View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
glaebhoerl
Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:22 pm Post subject: Size comparisons of small 70-100mm lenses? |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
Does anyone happen to have, or can take :), side-by-side pictures of two or more of the below lenses? Ideally, at least for those with big differences between their flange distances (C-mount vs. RF/PEN vs. SLR), it would be nicest of all to see them with adapters to a mirrorless camera attached. (Of course, feel free to include any other lenses in a similar range, or any lenses at all you may want as a reference.)
- 70/2 Olympus Pen-F
- 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV
- 75/2.5 Voigtländer Color-Heliar
- 85/2 Olympus OM*
- 85/2 Nikkor (rangefinder)
- 90/2.8 Leitz Tele-Elmarit-M ("thin")
- 100/2.8 Olympus OM*
- 100/3.5 Canon LTM (white+black version)
- 100/3.5 Olympus Pen-F
* (The 85/2 and 100/2.8 Zuikos are known to be almost exactly the same size.)
I'm most interested in small lenses because of the true adage that the best lens is the one you have with you, and the bigger a lens is, the more likely it is to just gather dust in a drawer, at least in my case. But I've also found that it's quite hard to accurately judge lenses' relative size based on separate photographs, and specifications found on the internet are also commonly inaccurate (my suspicion is that one site posts low-quality information, and then all the others just copy it instead of doing their own measurements). And even then, I've found that having some numbers expressed in mm is much less useful than actually, visually, seeing the lenses together in one shot. So if anyone wants to assist me in this project, it is much appreciated :)
(I myself have an 85/2 Minolta and 100/2.8 Zuiko, which I might take a shot of once I get back home Wednesday. I'm also starting to have a handful of 180/200mm lenses, and might start a thread to compare those as well, once another order arrives.) _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr
Last edited by glaebhoerl on Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:24 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pontus
Joined: 18 Dec 2011 Posts: 1471 Location: Jakobstad, Finland
Expire: 2016-08-25
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pontus wrote:
A few smallish lenses in the range from 60mm to 100mm, quick mobile picture.
Contax 100/3.5
CV 75/2.5
Pen 60/1.5
CV 90/3.5 Apo
Apo-Summicron 75/2
EDIT: I forgot to include the Contax G 90/2.8 which is also small with a short (but annoying) adapter.
_________________ Follow this link for my FOR SALE list (partially updated 19.11.2015)
Last edited by Pontus on Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:47 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Mon Jul 06, 2015 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
various lenses each including their Sony E mount adapter:
comparison Olympus OM 2/85 and 2.8/100
various lenses in LTM / M39 ( the black Canon LTM 3.5/100as reference )
taken off the hood of the Heliar
3 85mm Takumars ( the Auto Tak to the left, as reference, is features in 1st pic )
2 SLR and 1 LTM 85mm lens with their respective Sony E mount adapters
_________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 2:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
For old SLR lenses, the two OM is probably the smallest one of the same class(takes 49mm filter) with good build quality. _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Tue Jul 07, 2015 8:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
calvin83 wrote: |
For old SLR lenses, the two OM is probably the smallest one of the same class(takes 49mm filter) with good build quality. |
certainly! many vintage 1.4/50mm lenses are bigger than the OM 2/85.
their small size is a main reason why I had bought them, I only know of one 85mm lens that is similarily small, the preset Takumar which is much heavier and very rare.
as seen the Canon LTM 1.8/85 is quite a bit bigger, longer even with their respective E mount adapters mounted. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
glaebhoerl
Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
Thank you both, that's absolutely amazing. Already, I've learned several new things:
- The M-Rokkor 90/4 is not appreciably shorter than the Zuiko 85/2 with adapters. If I recall correctly that the M-Rokkor is the essentially the same size as the 90mm Elmar, and the Elmar in turn is essentially the same size as the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M, then it doesn't make much sense to invest significant money into a T-E-M if the goal is to have an even shorter lens than the 100/2.8 Zuiko I already have (at best it would be thinner). Would be nice to have this confirmed directly.
- The 100mm Pen-F is substantially larger than the larger of the two 100mm Canons, to say nothing of the smaller one. So if size is the only consideration, then the latter is clearly the one I should be interested in. (And even there, it's not clear if it'll be any shorter than the Zuiko, instead of just thinner.)
- From other (separate) images I've seen of them, I had the impression that the 75mm Color-Heliar has approximately the same shape as the T-E-M. But from here it's clear that it's actually shorter and chunkier, so now my interest is rekindled.
And as promised, here's the two that I have, the 85/2 MD with the 100/2.8 Zuiko (which is also a good proxy for the 85/2 Zuiko):
The Minolta is a little bit longer, and substantially fatter. (The one I got from eBay had been converted to EF mount, but I think the overall length should be unchanged -- after all, the whole point is that the distance to the sensor needs to stay the same.)
(Now we're only missing the 70/2 Pen-F, the Fujinon-TV, and the T-E-M...) _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Wed Jul 08, 2015 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
glaebhoerl wrote: |
[*] From other (separate) images I've seen of them, I had the impression that the 75mm Color-Heliar has approximately the same shape as the T-E-M. But from here it's clear that it's actually shorter and chunkier, so now my interest is rekindled.
|
I can't help you with a picture because I only have the longer Elmarit 90/2.8 but also the Color-Heliar 75/2.5 which you have seen already.
However, the length of the CV 75/2.5 is 53mm (measured) without shade and the length of the favored Tele-Elmarit is 61.3mm both from the Leica-M register to the front of the lens. So the Heliar is more or less 8mm shorter (without shade). That's it.
You just have to add the length of the adapter Leica-M to whatever you have. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
pdccameras
Joined: 23 Aug 2009 Posts: 825 Location: Putnam, CT
Expire: 2014-08-11
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
pdccameras wrote:
Here are a few small ones. I think the winner size-wise is the diminutive 100mm f/4.5 Argus Telephoto-Sandmar made for the Argus C3 series. Not a bad performer either!
_________________ Canon 5D Mii, Canon 40D, Canon 350D IR, Sony A7 Mii, Sony Alpha-6000, a ton of lenses: AF & MF and too many cameras to count, all formats: 110 - 4x5. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
calvin83
Joined: 12 Apr 2009 Posts: 7555 Location: Hong Kong
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 2:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
calvin83 wrote:
You may consider using a helicoid act as an adapter to shorten the total length for storage. Extend the helicoid when you use them. The idea works well on enlargers too.
Left: Steinheil Quinar 85mm f3.5(with helicoid)
Right: Topcon 85mm F1.8 _________________ https://lensfever.com/
https://www.instagram.com/_lens_fever/
The best lens is the one you have with you. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
padam
Joined: 09 Oct 2012 Posts: 175 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
padam wrote:
Here is the last version OM Zuiko 85/2 (slightly longer than the early 85/2) against the Minolta MD 85/2
With the slightly shorter MD adapter they are nearly identical in length, so I don't think it makes much difference in practice. These are close to being the smallest short tele one can get with an f2 aperture until there are going to be dedicated mirrorless designs that are simpler than the Batis.
That Pen 60/1.5 looks be very desirable in terms of speed/size ratio, and since it almost covers FF, no wonder it is so hard to find.
And I think that apart from the size, handling may also be added to the usability factors (besides the IQ of course) for instance the focusing on these two SLR lenses seem faster than the Canon 100/3.5 that I had. The Minolta MD has a dedicated thread for mounting the hood while the Zuiko uses the filter thread for that. These are minor things though, it is nice to have so many different choices. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
Actually I tend to contradict to some of your conclusions. This may be because I always carry my small NEX5n ( or Ricoh GXR M ) in a smallish waist bag with maximum 3, usually 1 or 2 lenses extra besides the one mounted on the cam, hands free, no shoulder strap, no strain on shoulder. For that compactness is of outmost importance and thickness, the diameter of the lens is just as if not even more important than their length.
glaebhoerl wrote: |
Thank you both, that's absolutely amazing. Already, I've learned several new things:
[list]
[*] The M-Rokkor 90/4 is not appreciably shorter than the Zuiko 85/2 with adapters. If I recall correctly that the M-Rokkor is the essentially the same size as the 90mm Elmar, and the Elmar in turn is essentially the same size as the 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M, then it doesn't make much sense to invest significant money into a T-E-M if the goal is to have an even shorter lens than the 100/2.8 Zuiko I already have (at best it would be thinner). Would be nice to have this confirmed directly. |
I don't have Elmar nor Elmarit, but in my actual use I feel a substantial difference between OM 2/85 and M-Rokkor 4/90, in how much space they occupy inside my camera bag, and in case of the 2.8/100 that even is a bit more pronounced.
glaebhoerl wrote: |
[*] The 100mm Pen-F is substantially larger than the larger of the two 100mm Canons, to say nothing of the smaller one. So if size is the only consideration, then the latter is clearly the one I should be interested in. (And even there, it's not clear if it'll be any shorter than the Zuiko, instead of just thinner.) |
in actual use my feeling again is different. The Pen-F is thin, also small enough and hardly makes a difference with the more common black Canon LTM 3.5/100. The early silver LTM as compared to the Pen-F does feel smaller and occupying less space though. I also should note that when buying one of the Canon LTM one must be very careful, the majority of them have a milky element, the one below the aperture, that cannot be cleaned, that is the Pen-F is a safer buy.
...
note however that the number of adapters needed, I have to carry, also make a big difference to me. Though I don't have any Leica lens and only have 4 lenses in Leica M mount, the 3 M-Rokkors and a CV 4/21, effectively I am a Leica M mount user: The Ricoh GXR M has M mount, my NEX usually has a Leica M to Sony E mount helicoid adapter mounted. I avoid using SLR lenses and when I use LTM lenses I carry them with a small and light LTM to Leica M adapter ring already mounted. I also converted all my Pen-F lenses to Leica M. That is I don't carry any extra adapter and all my lenses I usually use effectively come in Leica M mount. _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
kuuan wrote: |
...
note however that the number of adapters needed, I have to carry, also make a big difference to me. Though I don't have any Leica lens and only have 4 lenses in Leica M mount, the 3 M-Rokkors and a CV 4/21, effectively I am a Leica M mount user: The Ricoh GXR M has M mount, my NEX usually has a Leica M to Sony E mount helicoid adapter mounted. I avoid using SLR lenses and when I use LTM lenses I carry them with a small and light LTM to Leica M adapter ring already mounted. I also converted all my Pen-F lenses to Leica M. That is I don't carry any extra adapter and all my lenses I usually use effectively come in Leica M mount. |
I do it exactly the same way. All the RF lenses are either equipped with LTM to Leica M adapters or are already native Leica M. The only difference is that I usually leave my NEX at home and carry the Ricoh only, maybe even 2 Ricohs instead.
SLR lenses usually stay at home or I plan to use them rather on the DSLR for special tasks. But then size and weight are not the most important factor but purely the desired outcome.
For portability there is nothing better than RF lenses (preferably LTM's) if MF shooting is the target. At least that's my opinion. _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
StillSanj
Joined: 21 Apr 2015 Posts: 412 Location: United States
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
StillSanj wrote:
*interesting information overflow*
Some of you fools have rather nice lens collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Nordentro
Joined: 24 Jun 2010 Posts: 4713 Location: Lillehammer, Norway
Expire: 2015-01-29
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nordentro wrote:
I made this picture a while ago with m39 RF lenses in the 85-105mm range:
Back row = 105mm
Third row = 100mm
Second row = 90mm
First row = 85mm
(The two small Braun lenses needs an extra extension of 15.2mm to achieve the same register distance)
(Click for bigger)
_________________ Lars | Manuellfokus.no |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
I do it exactly the same way. All the RF lenses are either equipped with LTM to Leica M adapters or are already native Leica M. The only difference is that I usually leave my NEX at home and carry the Ricoh only, maybe even 2 Ricohs instead.
SLR lenses usually stay at home or I plan to use them rather on the DSLR for special tasks. But then size and weight are not the most important factor but purely the desired outcome.
For portability there is nothing better than RF lenses (preferably LTM's) if MF shooting is the target. At least that's my opinion. |
haha, we have a lot in common Thomas!
off topic but a good chance to remind of and point to the Ricoh M module, a camera that, as you prove, well can remain the camera of choice even today and I am sure for a while more, I read you, you have two _________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tao
Joined: 26 Oct 2011 Posts: 241 Location: Bangkok
Expire: 2015-03-12
|
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2015 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tao wrote:
These are some of my smaller lenses. From left to right:
CV 75/2.5 LTM
Early SK Tele-Xenar 75/3.8 Robot
Late SK Tele-Xenar 75/3.8 Robot
Meopta Openar 80/2.8 C
SK Retina-Tele-Arton 85/4 DKL
It is interesting that without hood the CV75 is actually quite compact. On the other hand, when mounting on the adapter the minuscule Arton85 becomes enormous.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
kuuan
Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 4569 Location: right now: Austria
Expire: 2014-12-26
|
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 10:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
kuuan wrote:
glaebhoerl wrote: |
..
(Now we're only missing the 70/2 Pen-F, the Fujinon-TV, and the T-E-M...) |
not the Pen-F 2/70 which is quite a bit bigger, but I see you are interested in the Pen-F 1.5/60 and this size comparison could be of interest too, Olumpys OM 2/85 with Leica M adapter and Pen-F 1.5/60 converted to Leica M
_________________ my photos on flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/kuuan/collections |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
Another size comparison.
_________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
tb_a
Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria
Expire: 2019-08-28
|
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 2:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
tb_a wrote:
newst wrote: |
Another size comparison.
|
Add the needed adapters and the short lens is not only the more bulky but also the longer one! _________________ Thomas Bernardy
Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Sun Jul 12, 2015 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
tb_a wrote: |
newst wrote: |
Another size comparison.
|
Add the needed adapters and the short lens is not only the more bulky but also the longer one! |
Wider, yes...longer, no. _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|