pleasant surprise with an old lens?

[rjjackson]

<p><br /> i have had some pleasant surprises from some old lenses recently and this made me start to wonder, what nice surprises have you had with an old lens recently? i'd love to hear stories about how you came to pick up a vintage lens despite low expectations and what it is about it that made you enjoy using it.<br /> <br /> my story starts with a summarit 50/1.5. based on what i read about fog and strange backgrounds, i wasn't expecting miracles with this lens. plus the weight and size made me hesitate using it for a while. it has a few light cleaning marks, very slight fog on the edge of one inner element, but otherwise it's in excellent condition, complete with bayonet filters and clamp on hood. well i finally got around to shooting it. feeling a bit brave, i shot it at an event in a dark room with strong spot lights. sure, there was a bit of flair when a battery of spotlights pointed my way, but it was graceful flair. also, something i noticed is that the detail this lens retains was far beyond my expectations. i can't say it's crispy sharp, but there is so much information in the zone of focus (unfortunately more than my 4990 can see). i suspect that combining this low contrast lens with a high contrast film/development balanced each other out.<br /> <br /> here's a scan from neopan 1600 shot at 1050 in microphen 1:2 11 mins, summarit 50/1.5 at f2.8. full frame and 100% crop (only curves correction after scanning applied, no sharpening).</p>

<p><img src="http://rjjackson.com/images/temp/fi_w_35_06152_3_100.jpg" alt="" width="800" height="1080" /></p>

<p><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /></p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Hi Robert, I routinely use an old Zeiss Ikon Contessa. The 45mm lens is superb. It used to be my dads and I carry it all over because it takes such great images. I also collect older rangefinders and the decent ones (Voigtlanders, etc.) produce great results on B&W, and many with color. While I love the biting sharpness of some newer lenses, I don't care for the over-the-top contrast that most exhibit. I prefer the tonal range of many older lenses.</p>

[rjjackson]

<p>michael, got a favorite scan to share? i haven't seen a contessa but have seen some similar rangefinders from the era. nice story about yours. </p>

<p> </p>

[jose_guerra]

<p>I had very nice suprise myself. I took out a Minolta 101 that had belonged to my father and found the 50f1.7 lens to be dirty and rough. I remembered that I had kept a 50f1.4 Minolta lens in my cabinet. I put on the 1.4 lens and then when I tried the light meter and it would not work and that is why my father gave it to me from about 1965. I put in the proper battery and the needle would not budge. I remembered that I had a Voigtlander VC shoe mounted meter.<br>

I used the meter on the camera and was suprised because I have been testing some Leica SM lenses on thread mount cameras with some pretty good results. The photos stood out much better in contrast than the older SM lenses and now I will be using it as my carry around camera.</p>

[jose_guerra]

<p>Photo</p>

[rjjackson]

<p>jose, the suspense is killing me :) ...</p>

[jose_guerra]

<p>Okay here is the link as it's too large to send it across:<br>

<a href="http://www.hispanicgs.com/scan0047min.jpg">http://www.hispanicgs.com/scan0047min.jpg</a><br>

Joe</p>

[red_buckner]

<p>I bought a couple of Kodak cameras a few years ago, and both turned out to have great lenses. The Kodak Signet looks simple and the shutter is crude, but the Ektar lens is astounding. The Retina IIc also has a lens far beyond anything you expect. My current IIc has a Zeiss lens, but I used to have one with a Schneider. Both are brilliant optics. I don't know why these lenses are not better known.</p>

<p> </p>

[Rob_the_waste]

<p>My Signet 35 is one of my favourites. Not so much because I got it for four dollars, but that I got it for four dollars over 30 years ago and I still use it. When I got it, I was 14. I only got it because my father had a mechanical camera and I wanted to get one for myself. The rangefinder was way out of whack, the shutter was sticky, and it took me almost 30 years before I found out what the rangefinder was in the first place. I learned how to adjust it, clean the shutter, and now that it works like new, the pictures I get back are better than ever. </p><div></div>

[Robert_Lai]

<p>Michael,<br>

I've got a Contessa too, and its lens is admirable. I quite like the Zeiss Tessars. I often read that the triplet Novars are also excellent, but I don't have any firsthand experience.</p>

[Andy Collins]

<p>I have a number of cameras that have great lenses on them, but there are some that surprised me. The Minolta MD Celtic 28/2.8 that I got on my first SRT-102 from the flea market continues to surprise me with its amazing sharpness. At the time I bought it I'd never heard of the Celtic line of lenses, but the one I got with my camera is incredible. I now also have the Minolta 50/1.4 and I must say I'm just as impressed with it as well. I understand fully why Jose likes his as much as he does. And last but not least, the 58mm f/2 CZJ Biotar that came with my Exakta VX is a stunning performer. I shouldn't be surprised considering its pedigree, but the fact that it was found dirty and dusty at the same flea market didn't originall inspire much confidence...using it certainly did!</p><div></div>

[rjjackson]

<p>good discussion so far, guys. it's nice to see that there are so many lenses to look for. for me, testing out a lens is an important part of collecting vintage cameras. i have so many lenses that i use expecting them to perform well. in some ways, these are a disappointment because the reality rarely lives up to the mythology surrounding them (ok, maybe my own creativity is the disappointment :). but finding something good from an otherwise neglected lens makes this investigation worthwhile.</p>

<p>michael and red, i have a friend with a retina iib, with 2.8 tessar. i was quite surprised with the results he got from this lens. there does seem to be somethign special about vintage tessars. robert, the novar anastigmat also offers pleasant surprises.</p>

<p>it seems there are two trends. one is the pedigree brand but an unlikely performer either because of its packaging or reputation. the other is an unfamiliar brand with one off marvels. i'd love to see more examples from either category.</p>

<p> </p>

[liebermann]

I like both the lenses I have for my Spotmatic I got last summer - the 35/3.5 SMC and the 135/3.5 - they look great for the HPS I've shot through it thus far, and I have a feeling that Kodachrome, maybe new Ektar will also look great. The 135 has nice bokeh. It cost me $5, in 9+ shape. The camera with the 35 I got with a box of others (cobtax, canon f1, etc, etc.) for $45! The lenses are very small, too - more like those for my Contax G than for my other SLRs.