what 50mm and 35mm?

[ruber]

Hi all,

I have a dlsr (canon 550d) and I am getting keen on photos and videos.

At the moment I have a tamron 17-50 vc and a canon 70-300 is (both stabilized).

Now I feel it's the moment to get some fixed focal lenght to achieve a better quality and mood in my images

I'm interested in mf lenses because of their "charm" and cost.

I started googleing and reading things about pros and downsides of different models of lenses and now... I am in the fog

Anyway, thanks to google, I could find this very interesting forum!

Since I like things that last and quality (I can afford...)

I looked for the zeiss planar T 50mm 1.7 but I that it's about 150€ right now on the bay.

I also looked for the takumar 1.4 but I have read (also in this forum if I remember right) that it is a little radioactive.

Is there something cheaper and radioactivity free you could suggest?

I laso saw the pentacon 50mm but I was not able to compare it with the planar T.

I am also looking for some good 35mm

Thank you

[Attila]

Welcome!

We have plenty of thread with 50mm and 35mm lenses you can see samples and read discussions.

If you would like to get exact help in your thread , please define your maximum budget to both lenses.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I can think of some 35mm lenses that are stunning and cheap:

Canon FL 2.5/35
Meyer Primagon 4.5/35

I love those two and they have lots of character.

[Nesster]

Welcome on board!

I get the impression that you're looking for a fast f/1.4 50... and probably the 35mm ought to be in the same mount as the 50 so you only need one adapter for your Canon.

So maybe that's the challenge for us!

The Takumar 50/14. is not THAT radioactive, or alternately you can get the 55/1.8 Takumar... and a 35/3.5 Tak to go with it. These are all excellent and still mostly low cost.

Alternately if you go the M42 mount route (or any other mount for that matter!) for the 35mm most of the third-party lenses are at least decent and can be had very cheap, so trying one won't be a big investment.

[ruber]

Thank you all for your prompt reply!!!

@Attila: I had searched and read something before posting, but maybe I did it badly

Could you please link some specific thread if you rembember something interesting?

My budget... I started reading (posts of a couple of yers ago) that with less than 80 euros it was possible to get very good lenses (ei: zeiss planar), not usually considered by the most because of their manual focus.

I guess something changed this couple of years, since I see on the bay that prices are higher. But ok, if it's really worth it, I could start (they would be my first mf lenses) considering 130euros for used MF lenses that "makes the difference" (in my equipment). But I wonder if they are worth it or most of people are focused only on certain brands ignoring others that are almost the same quality.

That's why I am asking for your skilled support

So, I can say my budget is from 0 to 130 for a 50mm or a 35 (but maybe 35mm are usually more expensive?).

@Nesster: yes I am looking for something relatively fast (under 2.0) but with a good "image". I don't really know due to my ignorance, if speaking about 35mm maybe I could be less demanding.

[ManualFocus-G]

I'm sure you could get a Planar 50/1.7 for 100-120 euros if you avoid the buy it now prices

However, it has quite a long minimum focusing distance.

Other lenses I could recommend in your price range are the Pentax-M 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4, Olympus Zuiko 50/1.4.

However, I'd urge you to try a slightly slower lens first, as you'll find them a lot cheaper and probably as good optically. For example:

Super Takumar 55/1.8, Olympus Zuiko 50/1.8, Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50/1.8.

[fuzzywuzzy]

Welcome.

Where do you live? Price and availability will vary, i.e. Europeans have an easier time finding bargains on old Soviet glass.

I'd probably start with a Helios 44 58mm f/2. They're extremely cheap, plenty sharp stopped down, and wide open they give a unique look. I have sharper lenses but will never sell the Helios.

The Mir 1B 37mm f/2.8 has a good reputation and is quite cheap.

Check out EBay, local pawn shops, Craigslist et. If you see anything going for cheap research it. Most google searches will bring you right back here After you research a few dozen lenses you'll get a feel for things.

Also, bargain hunters shouldn't forget Canon's plastic 50/1.8. It feels like a toy but optics are good, and is within your price range.

EDIT - one way to get a deal on lenses is to get them with bodies on Ebay/pawn shops/craigslist. The only downside is that you'll be tempted to fix up those neglected film bodies and you'll be on the slippery slope to Gear Acquisition Syndrome!

[Glenn72]

I have a Canon 450d and went ahead and bought the S-M-C Takumar 50mm f/1.4 as a start and it is really a great lens.
I purchased mine for about €130 from a seller in France and when it came it was a little stiff but after using it for a little while its back to being perfect smooth focus.
As suggested if €130 is a bit too much for you to get started, the SMC Takumar 55 f/1.8 or F/2 can be had for much less, around €50.
The build quality on the Takumars are among the very best and any of my Takumars feels much better then any modern lenses to include my Canon 100L Macro or my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 which are built very good compared to most lenses of today.
My S-M-C Takumar 35 f/2 was a bit more expensive, around €140 but it came with a hard leather case. So far I haven´t found a Takumar that I didn´t like.

[Ymmot]

I'd also recommend trying one of the cheaper alternatives first, which are excelent and sometimes even better than the faster versions (such as the ones suggested by ManualFocus-G, some of which can be had for 20 to 30 euros or less if you are lucky).
Those should give you a feel wether you like manual focussing or not (some people don't like it at all).

Also getting glass for a reasonable price is 90% patience and 10% luck.
Getting a cheap one first will help reduce the risk of overpaying as you may be eager to get one as fast as possible.

If there is one (and you live near area's with lots of people) the local version of Ebay often suffers less from inflated prices and is a good option.
Pawn/second hand/charity shops are also a good option however it may depend on the culture of your country wether they are common (Pawn shops are not very common here, however charity shops are).
Dedicated camera shops are usually more expensive, however they may offer a short return/waranty period.
All of these local option give you the option of handeling the lens before buying, which is not something to be overlooked in my view.

[eddieitman]

OK a list of nice cheap overlooked lenses
I would recommend a Yashica 50mm F1.7 ML
http://www.flickr.com/photos/santapolero/sets/72157608342734496/
Also do not discard the F2 version and excellent lens very contrasty and sharp
Price 50 F1.7 pay no more than £40
F2 pay on more than £25

The pancolar and excellent lens that can be had for around £60-100

Takumar F1.8 or 2 also an excellent choice

Helios 44 Any everybody should own this lens its fantastic under £20

35mm Lenses are a little more difficult
Mir1B excellent but acquired taste bokeh can be very busy
I have a Sankor 35mm Lens that is also very good these came under several subbrands

[Gurdie]

How about some Russian (Ukrainian) glass?

I have three Arsenal- made lenses in Nikon mount - Mir-24N 35/2, Arsat N 50/1.4 and Kaleinar-5N 100/2.8
They are sharp, but the build quality is not up to Japanese or German lenses. But the prices are reasonable.

I have to confess, that I have not yet compared their color rendition - are they near each other - but I do it soon.

[ruber]

Thank you guys for your replies.
Takumar: I am a little scared about the takumar (both 1.4 or 1. due to the radioactivity issue, even if nesster says that is not THAT radioactive and maybe he is right.

Where could I find something definitive about this issue?

@ManualFocus-G

Carl Zeiss Pancolar 50/1.8: do you think is a good alternative to the planar 1.7? I read positive and negative articles about that.

Pentax-M 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/1.4: I'll give a try.

Super Takumar 55/1.8: see above )

About the focal length: do you suggest something less than 50mm due to the apsc 1.6 crop factor?


@fuzzywuzzy

I live in italy.

Helios 44 58mm f/2: ok, I'll give a try

[Nesster]

The 55/1.8 takumar is not at all radioactive...

I think with the Nikkors you can go non Ai which makes the lenses much cheaper. I have a 35mm f/2 that's somewhat large but fast. The 2.8's are smaller and very fine. Any of the 50mm's should be fine, I'd almost go by which one shows up first at condition and price I like.

Minoltas also are excellent and usually low cost. The 50/1.7 makes some really excellent images, and the 1.4's are good too. Minolta has two lines of other lenses, the 'regular' rokkor and the Celtic. (sort of like Nikkor and Nikon E, but I think there's less difference between the minoltas than the nikons). You could probably make an excellent pairing with two Minoltas. (I'm not sure - these should be adaptable to a Canon?)

The zuikos that have been mentioned are also excellent, and tend to be smaller than others.

35mm is more 'normal' fov on a crop cam than a 50. But together with the 135mm focal length, these were the most common lenses, so are plentiful and therefore usually not too expensive.

[Ymmot]

If you already enjoy using your AF lenses in manual mode then it can only be better with MF lenses (focussing feel/damping is better).
I personally had the tendency to use AF when it was available, probably because the focus by wire of the Olympus 4/3 lenses on my camera gives no feedback at all, so I didnt really have much MF experience before I started using these lenses, which is why I noted it .

Shooting moving subjects can be done with practice (and techniques like prefocussing on a specific spot among others), you can find a lot of 'Bird In Flight' photographs or panning shots of racing cars around the forums for instance.

As far as I know MD lenses are not adaptable to EOS without an optical adapter (=bad):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

[s58y]

[RioRico]

Radioactivity of old lenses including Takumars is trivial. These lenses were used on film cameras. They did not fog the film. They will not harm you unless you grind them up and eat them. And that harm would come from the jagged edges, not the radioactivity. In other words, DON'T SWEAT IT! Evaluate lenses by other measures, such as price-performance index.

The absolute best bargains in Fifties are the Takumar 55/2 and Helios-44 58/2, either of which I can get shipped stateside for under US$25. With some luck you can find 50/1.4 lenses for under US$50. How? My auction strategy: Bid low; bid often; lose 99%; don't worry, another will appear soon. My Fast Fifties were all inexpensive: Super-Takumar 50/1.4, planar Yashica ML 50/1.4, Tomioka 55/1.4. (Alas, my SMC 50/1.2 and FA50/1.4 weren't so cheap.)

Other good contenders are Yashinon DX 50/1.7; Meyer Oreston / Pentacon Electric 50/1.8; Mamiya-Sekor or Petri CC or Rikenon 55/1.8; and Meyer Primotar-E 50/3.5. For 35s, think of: Isco Westron 35/2.8; Super-Takumar 35/3.5; Meyer Primagon 35/4.5; Mir-1 BV 37/2.8. All the lenses mentioned (except the planar Yashica ML 50/1.4 in C/Y mount) are M42 screwmount. Good luck!

[ForenSeil]

[ruber]

Thank you again

I am studying basing on your helpful advice.

There are a lot of interesting lens outside!!! I think the thing could be dangerous for me

Actually some lenses are more or less the same level of pirces as indicated here, other lenses are more expensive and I guess it could be because I am in Europe and maybe could be a differrent slightly market.

I can see interesting deals in usa but I don't know how it works with customs.

I'll keep studying

[ManualFocus-G]

A 50mm will be great for portraits on aps-c, but it you want to take more general photos, then I'd recommend a 35mm lens. The Mir-24H is brilliant at 35mm and a maximum aperture of f/2. You can usually find Nikon versions for less than 100 euros

[ruber]

[ManualFocus-G]

Sorry, when I said Nikon versions, I meant the Mir with a Nikon mount There is an M42 version too, but it's much more expensive.

[sinner79]

Mir24 it's a great lens!!!

[Arninetyes]

[RioRico]

I'll also suggest looking at primes in the 28-31mm focal range, which is 'normal' for APS-C cameras. A 35mm lens on APS-C is a short tele, as 50-55mm are on 135/FF, OK for in-camera cropping but narrower than I like. I find myself using 28mm much more than 35mm. And ZILLIONS of inexpensive decent 28s are available. Folks here may mention favorites, but in general, most 28s are good at least.

[ruber]

Thanks again to all for your support, it's a precious tutorial for a rookie like me.

If you have some good 28s to suggest...

@Arninetyes: np for me for a good 1.8 I think I could start with it and have more time to get a personal taste.

What do you mean for "cheap"? Could you give me a target? Looking for the makes you kindly suggest I can find a 50-250€ range

Thank you