Japanese Camera Mfr Lenses of the 60s and 70s

[Oreste]

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.

[Aanything]

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.

[Oreste]

[woodrim]

This could get heated as folks represent their favorites. I'd like to add Topcon-Topcor and Komura to the list.

[Excalibur]

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.

[Oreste]

[Aanything]

[Oreste]

[fermy]

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.

[Oreste]

[iangreenhalgh1]

No point whatsoever to this thread.

[Oreste]

[fermy]

[Oreste]

[fermy]

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.

[Oreste]

[fermy]

[Oreste]

[fermy]

Maybe later.

[luisalegria]

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.

[Oreste]

[luisalegria]

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.

[hifisapi]

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.

[Oreste]

[hifisapi]