View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:15 pm Post subject: Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s |
|
|
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) Nikon
5) Minolta MC
6) Canon FD
7) Minolta MD
8.) Olympus (Line began about 1972)
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.
Last edited by Oreste on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:55 pm; edited 8 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
I don't know many of these lines by direct experience, so my contribution to the discussion will be limited, but I can say that EBC Fujinons should rank close to Pentax, or at least be included: I also like Fujica bodies from the early '70s a lot, with st801 being the best m42 camera among the (not so many) ones that I tried. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Aanything wrote: |
I don't know many of these lines by direct experience, so my contribution to the discussion will be limited, but I can say that EBC Fujinons should rank close to Pentax, or at least be included: I also like Fujica bodies from the early '70s a lot, with st801 being the best m42 camera among the (not so many) ones that I tried. |
I don't think they were around in the 1960s. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
This could get heated as folks represent their favorites. I'd like to add Topcon-Topcor and Komura to the list. _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Excalibur
Joined: 19 Jul 2009 Posts: 5017 Location: UK
Expire: 2014-04-21
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Excalibur wrote:
erm probably a question for rich Americans as Europe was still getting back on it's feet (well at least in the 60s) and think Joe public couldn't afford the best gear. _________________ Canon A1, AV1, T70 & T90, EOS 300 and EOS300v, Chinon CE and CP-7M. Contax 139, Fuji STX-2, Konica Autoreflex TC, FS-1, FT-1, Minolta X-700, X-300, XD-11, SRT101b, Nikon EM, FM, F4, F90X, Olympus OM2, Pentax S3, Spotmatic, Pentax ME super, Praktica TL 5B, & BC1, , Ricoh KR10super, Yashica T5D, Bronica Etrs, Mamiya RB67 pro AND drum roll:- a Sony Nex 3
.........past gear Tele Rolleiflex and Rollei SL66.
Many lenses from good to excellent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
This could get heated as folks represent their favorites. I'd like to add Topcon-Topcor and Komura to the list. |
Topcon was gone by 1972 I think. Konica was never widely sold. Komura did not make cameras. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Aanything
Joined: 27 Aug 2011 Posts: 2187 Location: Piacenza, Italy
Expire: 2014-05-30
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Aanything wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
I don't think they were around in the 1960s. |
You are right, I was thinking of lenses from early to mid '70s.
Sorry. _________________ C&C and editing of my pics are always welcome
Samples from my lenses
My gear
My Flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
Aanything wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
I don't think they were around in the 1960s. |
You are right, I was thinking of lenses from early to mid '70s.
Sorry. |
They were not major players. Also omitted are Mamiya-Sekor and Yashica. The omission is deliberate.
Last edited by Oreste on Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:41 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
This ranking, of course, makes no sense at all. For example, in many cases breech lock Canon FD is Canon FL with improved coating, in some cases the formula also was improved. Early breech locks are fully metal and build like tanks, if that's your concern.
Yeah, I'm partial to FL lenses too, they look prettier, slimmer, have A/M switch and aperture ring on the front and have more retro rendering due to weaker coating. However, I don't see how they can be in front of FD. Furthermore, the further back in time you go, the more difficult it is to objectively compare anything since the conditions of your individual samples will play bigger and bigger role compared to initial IQ. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/
Last edited by fermy on Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
fermy wrote: |
This ranking, of course, makes no sense at all. For example, in many cases breech lock Canon FD is Canon FL with improved coating, in some cases the formula also was improved. Early breech locks are fully metal and build like tanks, if that's your concern. |
Yes, it is. Many FD lenses are flimsy, even if optically improved, compared to FL lenses.
Quote: |
Yeah, I'm partial to FL lenses too, they look prettier, slimmer, have A/M switch and aperture ring on the front and have smoother rendering due to weaker coating. However, the further back in time you go, the more difficult it is to objectively compare anything since the conditions of your individual samples will play bigger and bigger role compared to initial IQ. |
Yes, production methods improved. Glass manufacturing and lens manufacturing became more consistent. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15679
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
No point whatsoever to this thread. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
No point whatsoever to this thread. |
Then don't get involved. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
Yes, it is. Many FD lenses are flimsy, even if optically improved, compared to FL lenses.
|
In that case, you are confusing early FD with late FD lenses. FD lenses in the beginning of the 70 were fully metal. As time went on, they introduced more and more plastic in the construction, lowering the weight. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
fermy wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
Yes, it is. Many FD lenses are flimsy, even if optically improved, compared to FL lenses.
|
In that case, you are confusing early FD with late FD lenses. FD lenses in the beginning of the 70 were fully metal. As time went on, they introduced more and more plastic in the construction, lowering the weight. |
OK, did not know that. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 2:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Here's 3 FD 1.8/50 lenses, earliest is on left, newest obviously on the right. The weights are 310, 230, and 180 gr respectively. You can see how plastic gradually replaced metal.
_________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
fermy wrote: |
Here's 3 FD 1.8/50 lenses, earliest is on left, newest obviously on the right. The weights are 310, 230, and 180 gr respectively. You can see how plastic gradually replaced metal.
|
What about an FL lens? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Oreste wrote: |
What about an FL lens? |
Fully metal (with exception of vanity ring), 310 gr. The leftmost FD has in addition plastic aperture ring, everything else is metal. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
fermy wrote: |
Oreste wrote: |
What about an FL lens? |
Fully metal (with exception of vanity ring), 310 gr. The leftmost FD has in addition plastic aperture ring, everything else is metal. |
No, I meant a photo. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fermy
Joined: 17 Feb 2012 Posts: 1974
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fermy wrote:
Maybe later. _________________ Many lenses and some film bodies for sale here: http://forum.mflenses.com/canon-fd-minolta-md-c-mounts-m42-pentax-and-more-t50465.html
Flickr http://www.flickr.com/photos/96060788@N06/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
luisalegria wrote:
The conventional wisdom has many Konica (Hexanon) and Topcon lenses very highly rated.
In the case of Topcon at least the market prices reflect the reputation.
From what I have seen the premise here is a bit off.
Most manufacturers had a few excellent lenses, most had many average lenses, and all had at least a couple of duds.
And the difference between manufacturer branded lenses can be very hard to spot in terms of performance.
It would take very careful testing indeed to distinguish a Ricoh/Mamiya/Yashica 55/1.4 from a Super Takumar 50/1.4, if its possible to make a meaningful distinction at all. From what I have seen the same goes for most makers normals. As a practical matter I doubt there is enough difference between nearly all of them to affect the output in any noticeable way to someone looking at just the pictures.
Given that, I will say the Takumar is better engineered mechanically compared to most makers 50/55's (I have worked on 50-55-58mm Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Mirandas, Mamiyas, Yashicas, Ricohs, Zeiss, Meyers, etc.), and is very easy to repair.
The Tokina made 135/3.5 and 200/4.5 rebranded for Yashica, Mamiya, etc. compare very well with the equivalent Super Takumars.
As also the 200/4 Yashinon DX "black beauty". They are all excellent. Some third party lenses are even preferable for the sake of bokeh.
And there are dud Takumars.
Case by case is the only valid way. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
luisalegria wrote: |
The conventional wisdom has many Konica (Hexanon) and Topcon lenses very highly rated.
In the case of Topcon at least the market prices reflect the reputation.
From what I have seen the premise here is a bit off.
Most manufacturers had a few excellent lenses, most had many average lenses, and all had at least a couple of duds.
And the difference between manufacturer branded lenses can be very hard to spot in terms of performance.
It would take very careful testing indeed to distinguish a Ricoh/Mamiya/Yashica 55/1.4 from a Super Takumar 50/1.4, if its possible to make a meaningful distinction at all. From what I have seen the same goes for most makers normals. As a practical matter I doubt there is enough difference between nearly all of them to affect the output in any noticeable way to someone looking at just the pictures.
Given that, I will say the Takumar is better engineered mechanically compared to most makers 50/55's (I have worked on 50-55-58mm Nikons, Canons, Minoltas, Mirandas, Mamiyas, Yashicas, Ricohs, Zeiss, Meyers, etc.), and is very easy to repair.
The Tokina made 135/3.5 and 200/4.5 rebranded for Yashica, Mamiya, etc. compare very well with the equivalent Super Takumars.
As also the 200/4 Yashinon DX "black beauty". They are all excellent. Some third party lenses are even preferable for the sake of bokeh.
And there are dud Takumars.
Case by case is the only valid way. |
I am well aware that there were and still are better and worse examples within any lens line, but I have always been impressed with the Pentax lenses of the 1960s and 1970s, and hardly ever impressed with the Nikkors of the same era. The helical focussing mechanism is smooth as silk, and like no other short of Leica. Though I have never owned either Nikon or Pentax, I have had the opportunity to handle them and use them. I mean to include physical quality as well as optical quality. Minolta MC lenses are smooth, but not built like the Pentax lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
luisalegria
Joined: 07 Mar 2008 Posts: 6602 Location: San Francisco, USA
Expire: 2018-01-18
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I like Pentax DSLR's, Exaktas, M42 bodies of all kinds, strange and cheap Japanese lenses, and am dabbling in medium format/Speed Graphic work. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hifisapi wrote:
The only real "dud" takumar that stands out is the 20mm F4.5 which is soft in the corners
and has major distortion, even for a wide angle. _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Oreste
Joined: 08 Sep 2012 Posts: 451
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oreste wrote:
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. |
The Nikkors of the 1960s have a very 'rough' feel to me. And I have seen many of them falling apart. I don't see too many used Takumars around (probably because screw thread cameras are not sought after much these days) but I recall them being the best-finished of all Japanese lenses, and smoothest focussing of all Japanese lenses. But I did not like the way the focussing ring turns (which is like Nikon) with infinity to the left. I like infinity to the right, the way Leica, Canon and Minolta do it. So, that's why I never bought Pentax.
and they are giving them away now:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/PENTAX-ASAHI-200MM-F-4-SUPER-TAKUMAR-LENS-VINTAGE-JAPAN-/140873809622?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item20ccbbbed6
Last edited by Oreste on Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:31 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hifisapi
Joined: 25 Sep 2012 Posts: 941 Location: USA
|
Posted: Thu Oct 25, 2012 5:24 pm Post subject: Re: Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s |
|
|
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. _________________ ===========
ACQUIRED OVER 30 YEARS:
Cameras: DSLR=Pentax istDS FILM=Pentax SP, SP-F, ESII, SP1000, KX, K2
Lenses : Pentax M42 = Super Multi Coated Takumars 50/1.4 55/1.8 100/4-BELLOWS 500/4.5 1000/8 135-600/6.7 Pentax PK= SMC Pentax-Ks K17/4-FF Fisheye K18/3.5 K20/4 K24/3.5 K28/3.5 K28/2 K35/3.5 K35/2 K50/1.2 K50/1.4K 50/4-MACROK 55/1.8 K85/1.8 K100/4-MACRO K100/4-BELLOWS K105/2.8 K120/2.8 K135/3.5 K135/2.5 K150/4 K200/4 K400/5.6 K45-125/4K 85-210/4.5 Pentax PKM = SMC Pentax-M M40/2.8-Pancake M50/1.4 M75-150/4 M80-200/4.5 Pentax PKA= SMC Pentax-A A15/3.5 A50/2.8-MACRO A28/2 A35/2 A50/1.4 A135/2.8 A200/4 A*300/4 A35-105/3.5 A24-50/4 A70-210/4 TAMRON AD2= SP80-200/2.8 SP180/2.5 TOKINA AT-X PK= ATX28-85/3.5-4.5 ATX35-70/2.8 ATX60-120/2.8 ATX80-200/2.8 ATX100-300/4 ATX90/2.5 MACRO KIRON-LESTER DINE PK = 105/2.8-MACRO VIVITAR PK = 135/2.8-MACRO 28-85/4 NOFLEXAR AUTOBELLOWS PK = 60/4 105/4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|