Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:28 pm    Post subject: Re: Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:
Oreste wrote:
I was wondering if any one would be interested in ranking the Japanese camera manufacturer lens lines of the 1960s and early 1970s. By the 1980s, a lot of improvement had taken place in all major lines, diminishing differences. But older lenses, I think, varied more. Considering both optical and mechanical quality, here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

1) Asahi Pentax (1960s especially)
2) Contax RTS (some Contax lenses were made by Zeiss in Germany) (Line began about 1975)
3) Canon FL
4) Olympus (Line began about 1972)
5) Nikon
6) Minolta MC
7) Canon FD
8.) Minolta MD

By the 1980s, these would have changed. Also, there were shifts even between the 1960s and 1970s.

Bear in mind that I never owned any of the brands, but did use some of them.

when it comes down to optical and mechanical quality from Japan, I dont think anything can match the best of
Pentax from the mid 60's to the mid 70's.


Then you agree with my ranking?


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s Reply with quote
hifisapi wrote:

when it comes down to optical and mechanical quality from Japan, I dont think anything can match the best of
Pentax from the mid 60's to the mid 70's.


I am very skeptical. Here's a pricing from 1975. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/3240721589/sizes/l/in/set-72157621778835031/ If you look at complete outfits, Nikon is the most expensive, followed by Olympus. Canon, Pentax, and Minolta cost exactly the same, everyone else is cheaper. Yet, the pro market was dominated by Nikon and amateur market was dominated by Canon. If Pentax were a cut above the rest, I am sure people would've preferred it for the same price.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are hordes of used Takumars around. Check out ebay.
M42 is the easiest mount to adapt to nearly any body (except Nikon).
For that matter check this site.
Pentax (with the Spotmatic) was the best selling maker of the day.

Nikkors were very often used by pro's who usually beat them up badly.
Takumars were generally targeted to amateurs who didn't usually put them to such hard use.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:20 pm    Post subject: Re: Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
Oreste wrote:
I was wondering if any one would be interested in ranking the Japanese camera manufacturer lens lines of the 1960s and early 1970s. By the 1980s, a lot of improvement had taken place in all major lines, diminishing differences. But older lenses, I think, varied more. Considering both optical and mechanical quality, here's my opinion, for what it's worth:

1) Asahi Pentax (1960s especially)
2) Contax RTS (some Contax lenses were made by Zeiss in Germany) (Line began about 1975)
3) Canon FL
4) Olympus (Line began about 1972)
5) Nikon
6) Minolta MC
7) Canon FD
8.) Minolta MD

By the 1980s, these would have changed. Also, there were shifts even between the 1960s and 1970s.

Bear in mind that I never owned any of the brands, but did use some of them.

when it comes down to optical and mechanical quality from Japan, I dont think anything can match the best of
Pentax from the mid 60's to the mid 70's.


Then you agree with my ranking?
I cant rank the rest optically, but I agree with #1 at least. Ive handled all the Japanese lenses of that vintage and theyre all crude compared to the precision of a mint finely crafted screwmount takumar.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax was behind technically by 1975.
All the major players had open aperture metering and auto exposure modes were becoming popular.

The Pentax ES models with these features weren't very popular for some reason. I have an ES now that I just repaired (mechanically), and if I can get the electronics to work I suppose I will find out why.

And then there was the screw mount which was considered old fashioned.
The K mount models were first shipped in 1975, in an attempt to regain market share.

Pentax did dominate in unit sales before that, the Spotmatic was an extremely popular camera 1965 to 1972 or so, partly because it was a great value for the money.

Pentax was never really targeted at a professional market. It was always trying for the amateur market above all. Many professionals used it because of its many virtues, but never in such numbers as Nikon.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:13 pm    Post subject: Re: Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
hifisapi wrote:

when it comes down to optical and mechanical quality from Japan, I dont think anything can match the best of
Pentax from the mid 60's to the mid 70's.


I am very skeptical. Here's a pricing from 1975. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nesster/3240721589/sizes/l/in/set-72157621778835031/ If you look at complete outfits, Nikon is the most expensive, followed by Olympus. Canon, Pentax, and Minolta cost exactly the same, everyone else is cheaper. Yet, the pro market was dominated by Nikon and amateur market was dominated by Canon. If Pentax were a cut above the rest, I am sure people would've preferred it for the same price.


Though more expensive, I doubt that Nikon lenses were any better than Pentax overall. I have always thought Nikon's success was some freak of marketing, because the stuff never really impressed me.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'm still impressed with the Yashinon 2/50. Wonderful lens. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Physical quality is a funny thing.
There is perceived quality, which in many cases is a matter of a high standard of finish and actual quality of manufacture (adequate materials where they are needed, good machining, etc.). This is also affected by elegant design, which can make lenses that are similar in materials and finishing processes look very different. Compare the typical 1960's auto SLR lens vs the Yashinon DX series. Same stuff, but the Yashinons were drawn up by an artist.

Then there is what I would consider real quality, which is best stated in engineering terms - predicted MTBF (Mean time between failures)
This is more influenced by design.
You can have a superbly made lens that is prone to failure over time through poor design of the aperture mechanism (for instance) due to vulnerability to lubrication leakage. Or to fogging of internal elements as lubricants vaporize. Etc.
Then there is what I have to call to elegance of design. Fewer parts, cleverly arranged to have few potential points of failure.

1960's Nikkors are superbly made, mechanically, from the point of view of materials selection and sturdy construction. They are really expensively finished, with an excellent glossy enamel, fine lettering, etc. But they aren't very elegant. Takumars, usually, are elegant but not quite as solidly made, and in reality the finish isn't quite up to the Nikkors. But they LOOK better and often FEEL better. MTBF seems roughly similar if I have to go by my own personal limited sample.


Nikon's meter coupling pin + prong arrangement was prone to damage, and the Photomic meter finder was never that secure. I have seen lots of wobbly Nikkor lenses. Later they went to the AI system, which still is prone to sticking. Look at older Nikon bodies from the early 80s and see how many are of the AI mechanisms are sluggish and sticky. The Leicaflex system of internal cams was far superior: you can set the lens down on the mount without fear of damaging it. Pentax copied the idea of internal coupling in the K mount from the Leicaflex system.

The stop-down system is not bad either, as no coupling is made.

K-mount:



Note the similarity of the design to the Leicaflex mount:



The Canon FD mount did something similar:



Last edited by Oreste on Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:48 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Topcon had internal meter coupling in 1963, a point that seems to have been forgotten by most. Open aperture, TTL metering, with the ability swap viewfinders without losing metering capability. Above and beyond anything else for at least a decade.

Last edited by Mos6502 on Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:49 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Pentax engineering was exceptional. They managed to do a lot with less in every department, and this was the result of excellent mechanical design.

Compare a Nikkor-S 50/1.4 with a Super Takumar 50/1.4
The Takumar is much smaller, has fewer parts (has a single "arm" doing both max aperture setting and stopdown, and fewer springs and screws), is easier to disassemble (breaks down to front cell assembly, rear cell assembly, and outer mechanism assembly, each semi-independent), has its aperture mechanism integrated into the front cell assembly (keeping it out of trouble), etc. And of course has a very very smooth well damped helical.

None of these are the result of high precision manufacturing really, not exceptionally so compared to Nikon or Minolta, etc. There are faults in the design. It is easy to mis-assemble this Takumar such that the apertures are off, because this depends on the rotation of the front cell assembly within the outer mechanism. The insides of the Takumar don't show any particular improvements in materials or workmanship over Nikon. The smoothness of the helical is because of some technical trick I haven't figured out yet, but I'm pretty sure it isn't because of some high-precision lapping process for the helical threads or anything exotic like that. Maybe they just chose an exceptional type of grease, I don't know. I don't think they were better at making helicals than Nikon. They were just better at designing mechanisms than Nikon.

Part of the Takumar magic is the small size. Within that small size they had to pack more solidly with metal and glass than the Nikkor. The Takumars just feel dense, as if they are particularly solid. And they are of course, there is less airspace in there.

And then there is the product design. The cosmetic design overall is less fussy and less broken up than Nikon, which went with bling where it didn't belong, and failed to properly show where Nikon was spending their money on the excellent enameling and engraving. The enamel, knurling, and etc. on the Nikkor is extremely well done, really better than the Takumar from the point of view of workmanship, but compared to the Takumar it just does not show to good effect.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
I have an ES now that I just repaired (mechanically), and if I can get the electronics to work I suppose I will find out why.


I like my ES quite a bit but it doesn't offer the handling speed you'd expect from an auto-exposure camera. The ES is more elegant but in terms of functionality, a camera like the Chinon CE, CE-II or CE-3 for example are superior. The CE came out two year later than the ES. No exposure lock for the ES, so you have to change a compensation dial for backlight subjects. Annoying stop down metering with any other lens than the S-M-C and SMC series (the switch on the side). This would make you turn the aperture dial all the way back to wide-open if you needed to focus again. It was a far slower system than the CEs which had the auto pin actuator synced with the 3-stage shutter release button. ES was only available with micro-prism aid focusing screen. CE-3 had split screen which was more popular. No shutter lock. No winder/grip attachments. I think there's a good bit of "why" there.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nikon gave professionals a very sturdy body, very sturdy lenses, interchangeable prisms, backs, motor drives, mirror lockup, international professional service, etc. If one wanted a single system that could do nearly anything one would want to do in 35mm, in the 1960's Nikon was it. And there is the power of sheer market share. As everybody had Nikon you could buy, rent or borrow what you needed anywhere. Its sort of like Microsoft operating systems. There is great value just in the fact of being the standard.

Pentax (or Minolta, or Topcon) could substitute for Nikon under many circumstances but not in all of them.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 8:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
Pentax was behind technically by 1975.
All the major players had open aperture metering and auto exposure modes were becoming popular.

The Pentax ES models with these features weren't very popular for some reason. I have an ES now that I just repaired (mechanically), and if I can get the electronics to work I suppose I will find out why.

And then there was the screw mount which was considered old fashioned.
The K mount models were first shipped in 1975, in an attempt to regain market share.

Pentax did dominate in unit sales before that, the Spotmatic was an extremely popular camera 1965 to 1972 or so, partly because it was a great value for the money.

Pentax was never really targeted at a professional market. It was always trying for the amateur market above all. Many professionals used it because of its many virtues, but never in such numbers as Nikon.

Pentax geared up for open aperture metering in 1971 ( smc lenses had the cams) and by 1974 the spotmatic-f and the autoexposure ES both inplemented open apeture metering/exposure with a SCREW mount. I guess the screw mount was just considered too slow to change lenses so Pentax went to K bayonet lenses and bodies in 1975 but they didnt offer anything over screw mounts other than the way the lenses mounted. I think it was quite a technical feat Pentax got as much out of the screwmount as they did. And dont forget, in 1971 PENTAX invented multicoating (SMC) that blew away all the competition for years. Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mos6502 wrote:
Topcon had internal meter coupling in 1963, a point that seems to have been forgotten by most. Open aperture, TTL metering, with the ability swap viewfinders without losing metering capability. Above and beyond anything else for at least a decade.


Leicaflex had internal aperture coupling in 1964, not TTL though. The Leicaflex SL appeared in 1968, and it was light years beyond anything Nikon had.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The ES wasn't a success though. Pentax had the features, but I don't think they were well implemented.
The rest of the market had blown by Pentax. Consider that you could get, going by that 1975 ad, an OM-1 (one of the great marketing successes of the 1970's) for much less than a Pentax ES. Or you could get a Minolta SRT101 (already an old design) for less than a Spotmatic F. The SRT is a much more advanced camera, with the flawless open aperture metering.

Takumars were good, but not quite good enough to overcome the technical obsolescence of the cameras.

Anyway, in these digital days there are great Takumars, good Takumars and so-so Takumars just like any other make. The great advantages of Takumars from my point of view, as a user in the here and now, is that they are at least decent, they are generally available in good condition, they age well and they are easy to fix.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
The ES wasn't a success though. Pentax had the features, but I don't think they were well implemented.
The rest of the market had blown by Pentax. Consider that you could get, going by that 1975 ad, an OM-1 (one of the great marketing successes of the 1970's) for much less than a Pentax ES. Or you could get a Minolta SRT101 (already an old design) for less than a Spotmatic F. The SRT is a much more advanced camera, with the flawless open aperture metering.

Takumars were good, but not quite good enough to overcome the technical obsolescence of the cameras.

Anyway, in these digital days there are great Takumars, good Takumars and so-so Takumars just like any other make. The great advantages of Takumars from my point of view, as a user in the here and now, is that they are at least decent, they are generally available in good condition, they age well and they are easy to fix.


The SRT Minolta cameras were nowhere near as well made as the Pentaxes. The film advance is very telling.

But I would not buy either, actually.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 10:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This could be a good bun-fight ! Laughing

Back in the day, the early 70's, I was a Canon man. I had A1 and AE1p's for a few years, then EOS film bodies. I pretty much liked them all, some had their downfalls but overall they did what I wanted them to do, and importantly - they were what I could afford. Perhaps the important question is "what did we lust after ?"
I've never owned a Nikon in my life, so putting them anywhere in a list is pointless for me. All I can comment on is what I've gone back to.
And from the old stuff I now have I really have a hard time choosing a winner. I love my old Pentax S1a, but is is it a better camera than the old Zenit's that I have? In terms of doubling up as a hammer to knock nails into oak floorboards, probably not. And as a camera ?not a great deal of difference in reality. They were cameras of their time.
I like metal cameras and lenses, I've done a 5 mile walk through the woods today in the fog and drizzle with a bloody Rolleiflex SLR around my neck! By the time I got home I wished I'd got a cheap and nasty, and light, Canonikon.

I lusted after a Canon A1, I got one and as I've mentioned many times before didn't get on with it. ( I might now ) Did I lust after the competitors ? No, I can remember 'appreciating' other manufacturers offerings but I had become "a Canon man". And that was solely down to the limited advertising and revues that we saw back in the day. There was no internet, all we had was a few expensive monthly magazines, and they were hopelessly biased towards the big advertisers back then. So unless we could afford to keep changing and trying different cameras we stuck with what we knew.
I have no doubt that various manufacturers did develop new and exciting technology back then, but it's only with the wonderful position of hindsight and being able to buy all these various cameras at affordable prices that we have the luxury of choosing a manufacturer that deserves to be crowned as king of the hill.

Back in the day my vote would have been Canon, today...................... Confused


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The problem with all these rankings is that everyone has his own set of criteria.

For example, I've had 1.8/50 Meyer Oreston. It was a good lens, all metal, built like a tank. However I never really liked to photograph with it, it always felt too heavy and clunky to me. I've sold it, then got MC Pentacon 1.8/50, which is exactly the same lens with multicoating, A/M switch and in a much lighter plastic barrel. Pentacon is one of my favorites. You'd probably say that Oreston is better made mechanically, but for me lower weight, MC and A/M switch easily trump the perceived quality of heavy Oreston.

And in the end, I am a Canon man today, with all the unlimited choice available. I don't like breech lock FDs, they are on the heavy side, but FDn lenses tend to be lightest SLR lenses available (shared with Minolta MD), and they are really easy to live with: sharp, high contrast, good coating, and one can use them as presets on mirrorless adapters, which is a nice bonus over Minolta MD.

Last edited by fermy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:06 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
fermy wrote:
The problem with all these rankings is that everyone has his own set of criteria.

For example, I've had 1.8/50 Meyer Oreston. It was a good lens, all metal, built like a tank. However I never really liked to photograph with it, it always felt too heavy and clunky to me. I've sold it, then got MC Pentacon 1.8/50, which is exactly the same lens with multicoating, A/M switch and in a much lighter plastic barrel. Pentacon is one of my favorites. You'd probably say that Oreston is better made mechanically, but for me lower weight, MC and A/M switch easily trump the perceived quality of heavy Oreston.


This discussion is about Japanese only, from 1960s and 1970s.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oreste wrote:


This discussion is about Japanese only, from 1960s and 1970s.


Oreston/Pentacon was just an example of how these rankings are all about personal preferences. You can easily find Nikon/Pentax examples along the same line.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
Leicaflex had internal aperture coupling in 1964, not TTL though. The Leicaflex SL appeared in 1968


This discussion is about Japanese only, from 1960s and 1970s


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
themoleman342 wrote:
Quote:
Leicaflex had internal aperture coupling in 1964, not TTL though. The Leicaflex SL appeared in 1968


This discussion is about Japanese only, from 1960s and 1970s


Well that's not about technical points.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lenses that I've used myself, primes only, not zooms, and in my opinion:

Optical quality(sharpness, both centre and corner, contrast):
1) Canon FD SSC
2) Minolta MD
3) Canon (new) FD
4) Minolta MC
5) Asahi Pentax (SMC Takumar)
6) Nikon
7) Olympus
8.) Canon FD
9) Asahi Pentax (super Takumar)
10) Konica AR
11) Canon FL

Build quality:
1) Canon FL
2) Canon FD SSC
3) Canon FD
4) Minolta MC
5) Asahi Pentax (super Takumar)
6) Asahi Pentax (SMC Takumar)
7) Konica AR
8.) Nikon
9) Olympus
10) Minolta MD
11) Canon (new) FD


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
dnas wrote:
Lenses that I've used myself, primes only, not zooms, and in my opinion:

Optical quality(sharpness, both centre and corner, contrast):
1) Canon FD SSC
2) Minolta MD
3) Canon (new) FD
4) Minolta MC
5) Asahi Pentax (SMC Takumar)
6) Nikon
7) Olympus
8.) Canon FD
9) Asahi Pentax (super Takumar)
10) Konica AR
11) Canon FL

Build quality:
1) Canon FL
2) Canon FD SSC
3) Canon FD
4) Minolta MC
5) Asahi Pentax (super Takumar)
6) Asahi Pentax (SMC Takumar)
7) Konica AR
8.) Nikon
9) Olympus
10) Minolta MD
11) Canon (new) FD


Yes, and you rate Nikon as mediocre, as I do.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 11:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta SRT 101/102 were very well made indeed, fit and finish and materials superior to the Spotmatic. I have been into a bunch of both lately, had their guts out, and the Minoltas are impressive. The Spotmatics are simpler and there is less to go wrong but they arent quite as pretty inside.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 2 of 9