Lens choice for my first vintage camera

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

All of these cameras require a battery for light metering, and for the OlympusOM2, also for the shutter to operate. The Minolta was designed to use a mercury battery that is no longer available, although substitutes are out there. If you want a small, light camera my first choice would be the Pentax MX with a 40 mm f/2.8 Pentax lens. I used MX bodies for 15 years professionally and had very few repairs. The Pentax lenses made in that era were generally excellent and well made mechanically as well. I still have and use an 85 mm f/1.8 Pentax that I bought new in 1978--it still works like new. The M series Pentax lenses in particular are quite compact and optically good in my experience. The Olympus OM series are also light and compact, as are their lenses. The Minolta SRT 102 is also an excellent camera with good lenses but it will be noticeably bigger and heavier than either the Olympus and the Pentax that you mention. One last point--while the leather cases from that era may have a certain retro appeal they aren't all that useful in my experience. Many photographers referred to these ever ready cases as "never ready" cases. Don't be surprised if you get one and it looks unused...

I confess ignorance for the most part on those particular camera models, but there as a general rule it's difficult to go wrong with a lens that's somewhere "around" 50mm and with a maximum aperture in the f/1.7-f/2 range. This was often the standard lens that shipped with many non-pro cameras in that era, and it's usually both optically and mechanically excellent as well as light weight.

 

The ~50mm f/1.4 lenses from all makes are usually the "professional" lenses. Their big advantage is that they let more light through(1/2 to 1 stop), but given their position in the lineup are usually better built(which also means heavier) and may or may not perform better. You will also spend more for one.

 

As for additional lenses-a 35mm f/2 or 28mm f/2.8 is usually a safe choice for a wide-ish lens. I prefer 24mm to 28mm, but it's a bit more of a difficult lens to use.

 

Something in the 100/105mm range at around f/2.8 is also a classic choice. This makes a great general purpose short telephoto and also tends to be a good working length for head and shoulders or waist-up portraits(I like ~85mm for full body and ~135mm for a tight head shot, but 100mm will work for these also provided that you have enough room to back up for a full body). This focal length tends to be fairly "easy" to make, which also means that it's hard to find a bad one.

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.

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by Hector Javkin

Since you indicate ignorance of lenses and apparently aren't terribly familiar with the models you indicated an interest in, I'd strongly encourage you to get, or at least look at, a users operating manual, which you can do at www.butkus.org...he appreciates a small donation if you decide to download one, and it is well worth it. All 3 models will do the same thing for you, namely take good pictures if you know what you're doing. I've owned all of them, but have a particular fondness for the Olympus OM2n...small, sharp, contrasty lenses and autoexposure if you want to use it. The Rokkor lenses for the Minolta are great as well with a manufacturing process that promised they all had similar color characteristics, so switching from one lens to another didn't create color temperature differences, although the lenses are larger and heavier than the Oly line. I'll leave the Pentax comments for others, as I have less experience with their line of lenses.

i

You said long distance. What are you shooting and from how far away?

Because the answer to your question is "it depends" on your answer to mine.

 

If you want prime lenses:

• 1- lens, 35 or 50mm
  
• 2-lens, 35 + 85/105mm
  
• 3-lens, 28 + 50 + 105/135mm
  

You can also throw in a zoom, and it gets more interesting. The specific zoom depend on the camera. Each camera have lenses with different zoom ranges, so what Olympus has Minolta may not have. And don't forget the 3rd party lens makers: Vivitar, Tamron, Soligor, etc.

• 1 lens, 35-105
  
• 2 lens, 35-105 + 50 (for low light) I would be happy with this combo
  

What I do NOT like about the Minolta is that the meter switch is a rotating dial on the bottom of the camera.

It was so clumsy to use, that my friend turned it on at the start of a shoot and did not turn it off until the end of the shoot.

Just a couple of things to add to what's been said.

 

Although ever ready cases are cumbersome, I've usually found that cameras bought in them are in much better condition than those without.

 

Try and find a camera kit that comes with a lens or lenses. It's often possible to buy camera plus lens for less than the price of the lens alone, such is the demand for particularly prime lenses for use on mirrorless digitals.

You appear to know very little about film cameras. So maybe you should ask yourself, and tell us: What do you hope to gain by using a film camera?

And in what way do you expect it to further your photographic endeavours?

You appear to know very little about film cameras. So maybe you should ask yourself, and tell us: What do you hope to gain by using a film camera?

And in what way do you expect it to further your photographic endeavours?

Yes I know very little about film cameras, other than I tried it on a couple of shootings and got pretty cool pictures, and liked the whole retro experience with it. You always need to start somewhere, I guess :) I prefer to start, try and then see where it leads me :)

Just a couple of things to add to what's been said.

 

Although ever ready cases are cumbersome, I've usually found that cameras bought in them are in much better condition than those without.

 

Try and find a camera kit that comes with a lens or lenses. It's often possible to buy camera plus lens for less than the price of the lens alone, such is the demand for particularly prime lenses for use on mirrorless digitals.

Thank you for practical advice! noted!:)

Thank you. Seems like Minolta is out of my list by now. I need something very easy and light... :)

 

What I do NOT like about the Minolta is that the meter switch is a rotating dial on the bottom of the camera.

It was so clumsy to use, that my friend turned it on at the start of a shoot and did not turn it off until the end of the shoot.

great overview, very structured and clear! thank you so much. it really helps my understanding...

With "long" distance I mean e.g. panorama shots of nature, cities / street view, (not starts and planets :D )

I am not sure I understood the second listing of the cameras - do they replace the first, but only designed for zooming?

 

Cheers!

 

You said long distance. What are you shooting and from how far away?

Because the answer to your question is "it depends" on your answer to mine.

 

If you want prime lenses:

• 1- lens, 35 or 50mm
  
• 2-lens, 35 + 85/105mm
  
• 3-lens, 28 + 50 + 105/135mm
  

You can also throw in a zoom, and it gets more interesting. The specific zoom depend on the camera. Each camera have lenses with different zoom ranges, so what Olympus has Minolta may not have. And don't forget the 3rd party lens makers: Vivitar, Tamron, Soligor, etc.

• 1 lens, 35-105
  
• 2 lens, 35-105 + 50 (for low light) I would be happy with this combo
  

Thank you for your comment! very helpful!

 

Since you indicate ignorance of lenses and apparently aren't terribly familiar with the models you indicated an interest in, I'd strongly encourage you to get, or at least look at, a users operating manual, which you can do at www.butkus.org...he appreciates a small donation if you decide to download one, and it is well worth it. All 3 models will do the same thing for you, namely take good pictures if you know what you're doing. I've owned all of them, but have a particular fondness for the Olympus OM2n...small, sharp, contrasty lenses and autoexposure if you want to use it. The Rokkor lenses for the Minolta are great as well with a manufacturing process that promised they all had similar color characteristics, so switching from one lens to another didn't create color temperature differences, although the lenses are larger and heavier than the Oly line. I'll leave the Pentax comments for others, as I have less experience with their line of lenses.

i

Very interesting and helpful! Thank you for showcasing :)

 

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]

Thank you! Really helpful comments on cases and batteries! I learned something I was not aware of.

 

All of these cameras require a battery for light metering, and for the OlympusOM2, also for the shutter to operate. The Minolta was designed to use a mercury battery that is no longer available, although substitutes are out there. If you want a small, light camera my first choice would be the Pentax MX with a 40 mm f/2.8 Pentax lens. I used MX bodies for 15 years professionally and had very few repairs. The Pentax lenses made in that era were generally excellent and well made mechanically as well. I still have and use an 85 mm f/1.8 Pentax that I bought new in 1978--it still works like new. The M series Pentax lenses in particular are quite compact and optically good in my experience. The Olympus OM series are also light and compact, as are their lenses. The Minolta SRT 102 is also an excellent camera with good lenses but it will be noticeably bigger and heavier than either the Olympus and the Pentax that you mention. One last point--while the leather cases from that era may have a certain retro appeal they aren't all that useful in my experience. Many photographers referred to these ever ready cases as "never ready" cases. Don't be surprised if you get one and it looks unused...

Thank you! very helpful for general understanding and my choice! :)

 

I confess ignorance for the most part on those particular camera models, but there as a general rule it's difficult to go wrong with a lens that's somewhere "around" 50mm and with a maximum aperture in the f/1.7-f/2 range. This was often the standard lens that shipped with many non-pro cameras in that era, and it's usually both optically and mechanically excellent as well as light weight.

 

The ~50mm f/1.4 lenses from all makes are usually the "professional" lenses. Their big advantage is that they let more light through(1/2 to 1 stop), but given their position in the lineup are usually better built(which also means heavier) and may or may not perform better. You will also spend more for one.

 

As for additional lenses-a 35mm f/2 or 28mm f/2.8 is usually a safe choice for a wide-ish lens. I prefer 24mm to 28mm, but it's a bit more of a difficult lens to use.

 

Something in the 100/105mm range at around f/2.8 is also a classic choice. This makes a great general purpose short telephoto and also tends to be a good working length for head and shoulders or waist-up portraits(I like ~85mm for full body and ~135mm for a tight head shot, but 100mm will work for these also provided that you have enough room to back up for a full body). This focal length tends to be fairly "easy" to make, which also means that it's hard to find a bad one.

great overview, very structured and clear! thank you so much. it really helps my understanding...

 

I am not sure I understood the second listing of the cameras - do they replace the first, but only designed for zooming?

 

Cheers!

 

1st set of lenses are prime lenses only.

Primes are faster than zooms, important if you shoot in low light.

 

2nd set is a zoom option, in place of the prime.

The older zooms are not as good as todays zooms.

 

So you have 2 ways to go, depending if you want or do NOT want a zoom.

With "long" distance I mean e.g. panorama shots of nature, cities / street view, (not starts and planets :D )

 

 

Still not clear enough to make a recommendation.

Panoramas are usually shot with a wide or normal lens, not a tele.

But I would say a short tele, 100-135, and no longer than 135.

Thank you for above clarification on lenses. Most lenses that I see on sale on ebay are prime lenses I believe.

Regarding your second question, I just want the camera for ordinary use really, no intention to shoot something very specific. it is my first camera and I will need to play with it to get a fell of what it can do and what I need. SO I am most looking for something universal now, but yet practical suited for a wide use.

 

Still not clear enough to make a recommendation.

Wildlife, birds?

Panoramas are usually shot with a wide or normal lens, not a tele.

But I would say a short tele, 100-135, and no longer than 135.

Thank you for above clarification on lenses. Most lenses that I see on sale on ebay are prime lenses I believe.

Regarding your second question, I just want the camera for ordinary use really, no intention to shoot something very specific. it is my first camera and I will need to play with it to get a fell of what it can do and what I need. SO I am most looking for something universal now, but yet practical suited for a wide use.

If you want the camera to be small and light, look at prime (single focal length) lenses. All of the cameras you mentioned would have come with a 50 mm lens when they were new and that isn't a bad choice to start with. After you have used the camera for a while you will know that either you're happy with the 50 or you consistently feel you need a wider or narrower field of view. Then you can think about other options like the ones that Gary Nakayama spelled out for you.

Thank you for above clarification on lenses. Most lenses that I see on sale on ebay are prime lenses I believe.

Regarding your second question, I just want the camera for ordinary use really, no intention to shoot something very specific. it is my first camera and I will need to play with it to get a fell of what it can do and what I need. SO I am most looking for something universal now, but yet practical suited for a wide use.

 

OK, my original recommendation is still valid.

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.

Lots of good advice above. Asking what lenses you should buy is a lot like asking, "I want to do some work, so what tools should I buy?" Hmm, what kind of work?

 

Just me, but my first lens 'kit' was a 50 f1.7, and 28 f2.8, and a 135 f3.5, all used on a Minolta very much like the SRT102. Turns out, that covered about 95% of what I wanted to do. Later I got a much longer lens and a bellows for macro photography. (don't ask about now. :))

 

Just figure out what you want to do before you go nuts buying lenses.

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.