1950's-Era 28mm Lens Options?

<p>I'm looking at building basic wide-normal-short telephoto kits from different eras (prewar uncoated, 1950's/early 1960's single-coated, modern multi-coated stuff) for the Sony A7II I'm going to buy in the next few months. </p>

<p>I'm set on the first group (bunch of 1930's Leica/Zeiss glass, some odd telephotos), and the modern stuff will be a given.</p>

<p>I've gotten really lucky with the 1950's/early 1960's stuff so far - a steal a few years ago on a 58mm f1.4 Nikkor (it was attached to a Nikkormat and never mentioned in the auction description!) and a really good price on a really nice early Nikkor 105mm f2.5. Where I'm a little lost is on a wide angle from the period. Here are the options that I've found so far:</p>

<p>1. A host of Biogon-based designs, but there seems to be a consensus on the design's problematic relationship with digital cameras</p>

<p>2. The Schneider 28mm f4 for the Kodak Retina. Not too expensive - any experiences with it?</p>

<p>3. Canon Serenar 28mm f3.5. It doesn't look like its rear element intrudes too far into the camera - a gauss design? Kind of expensive...</p>

<p>4. A Nikkor 28mm f3.5, along with Canon FL and Pentax Super Takumar 28's. All really cheap, but a little more modern than other options.</p>

<p>Anything I'm missing or any experience with the stuff above? Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What about Exakta mount lenses? Some of them are quite good...like the 20mm Zeiss Flektagon (I sold mine before the digital age, so can't tell you how it might perform on a digital body).</p>

<p>for a single-coated set retina lenses are ridiculously cheap - good but unfashionable. i recently bought a retina iiis which needed slight servicing - now fine - plus 35, 50 2.8 and 85 lenses and some extras for 160 pounds. one great 60s lens is the 28mm f5.6 summaron, unfortunately very rare and sought after by collectors, hence expensive.</p>

<p>Canon outdid Leica for speed of a rangefinder 28mmm lens in the early 50s, with the 28mm f3.5, although the quality of the Leica was very high. The Canon is a Gauss design which may or may not work on the Sony. For other SLR lenses, there is a late 50s Minolta Rokkor 28mm f3.5 lens </p>

<p>In the 1950s, 28mm was pretty wide, so lenses from that period tend to be harder to find in that focal length. When you do find them, they can also be more pricey than later lenses of the breed.</p>

<p>The Canon Serenar , which you mention, and its kin around 28mm are in M39 mount. Like most of Canon's lenses of the period, they are Double Gauss designs. <br>

I don't have the 28mm ones, but the 35mm I do have is a superb lens by any measure, and I think that is true of the family in general.<br>

The Jena M42 Flektogons in 20 and 25mm are among the early retro-focus designs, so should not project too far to the rear, designed as they were for the early SLRs.</p><div></div>

<p>Mr. Funka...</p>

<p>Your choice #2 of the Schneider 28mm f4 for the Kodak Retina is a good one. Color is good and sharpness is pretty high. I have tested a lot of lenses with my 1951USAF chart. Although I have not tested my Retina 28mm F:4, I would, from comparison with the results of other tested lenses, think it would not limit your camera’s output. Your sensor has 83 lp/mm of pixels. I think the lens can provide that much resolution at F:8, at least in the center.<br>

<br /> The lens has seven elements in six groups. Since it does not have modern coatings, I keep my front glass in the shade at all times. It may do well even with light on the front element but I just have not tried that.</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>I'm not entirely sure how severe the criteria are for selecting a lens here, but on my D3200 I regularly use the early 1960's Nikkor 28/3.5, the early version that cannot be AI converted. A decent but uninspiring lens on film, and dirt cheap, in DX format it becomes a fine performer, sharp with low flare and a nice wide normal perspective. I bought mine years ago from a discount bin for $20. And, of course, it's made of metal, and tough as nails.</p><div></div>