Need advice for a set of manual focus lenses on budget…

[RAART]

Many members here have a huge experience with manual focus lenses and tested many lenses during the time therefore I decided to ask this.

I want to acquire a set of manual focus lenses and keep them for a long time and used them on m4/3 format. In the future I will purchase E-M5 and like to continue using MF lenses.

So far for the sake of MF lenses I purchased, I do like Olympus OM series and Nikon F. Pentax lenses are good too but somehow I missing something there and I cannot describe what it is. I really like very sharp lenses and neutral colors with very light discrepancies to either cold or warm tones.

I will purchase all lenses over the longer period of time and resale if I don’t like it however I hate selling my staff and this is the reason I like to take advantage of vast knowledge that members have here…

Bellow is focal lengths I like to have and some I will keep for sure and all others will be for sale (locally or offered here) in short period of time or after I check the newly acquired lenses.

24mm:
50mm: Nikon AF 1.8; Pentax-A 1.7
90mm:
135mm: Dimension 3.5 (until I get better one but also later I just will keep it like back up)
180mm:
200mm:
300mm:
400mm:
50mm Macro: Zuiko Auto-Macro 3.5
90mm Macro:
135mm Macro:
200mm Macro:

Recommendations in each focal length are very welcomed!

[TrueLoveOne]

Well.... these things are quite personal I guess... in another thread there was an opinion of getting just zeiss lenses. They are good, but I think they are never "budget". I recently got shocked over the Flektogon prices.... To another person 200 dollars for a lens is still "budget" cause they might just be used to buy 1000 dollar AF lenses.
Not me, a budget lens for me is a lens that costs less than 50 euros a piece, and I will make an exception for larger lenses like 135 or 200mm, but they never exceed the 100 euro line.

So here's my list:
24mm : hardly ever seen a "budget" lens here. I got the Revuenon 4/24 macro for a good price, but on ebay they are way to expensive imho.

so get yourself a nice RMC Tokina 2.8/28 instead.
50mm: I love the Pancolar. Also very high priced, but sometimes (patience) you might get lucky.... otherwise: Meyer Oreston 1.8/50 or Pentacon 1.8/50. (those are really bang for the buck imho)

58mm: get a Helios..... everybody should have it, it is great!
90mm (or 100): never felt the need to have one....
135mm: Meyer Orestor 2.8/135 or Jupiter 11
200mm: Meyer Orestegor 4/200
300 or 400mm: I have had several, but never kept them, as I do not use them.

Macro lenses: get yourself a good set (4 or 5 pieces) of M42 extension tubes, and a reverse ring. Use it with the Pentacon, you might get surprised! Personally I also like to srew an enlargerlens on them.

I like to play around with all kinds of lenses... it's just a nice hobby I think. There are some really cheap ones that I will not part from, like my Supra Magenta 2.8/135 and a Pallas 28mm, I don't know why, I just like them!

Selecting and looking for lenses is a good way to spend your time anyway I think! Have fun!

[Aanything]

In the 50mm range, the price/performance ratio of a Smc takumar 1.8/55 is unbeatable, IMHO.
Consider the Jupiter 21 as a 200mm, it's at least as good as the Meyer, and you can get it really cheap also on eBay, with some patience.
For 300mm on a budget, tair 3 is almost mandatory.

[buerokratiehasser]

I have really no clue about prices - I got so many already and E.Bää has finally managed to annoy the last straw out of me that I don't buy any more.

However, with m4/3 I think you should have a flange where you can adapt everything - only problem would be adaptors that sometimes cost more than lenses. Adapt everything would mean you can dig into uncommon and unwieldy low-flange mounts like Minolta SR/MC/MD, although their prices have gone up since a lot of people had the same idea. I hear my MD 50/1.7 is spectacular, only I have to believe it since I can't try it! :P

Minolta V would be nice too but it has electronic aperture so, suck.

When I was buying, the best shots were those with "Funny optical dingo stuffies" without mention of make or bayonet, but pictures where you could spot that. (one of them turned out to be a macro lens with >150 lpm)
Good description makes it easier to find and can be good deal, but you'll have lots of competition.

[TrueLoveOne]

+1 on the Takumar 55.... I have the f/2 version, it's really nice, and very cheap!!

Now this thread gets me looking for Jupiter 21 and Tair lenses..... grrrr!

[mo]

+1 On the jupiter 21A my latest lens acquisition and i am very happy with the results..I know the Auto mamiyas are nice for color I have the 2/50,1.8/55,The Macro Takumar first version is a great macro lens.1:1.......these are all M42 as I use Pentax.

[RAART]

I do have a Super-Takumar 50mm F1.4 and Super-Takumar 55mm F2... the super-tak F2 is in like new condition and still have warranty on it (I think for one more month) however Nikon 50mm F1.8 is sharper then both of them and performs better on my camera then super-tak's. Also Nikon is better then Minolta MD 50mm F2. The only SMC-Pentax A 50mm F1.7 is like Nikon, and there cannot decide which one is better but tend to say Nikon.

@ TrueLoveOne
I agree with you about the price range. The budget for me is 30-80$ for the lens except the longer focal range, around 100-150$.

I can get those (locally) or maybe cheaper, need to negotiate...
Meyer-Oreston 50mm F1.8 for $45
Meyer-Domiplan 50mm F2 for $35
Pentacon 50mm F1.8 for $45
Fujinon 55mm F2.2 for $25

In terms of Macro lenses I do have Olympus OM extension tubes and M42 macro-bellows II Asahi Pentax with 100mm F4 lens.

In regards of adapters as mention here I do have a lot of it... Just missing maybe 5 to cover almost all mounts currently on the market...

[hifisapi]

[iangreenhalgh1]

M4/3 and on a budget, eh?

Russian M39 rangefinder lenses, tiny, superb, a much better match to a small m4/3 cam than big slr lenses.

Jupiter-8 2/50
Jupiter-9 2/85
Jupiter-11 4/135

I'd start with those, you can't buy better lenses for the money imho. Try to find 1950s ones with the red P.

[RAART]

I just got reply from someone locally for Tamron 90mm F2.5 (extension tubes included) for 100$...

Is this a good price for this lens which looks like late model with nikon mount...

[iangreenhalgh1]

For 100usd I'd say take it. Good lens and the Jupiter-9 2/85mm is usually 100usd or more.

[RAART]

I just waiting to his reply - offered 90CAD... and this is the actual picture of the lens seller provided thus I do not know what kind of extension tubes he is talking about (tamron's or something else)... Anyway I just looked on the ebay and prices are high there for this one ranging from 200-500$...

[RAART]

[martyn_bannister]

Because you are on micro 4/3, maybe consider 17mm RMC Tokina as your SWA. Good lens IMHO

[LucisPictor]

With an µ4/3 cam you should also consider the size of the lenses. Smaller lenses look and feel better on a small cam.

My recommendations look like this: (I leave most Leica and other expensive stuff out because you wrote "on a budget".)

24mm: Tamron 2.5/24
---
90mm: Leitz Elmar 4/90 (pretty cheap lens for a Leica)
135mm: Jupiter-37 3.5/135
180mm: Leica Elmar-R 4/180
200mm: Telear 3.5/200
300mm: I would not recommend a MF 300mm lens for a µ4/3
400mm: any 400mm mirror lens
---
90mm Macro: no idea
135mm Macro: no idea
200mm Macro: no idea

[Attila]

[Attila]

[memento]

I'd rather take a modern Micro Four Thirds Panasonic 14 or Olympus 17 or Sigma 19 mm lens instead of adapting heavy ultrawideangle glass that was originally designed for 35mm film cameras. You'll get a MUCH smaller setup, auto focus and most likely much more image quality from a native MFT lens in this focal length range. Also, they are all not really more expensive than classic superwideangle glass. For a bit more money you could probably get the Panasonic 20/1.7 as well, IMO no classic lens matches this one for quality, speed and convenience on M43 by quite a margin.

It's a totally different story with standard and telephoto lenses on M43, adapting lenses with longer focal lengths still makes absolutely sense.

Thomas

[RAART]

[RAART]

BTW I got Tamron 90mm lens for 100$ delivered... Just need to agree on time and date...

Just got the email... Friday morning I will pick up or meet the seller at local coffee shop in downtown Toronto...

[iangreenhalgh1]

Congrats, you got a great lens for a bargain price.

[aoleg]

RAART, as you are about to use the lenses on mirroless cameras, you can go for the cheapest (third-party lenses in abandoned mounts) or the best (OEM lenses in abandoned mounts).

24mm: your only cheap options will be things like PORST/EXACTA 24/2.8 (Fuji X-mount), which is a surprisingly good design regarding its ground-zero price tag. Another good but inexpensive 24mm lens is a TX/T4 mount Vivitar 24/2.8. Alternatively, RMC Tokina 24/2.8 can be a good option that you can have for a very low price if you opt for a mount such as Minolta MD, Konica, or Canon FD. Unfortunately, most OEM alternatives will be rather expensive.

28mm: the whole world of them. Minolta MC or MD series 28/2.8 (7-element versions) or 28/3.5; Konica Hexanon 28/3.5 (7-element version); Yashica ML 28/2.8; Olympus Zuiko 28/2.8; Nikkor 28/3.5 (not the 2.8, as those tend to be more expensive); Pentax Takumar and K-mount 28mm's, and so on, and so forth.

Same goes for 35mm lenses.

I won't even touch the fifties. You'll probably collect a lot of them - even the very best ones can be had for peanuts with few exceptions. For the sake of curiosity, get a PORST 50/1.2 in Fujica X-mount. It can be had for 100 EUR or so (I bought two from eBay for this exact price during the last two month - so no problem here). This lens is a rebadged EBC X-Fujinon 50/1.2, one of the best 50/1.2 lenses selling for cheap due to uncommon mount.

Check out my review of lenses in the 85-105mm range at http://www.prime35.com/85mm-portrait-lenses-compared/ . You may want to opt for a Nikon Series E 100/2.8, Russian Kaleinar 100/2.8, Rolleinar (QBM) 85/2.8 or 105/2.8 (the latter two are a bit more expensive). Or a Jupiter-9 85/2, but keep in mind that later copies (and most MC samples) have a pronounsed soft-effect wide open.

Same goes for 135mm lenses. Too many great options at rock bottom prices. Don't bother with non-OEM ones, they are good and some of them excellent, but you have the choice of truly world-class lenese such as Konica Hexanon 135/3.2 (one of the sharpest 135mm ever made) which goes for peanuts, Hexanon 135/2.5 that can be had for 30-35 EUR (I bough two for this price), Minolta MC and MD Rokkor 135/2.8. There's no need to go slower than that, but f/3.5 lenses are plentiful and dirt cheap.

There aren't many good 180mm lenses that I know. Nikkor 180/2.8 is a world-class lens, but sells for a lot of money.

In 200mm, again you have the choice of Konica (Hexanon 200/3.5 and 200/4) and Minolta MC/MD Rokkor lenses (200/3.5, 200/4), all of them are great.

Same goes for 300mm lenses, but are you really sure you want to attach your camera to the back of one of those monsters? I bought a Hexanon 300/4.5 for $10, and paid about 60 EUR for Minolta MD Rokkor IF 300/4.5.

[LucisPictor]

Yes, some good advice by aoleg!

[WolverineX]

[memento]

Great list!

While I would not really bother with any 24 mm lens for 35mm film on a M43 camera, as said before, I can say that I had two Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wides, one for my Pentax K10D and one for my Nikon D2x, and they both performed really great. The Nikon one was optically even better (not that much, but a bit) than an original Nikkor-AF 24/2.8.

Again, I'd prefer a Sigma 19/2.8 or Panasonic 20/1.7 every day for my MFT camera, but you can have luck and get that Sigma 24/2.8 very cheap.....

Personally, I try to restrict myself for Olympus OM and M42 lenses now, the main reason is that Olympus lenses are just nice on Olympus cameras, and also I just love the "elegant" note to classic OM Zuikos – much different to the heavy-metal-like old Nikkors, for example. And M42, well I have M42 lenses and cameras anyway, so why not adapt them to MFT.

To me, the prices seem to be all over the place from dirt cheap to surprisingly expensive with any brand of old lenses.

From 180 mm onwards, lenses with special class elements such as ED glass or "APO" or the like would be really great on the small M43 chip, because the smaller pixels enhance the appearance of color fringes and all that stuff, and this can only be reduced by special glass elements. But I believe the only somewhat "cheap" lens with special glass is the Nikkor ED 180/2.8.

So probably a 200/4 is a good idea instead. Because the less aperture, the less bothersome color fringes, even with standard glass.

Thomas