and feels still portable. - At the longer end the 100/4 macro might be OK. - The 100/2.8 has a horrible focusing ring for use around infinity I clearly don't recommend it for that reason. 85mms seem a tad expensive for my taste, so I never got one only a Tamron 90mm macro that I don't want to recommend since it produces spots in the image center, when stopped down.

For toes dipping on a budged I recommend getting a 3 lenses kit for less money. Get the camera with at least a 50mm, add a no name 135/2.8 or even f3.5 for a song (I haven't had a disappointing one yet!) and either the Pentax 28/3.5 or something 28/2.8. Kiron 28/2.0 doesn't seem too bad either. If that kit doesn't break your bank or spine; toss in some 2nd camera body and be ready to face anything.

 

While you are planning this: Ask yourself what to do with your film kit, when you plan switching to digital.

I somewhat regret sticking to Pentax for that. Today, in a bright rational moment; I'd buy everything Canon EOS. They had nice, not too heavy, film bodies and their earlier DSLRs are no longer expensive.

(I totally(!) understand the appeal of manually focused cameras; a while ago I bought Leicas. While I am sometimes still enjoying them for slow paced photography, I also added an EOS to stop cursing my lack of focus acquisition speed.)

YMMV; enjoy the hobby!

I don't know if you have already purchased the camera, but I will put in my 2 cents. Having used all the cameras that you originally listed I would not go with any of them. Your best bet is the Nikon F3HP with a 50mm f1.4 (latest model #6). They are built like tanks, readily available in working condition. Many of the older SLRs might have operational problems. The 50mm is your standard lens. If you decide to purchase further you will discover that there are many lenses available for the F3, not just Nikon but Zeiss, but I may be jumping far ahead. On the other hand the Nikon F3hp with a 50mm f1.4 is easily disposed of should you not wish to continue in film. Also, batteries for the F3hp are common and cheap. That's my 2 cent opinion. IMHO.

I would stay away from the 70's models and get as far into the 80's as you can. My concern is batteries, shutters, and film advances, and light meters for that matter. Be absolutely sure you can get the batteries you need for the camera. Internet searches should help immensely.

 

 

I learned with Canon FD so I have a soft spot for that system. Again I think batteries can be problematic. My preference is Nikon because I am pretty sure they are the only one's who did not change the lens mount when they went to autofocus. I know us Canon users and Minolta users got left by the wayside. Just adding this because if you ever chose to add a digital camera to the mix, with Nikon lenses you could do that easily. Of course everyone else's lenses could be used on all the new mirrorless digital bodies too.

Oh, about lenses. I started with a 50mm and 70-200mm zoom, and then added a 24mm two years later. That did me for about 5 years until my first full time job. The rule of thumb, back then when there was a focus on primes, was to double your focal lengths, and then add lenses in between as the need arose. So a 24mm, 50mm, and 100mm fit that bill. There were still zooms available, just not so many as now, so you could replace primes with a wideangle zoom and/or a tele zoom depending on your preferences. I would not worry too much about weight, SLR photography is what it is. Just get the most appropriate tools for your needs. Just avoid the largest and most expensive pro tools, unless again they do what you want. If you really want to travel light for street photography then a rangefinder could fit the bill, but again batteries become a concern.

I would stay away from the 70's models and get as far into the 80's as you can. My concern is batteries, shutters, and film advances, and light meters for that matter. Be absolutely sure you can get the batteries you need for the camera. Internet searches should help immensely.

 

 

I learned with Canon FD so I have a soft spot for that system. Again I think batteries can be problematic. My preference is Nikon because I am pretty sure they are the only one's who did not change the lens mount when they went to autofocus. I know us Canon users and Minolta users got left by the wayside. Just adding this because if you ever chose to add a digital camera to the mix, with Nikon lenses you could do that easily. Of course everyone else's lenses could be used on all the new mirrorless digital bodies too.

Pentax MF bayonet mount lenses also fit AF bodies, although there can be limitations with metering in some cases.

I loved my Olympus OM-1 MD and most of the Olympus Zuiko lenses I used with it, with the exception of my 50mm f/1.4. Contrast wasn't great, compared to what a friend with a Nikkor 50mm was getting under the same conditions with the same film, and out of focus highlights (bokeh--a term I didn't even know back then) were not rendered well. I'll try to dig up an example for you. Edit: found one. Olympus 50mm f/1.4, Kodachrome 64, aperture and shutter speed not recorded. My subject was wonderful, and it could have been a far better shot with decent bokeh.

 

[ATTACH=full]1279774[/ATTACH]

Great shot !