What are the best manual lenses, any brand?

[martin_norberg1]

<p>Because a manual film body of almost any brand can be found inexpensively today, one doesn't have to be one brand only when choosing lenses. Most lens shootouts on the web seem to be brand-specific. So my question to you is: What lenses are the best of the best, regardless of brand?I guess I could rephrase the question: With what lenses did you get your best images? And why? You answers don't have to be 135mm only.<br>

In my own experience with Nikon, I have 3 old favourites: 28mm f2.0 non-ai, 35mm 1.4 Ais, 105mm 2,5 Ais. Those are lenses that "bring luck", that always seem to make the photos a little better. I am into available light, so big apertures are my thing.<br>

/Martin</p>

<p> </p>

[shawn_rahman]

<p>Martin - I concur with your choice of the 105/2.5 AIS; I probably have more keepers with this than anything else in 35mm. To your fine list, I will add the 50/2.0 AI - a terrific "normal" lens and IMHO, the sharpest 50 Nikon has ever made.<br>

As for other formats, the 80/2.8 for the Mamiya 645 system is my single favorite lens.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>50mm or 55mm macro lenses. My 55mm Micro-Nikkors are outstanding. I habitually use them for normal lenses. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I use collect and use many systems so I will list a few of my favorites from short to long: 15/2.8 Konica UC Hexanon fisheye, 24/2.8 Canon FD SSC chrome front, 24/2.8 Konica Hexanon (2nd version), 28/2 Canon FD SSC, 28/1.8 Konica UC Hexanon, 35/2 Canon FD SSC, 35/2 Canon New FD, 35/1.8 MC Rokkor, 35/2 Konica Hexanon, 35/2 SMC Pentax M, 35/2.8 'K' Nikkor, 40/1.8 Konica Hexanon, 50/1.4 MC Rokkor-X, 50/1.4 'K' Nikkor (1st version), 50/1.4 Konica Hexanon (1st version), 50/3.5 Canon FD SSC, 50/3.5 Minolta Celtic, 50/3.5 Zuiko, 55/1.8 Takumar SMC, 55/1.8 SMC Pentax, 55/3.5 Micro Nikkor PC, 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, 85/1.8 Canon FL, 100/2.8 Canon FD SSC, 100/2.8 Zuiko, 100/2.5 MC Rokkor, 105/2.5 Nikkor (early or late versions), 135/2.5 Canon FL, 135/3.2 Konica Hexanon, 135/2.8 Nikkor QC, 200/3.5 MC Rokkor-X, 200/3.5 Konica Hexanon, 200/4 Nikkor QC, 300/4.5 Konica Hexanon, 300/4.5 Minolta MD Tele Rokkor (IF), 400/4.6 Konica UC Hexanon. <br>

Some of my favorite third party lenses: 17/3.5 Vivitar, 20/3.8 Vivitar, 24/2 Vivitar (22XXX...), 28/2.5 Vivitar Fixed Mount, 28/1.9 Vivitar Series 1, 35/2 Soligor C/D, 35/1.9 Vivitar, 55/2.8 Vivitar macro, 90/2.5 Rokumar VHQ, 90/2.8 Vivitar , 90/2.5 Vivitar Series 1, 90/2.5 Tamron SP (2nd version), 100/2.8 Vivitar macro (22XXX...), 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing, 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1, 200/3 Vivitar Series 1, 400/5.6 Vivitar TX (IF). I will leave the zooms for another time. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I forgot the 50/2 'K' Nikkor and the 50/1.8 AI Nikkor. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There are thousands of lenses that could qualify here.</p>

<p>Some are mostly of historical interest (but still can produce interesting results like an old Petzval lenses posted recently). </p>

<p>Others are just spectacular lenses that are still classics, regardless of coatings, and modern computer design. A lot of my favorites are Zeiss one way or another: The Sonnar 180mm f/2.8, the Biotar 75mm f/1.5, Biotar 55mm f/2.0. Others are still classy and classic shooters like the Angénieux line of lenses. Who can overlook the many Leitz lenses, the classic Nikkors like the 105mm f/2.5, and many others. The best of the older ones live on in the same basic designs as tweaked by other manufacturers-- how many Biotars and Sonnars are there under other names?</p><div></div>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>I would probably concur with the 105/2.5 and 50/2 Nikkors, but basically, I think if you got any decent SLR and a good copy of its basic workhorse 50 mm. lens, you'd be hard-pressed to differentiate.</p>

[conrad_hoffman]

<p>Sure, the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor brings good luck. The 50mm f/1.8 isn't half bad. The 55mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor is super. I have a soft spot for the very sharp 20mm f/2.8 Nikkor. I've always been impressed with Minolta Rokkors, the 50mm f/1.7 is good. I always found Olympus lenses a cut above most others. The Xenon in a Retina IIIc is really good, but you have to buy the camera to get it. Many of those Vivitar fixed lenses mentioned above were very good, and dirt cheap to buy new. I think I have a 28mm f/3.5 and maybe another. If you have a taste for the bizarre, get a short focal length Componon enlarging lens and reverse mount it on a bellows. Very sharp. I'm a short lens user; never found longer ones too useful. Borrowed a friends 180mm Nikkor with the ED element and liked it better than any other long lens I've used.</p>

<p>CH</p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>There are a few primes I've really taken to lately - 28/2.5 Vivitar (the large front element one), 58/1.4 MC-Rokkor and 50/1.7 MD Minolta. Those last two are optical formulas that are reasonably cheap and easy to do well, so they're pretty ordinary lenses that are particularly good. That 50/1.7 is incredibly sharp and very close to free. I also like the 45/2 MD Minolta for being good and very small. And of course that 105/2.5 AIS Nikkor. There are also a couple of Vivitar Series 1 zooms - the 1st gen 70-210/3.5 and the 28-90/2.8-3.5 - that I've always liked. They give good bokeh and they're sharp, but I wouldn't put them against some of the newer zooms. (I know it's heresy to say so on this board, but the lens makers are better at zooms now than they were back in the day. I have a 28-75/2.8 Tamron on my F100 that's as humble as a 2.8 zoom gets and it runs circles around my well respected older zooms.)</p>

<p>I've come into a couple of screwmount Pentaxes, one with a 55mm and the other with a 50mm, that I've got a very good initial impression of and will spend some time with when they get back from Eric Hendrickson. </p>

[chuck_foreman1]

<p>While the OP wanted to generate some discussion and asked for favs ...those that make your heart go bunpty-bump!<br>

I concur with Michael Currie any good SLR and it's prime will usually deliver very excellent results. Which reminds me I haven'T used my Planar 1.4 in years.. the 2.8 has been sitting on the SLR too long..time to change!</p>

[richard_]

<p>For a normal lens in medium format, (and the one i've mostly worked with), its the Rollei 80/2.8 HFT made for the Rollei SL66. (Zeiss also made a 80mm for it - along with other focal lengths- which is similiar).</p>

[richard_]

<p>Here's a shot...</p><div></div>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>What lenses are the best of the best, regardless of brand?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The Carl Zeiss Contarex lenses have a reputation as being close to perfection. The Mamiya 7 lenses also have a stellar reputation. And I love my Tomioka 55mm f/1.2 M42 lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I guess I could rephrase the question: With what lenses did you get your best images? And why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The "best" images are virtually never about absolute sharpness or technical specs. It's more about capturing the moment or mood or whatever you fancy. For this you mostly need a reliable lens that has no distracting flaws (like focusing issues) and with which you know how to work with. For me this currently means modern Canon primes with USM.</p>

[john_layton]

<p>Latest version Leica 50mm Summicron-M. Series 3 Rolleiflex 3.5 Planar. 4th Version 28mm Elmarit-M. 1st version (8-element) 35mm Summicron-M. Latest Pre-Asph 90mm Summicron-M. 60mm Elmarit-R. 55mm 3.5 Micro-Nikkor. 105/2.5 Nikkor. 210mm Sironar-N. 360mm Goerz Blue-Dot Trigor. 120mm f/4 Hasselblad Makro-Planar. 38mm f/4.5 SWC. 50mm Mamiya-6.<br>

I've had the best luck with these over the years...perfect balance for my tastes - in terms of sharpness, feeling of dimensionality and depth, smooth transitions to oof areas, great tonality for B+W, and practicality of use for my purposes. Just great all around lenses, and I wish I still had them all!</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Well Leica would be a good candidate for "best" (though that term likely means different things to different people). All of Leica's current lenses are very very good. For more affordable lenses, I would nominate (Yashica/Kyocera) Contax manual focus lenses for cameras such as the Contax RTS III, Aria, RX, AX, ST, etc. Most of the common ones are not too expensive and they are really sharp (and heavy).</p>

<p>For vintage lenses, Contarex lenses are interesting and the Contarex Bullseye is beautiful but a trial to use and the design doesn't age well even though they have stupendously high quality builds.</p>

<p>Others that come to mind are the 40mm Minolta CLE lens and the old Voigtlander Prominant normal lenses.</p>

[kerkko_kehravuo]

<p>Biogon & Hologon.</p>

<p>K.</p>

[alex macphee]

<p>I'm not sure the question 'Which are the best lenses' has a definitive answer, but I do know that the best lenses I have ever used are Zeiss lenses for the modern Contax SLRs. My dalliances with Olympus, Nikon and Canon came to a full stop when I saw the results from my first roll through a 50mm Zeiss Planar.</p>

[steve_levine]

<p>It is a "horses for courses" thing. Sometimes an old scratched, dirty lens brings back the goods.</p>

[russ_britt3]

<p>38mm superwide Zeiss.......for the Hasselblad.</p>

[martin_norberg1]

<p>Thank you all for the suggestions you have made so far. Of course I was asking for your subjective experiences, as it is very difficult to decide what is "best" and not. Sharpness tests don't say much how many keepers a lens brings back in real life.<br>

Another Nikon example, I have both the old 85/1.8 pre-Ai and the slightly newer 85/2.0 Ais. Many reviews favour the older 1.8 but somehow I have much more "luck" with the humbler 2.0. But mostly I bring the 105 because I know it will elevate some of the good pics even further.<br>

Had the Retina for a while, got fantastic pics every time (with the Heligon 2.0) but found it awkward to use so I sold it.<br>

How about old superspeed lenses?</p>

[carbon_dragon]

<p>Up until recently, the super speed lenses were not so good wide open. The Canon 50/0.95 "Dream" for the Canon 7 is a case in point. And really most of them are at most 1 stop off the ubiquitous 50/1.4. You have to really have a need for available darkness to put up with the expense and weight.</p>

<p>Just to mention one more vintage group of pretty good lenses, there are the Contax rangefinder lenses, especially the 50/1.5 Opton Sonnar and the 21/4. Both date from just after WWII and they're amazingly good for their age.</p>

[alex_lofquist]

<p>There are some excellent Kodak Anastar (or Anastigmat Special) lenses in Supermatic shutters . (I found one for peanuts in medium format.) But perhaps my favorite is a P Nikkor 500 f/4 EDIF. It's a bit bulky, but with a little care in focusing, it produces excellent images.</p>

[frank uhlig]

<p>Zeiss and or Leica and then certain MF lenses and on and on.</p>

<p>So unless you buy a couple of Zeiss/Leica/MF capable bodies you will never see how the best lenses perform. </p>

<p>What a question!</p>

[User_4136860]

<p> All my lenses are better lenses than I'm a photographer.</p>

[john_dey]

<p>The Zeiss/Contax 85mm f1.4, Zeiss/Hasselblad SWC 38mm Biogon, Leica 50mm Summicron M these are a few of my favorite things.</p>