OT: Pinnacle MF Camera Collection

I want to start a collection with a manual focus SLR camera body

and 2-3 prime lenses that represent the pinnacle (professional)

of each major brand. What is you opinion on choice of camera

and lenses? Year of production is not key, but I'm guessing it

will be a late 70's to mid 80's body. For example, with Nikon it

might be a F2AS or F3HP with 35/1.4 AIS and 84/ 1.4 AIS. Also,

any "must have" lenses?

 

The bands are:

 

Canon

 

Leica

 

Minolta

 

Nikon

 

Olympus

 

Pentax

 

Others?

 

I want to gather this collection over a 2-3 year period, when I can

find bargains. I plan to shoot with the gear occasionally, but

mostly they are for fondling purpose (there, I said it!).

 

Thanks for your inputs.

Minlota: XE-7<p><img src = http://www.keh.com/images/fullsize/MI02010500717.jpg>

My first 35mm camera back in jr high. Recently got another last month. The only thing missing, IMHO, are motor drive capability, and shutter speeds over 1/1000.

"professional"<p>Also maybe the XK, Minolta's version of the Nikon F series, if you can find one.<p>

<img src = http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/images/xkmotor2.jpg>

<img src = http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/images/xkmotor1.jpg>

 

<img src = http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/minoltaxk/xkmotor/xkmmotor3.jpg>

olympus om1. voted the greatest 35mm camera ever. a result of survey of over 200 uk's leading photo experts - photographers, camera manufacturers and dealers. nikon f was next. only to be followed by leica m6. there are top 20 cameras in the survey. you can read the article at :

 

http://zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/archives/1997/msg01468.html

Olympus om2n or om1n. My choice of the OM Zuiko lenses are 50/1.4 (with 7 digits serial no.), 35/2.8 shift, 21/3.5. Actually I also like 200/4, 135/2.8, 135/4.5 macro, 100/2.8, 35/2.8, 28/2.8, 28/2, 24/2.8, 18/3.5, and 16/3.5 fisheye lenses.

My vote for Canon F-1n (second style -- with the plastic tipped film advance lever); 24mm f2.0 "new" FD lens; 50mm f1.2 breechlock mount lens (OK to settle for the f1.4, but see Erwin Puts's tests on his Leica site of the 1.2 v. the 1.4 (breechlock and "new" mount v. the f1.8); 85mm f1.8 breechlock mount; 135mm f2.0 "new" FD. In general, I thing the build quality of the breechlock mount lenses is better than the "new" bayonet mount. I'm not certain, but I don't think the 24mm f2.0 and 135mm f2.0 were made in breechlock, only the bayonet mount. They're both relatively hard to find and usually are pretty pricey for lenses of their era.

For Pentax, Pentax LX with 50/1.4 SMC Pentax-M, without a question. Also look here, http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/photography.htm , should answer a lot of your questions.

the other is Contax, manual focus cameras, in deferent models

For over-engineered mechanical SLRs, don't forget Alpa & Zeiss Ikon's Contarex . . .

For Canon FD I'd have a hard time deciding between the T90 (IMHO the best thought-out SLR <i>ever</i>) and the F1N listed above (a tank). If you're going with the newest F1, choose one with an 'AE finder,' and <i>seriously</i> consider getting the newer FD bayonet-mount lenses. They might not be as strong as the older breech-lock, but that's probably picking nits, and the newer FD lenses show the aperture in the AE finder (it's a little window that displays the aperture in the viewfinder).<p>

 

Lenses would have to include the 50mm f1.4 breech-lock (if you're going by the Erwin Putz tests, look for a 55mm f1.2 <i>aspherical</i> or one of the newer 50mm f1.2 L's. I asked Mike Dixon what he thought about his FD 50/f1.2 (non aspheric or L) and he told me "That 1.2 is probably listed in the dictionary under 'soft.' "<p>

 

Other lenses to consider would be the 85mm f1.2, 100mm f2 (my preference over the 85mm, but a poor seller), 135 f2 (supposed to be simply stunning), and the 35mm f2 with the thurium front element. Yeah, it's radioactive, and yeah, it yellows with age, but it's known for exemplary B&W performance (I've heard it referred to as Summicron-like, but have never seen a direct comparison).

I'll second the Pentax LX. It's a beautiful machine that is an absolute delight to use. It sold new for a couple thousand dollars. Mint copies are usually priced at around $900, users at about $400. It should have the motor drive, the 400AFT flash, and the grip "B." Those will all cost you extra. The motor drive generally sells for about $200. I wouldn't go with the M series lens. I'd opt for the A* 85/1.4, the A 15/3.5, the A 28/2, and the A 50/1.2. If you'd prefer metal bodied lenses from the early eighties, you can get all of these except the 85 in the K series. The K 85/1.8 is another beauty and is almost the equal of the A* 85/1.4. BTW, M and A series lenses carry the letter designation on the lens, as in "SMC Pentax-M." The K lenses do not. They are designated "SMC Pentax.".

Steven Gandy has good descriptions of the classic SLR's:

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm

Exacta VXII-A body, 35/2.5 and 90/2.5 Auto Angenieux, 50mm Zeiss Jena Auto Pancolar, and since the East German Zeiss glass is so inexpensive get both the 20 and 25mm Flektagons.

$2000 new/$900 used, for a Tampax?

 

That's Leica territory.

 

My vote is for the EOS line; for the IS...

If I were doing this, I'd get the Nikon F with the 50/1.4, 105/2.5 and 200/4. For Canon I'd get the original F1 (MUCH nicer to use than the F1N) with the 24/2.8, 50/1.4 and 100/2.8 SSC lenses. Leica? Well, I'd go for the M3 with a 50mm Summicron and a 90mm Elmar (gosh, I've already got those :-) Pentax HAS to be a SV with a 35/2.0 and the 85/1.9 (well, a Spotmatic would be nice too). Olympus is easy: OM1n with the 28/2.8, 50/1.8 and 135/2.8.

 

I've always thought Minolta looked good but I've only ever used the SR7 which was nice but not memorable.<div></div>

Leica: SL2 (here's mine) with 60/2.8 Macro-Elmarit-R (no pic as it can't quite get close enough to take a pic of itself).<div></div>

Contax RTS II quartz. Will never switch to R system.

Thank you for the excellent responses.

 

Giving it more thought, I'd add one more condition. The camera

must be able to take a picture without a battery installed. I don't

want leakage or sourcing problems as the years go by, but I do

want to be able to take them out and shoot once in a while.

Therefore, the Nikon F3 is off the list.

Actually, by your definition, an F3 CAN take photos without a battery. It can only take them at one shutter speed (1/80th sec.) but take them it can. Similarly, an XE-7 or XD-11 can shoot at the X-sync speed as well. But these cameras capabilities are all woefully limited by the lack of a battery.

 

The Canon T-90 is simply a doorstop without a battery.

 

In any case, if you REALLY want to limit it to purely mechanical cameras, or cameras with fully mechanical shutter backup, then I'd propose:

 

Minolta: SRT-102, 24mm f2.8 MC Rokkor-X, 85mm f1.8 MC Rokkor-X

 

Nikon: F2, 28mm f2.8 AIS, 50mm f2.0 Nikkor-H, 105mm f2.5 AI

 

Olympus OM-1n, 24mm f2.8 Zuiko, 100mm f2.0 Macro Zuiko

 

Canon F-1n 24mm f2.8 S.S.C., 135mm f2.0 FD

 

Pentax LX, 50mm f1.4 SMC Takumar, 85mm f1.9 SMC Takumar

You may want to consider your battery-less operation requirement. If not, you�re ruling out the ability to use all of the functions on 99% of SLRs made past the early 70s - TTL light meters, motor drives, AE.

Regarding battery leakage in storage: I store my backup new in box T90 with four Lithium AA batteries installed. They don't leak and I won't have to consider renewing them until 2013. In my Canon A-series cameras, I also use Lithium PX28L batteries. By leaving the batteries installed, I lessen wear and tear on the (sometimes) fragile battery doors. My vote goes for the Canon T90 system - be sure to hunt down ALL the accessories!<div></div>

For Minolta MF lenses, I agree that the 24mm 2.8 is top-level. You might add the MD 100mm F4 macro, which still has a great reputation. I would suggest the SRT 202 body. It is the pinnacle of the SRT series, which is all-mechanical and brilliantly designed.

 

For Nikon, the F2 is considered a peak of mechanical precision and design. Yes, the 85mm 1.4 AIS is a marvel, but don't forget the AIS 180mm 2.8 ED, which is equally celebrated. The 28mm 2.8 AIS is a recognized gem, as well. The most famous, of course, is the 105mm 2.5 AI or AIS. Some people refer to it as "the lens from outer space."

 

The Contaflex Super B is supposed to be the best of that great series. It has an updated Tessar that people admire. I have a Contaflex II and a III, both with an earlier version of that Tessar, and even that version of the Tessar is a standout.

 

For Voigtlander SLRs, the best is the Bessamatic. Any of the normal lenses for it are quite good, and its Zoomar lens was, I believe, the first SLR zoom.

 

The Alpa has a great reputation, and is becoming a collector's item. I don't know which bodies or lenses to recommend, however.

 

You might want to look at Ivor Matanle's book on great SLRs. It could be a great help.

Olympus OM-3Ti. Fully mechanical. Lens: 40mm f/2 "pancake". Prepare to pay a lot.

I'm an Olympus guy, so I'll chime in on that one first.

 

OM4t, 50/2, 90/2 or 100/2, nothing superb in the WA category. The 40/2 is vastly over-rated for quality, but tiny (I sold mine). The OM3t is great, but I'll take a used 4t anyday with AE. The OM-1 is definitely THE CLASSIC, but the OM4t beats it for usability any day.

 

Nikon: F, F2, F3, take your pick (see www.cameraquest.com)

Canon: F1, new F1, or T90

Leica: SL2 (see http://members.aol.com/eyeuk/leicaR.html)

Pentax: LX

Minolta: XK

I agree about the 4T over the 3T, but the original thread asked for a mechanical LR. As to the 40mm, I respectfully disagree. I find it fabulous as an everyday lens.