Legacy and ALT Lenses

[Max the Dog]

Since 2012 I've tested hundreds of legacy lenses on the SONY NEX7 and A7r.    Here's a quick overview of some favorites

 

Biggest bang for the buck - the Minolta MD Rokkor lenses.  The 50mm 1.7 tests as well any other 50s until the FE55 and Otus 55 - especially as you head into f4 to f5.6.    These lenses were as cheap as $17 from KEH.

 

The MD 28 2.5 is also a fun lens that I prefer over the Zeiss Hollywood Distagon f2.0 depending on the situation.

 

The best zoom value ever is probably the Contax Zeiss 28-85mm.  It's a dust pump, it's heavy, the g'damn front element rotates, no one single hood works across its range, but it is very very sharp, has perfect Zeiss color and is cheaper and broader than the fragile 35-70mm. 

 

Coming up in focal lengths -

 

The Rokinon 14mm 2.8  (not legacy really) but a screaming bargain at $300ish.  I had to test several to get a great one, and the damn thing reaches infinity halfway in the throw.  But otherwise perfect corner to corner. 

 

21mm - hands down the Zeiss Distagon 21mm - we all know DXO is wrong again in their guesstimates. 

 

28mm - in daylight and 3d effect - the Hollywood Distagon 28mm 2.0 AEG - but at night leave it at home - it absolutely sucks due to coma. 

 

35mm - The Contax 35 f.15 AEG - some PF wide open but settles down nicely by 4.0 - 5.6    

 

50mm - either C/Y 50mm 1,4 and 1.7 - same issues as 35mm 1.4 but nice by 4.0 - the Minolta's are a bargain

 

85mm - as many swear by as swear at the Contax 85mm lenses.  I never missed them too much.

 

100mm - overrated Contax - the ones I've tested had crazy bad CA.  I passed

 

135mm - never found a good one until the new Zeiss Apo-Sonnar - this is probably the finest lens bargain on the planet.  It is a true APO.

 

180mm - The C/Y Sonnar 2.8 is good for reach as long as there isn't high contrast. 

 

300mm - the 300 f4 is a piece of crap - not really good for anything other than clubbing a Leicaphile with.

 

I never really found a Leica that performed really well but they do draw nicely if blurred pixels are your thing.   There is almost always an issue with every Leica lens - flare, ca, poor resolution, it's always something. 

 

I tried a few Nikon manual focusing lenses out - they weren't that good either - the Contax always won over the Nikons in the 20mm-100mm range. 

 

 

 

 

[panzerbjorne]

That's a good summary. Have you ever checked the Contax G series lenses? I have the 28 and 45. Theoretically they should be great given how good they are optically. But I don't have the adapter yet.

 

Also another lens that I loved on my Canon FF bodies is the canon 135L. It's lightweight enough to consider for the A7 body. Did you try it yet?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SAR_admin]

Thanks for the great list!

[nomad]

Contax G is very expensive if you want to adapt it properly.

 

But I second the Contax C/Y line. BTW, if you go for the slower ones, like 28mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.8, they are beasts: already sharp as a knife WO.

 

Don't know what was wrong with your 100mm, though, my 3.5 is gorgeous.

 

For full frame, the 180/2.8 is a beautiful portrait lens, you just need to step back…

 

But if you are closer: try the 60mm macro, it delivers – not only for macro, but portrait too.

[Max the Dog]

I almost had the 60mm macro once but I set it down on the camera show table and this guy just grabbed it right away. 

 

People almost fight over some of these lenses. 

 

Yes 180mm 2.8 has great color and bokeh.   

 

I never tried the Contax Gs but always heard great things about all of them. 

 

Contax / Zeiss made excellent 'systems'  - lenses, hoods, rings, filters - all with the idea of ensuring the same color across the line. 

 

I prefer the AEG lenses but honestly - if you get the chance check out the 28-85mm - it's really awesome and an incredible value. 

 

The 35-70s are also nice but the internal nylon ramp is prone to breaking and TOCAD no longer repairs them.     Parts are obsolete. 

 

 

Contax G is very expensive if you want to adapt it properly.

 

But I second the Contax C/Y line. BTW, if you go for the slower ones, like 28mm 2.8 or 35mm 2.8, they are beasts: already sharp as a knife WO.

 

Don't know what was wrong with your 100mm, though, my 3.5 is gorgeous.

 

For full frame, the 180/2.8 is a beautiful portrait lens, you just need to step back…

 

But if you are closer: try the 60mm macro, it delivers – not only for macro, but portrait too.

[nomad]

Minolta did the same: doing their best to ensure constant color across the line. Just like Zeiss, the had their own glass maker (well, Zeiss has the close co-operation with Schott).

 

BTW, I second the Contax 28-85mm, but if you want a great 35-70mm, try Minolta. They come cheap, and I directly tested one against the Contax 35-70. They were very close, either one had a minimal edge in some parameters, but I decided the Contax has to go, since I enjoy two-touch for filming. The Minolta mechanism for keeping the aperture constant while zooming is fascinating.

[Max the Dog]

A good parfocal lens is on my to get list.  I'll check out the Minolta - which one is it specifically ? 

[nomad]

Get the one with the writing facing to the front, not to the sides. Differences are minor, but this version seems to be the best.

[addicted2light]

If you like Contax glass rendering then in my opinion the greatest bargain ever is the Yashica ML line. They were the "cheap" sibling of the Contax line, but the upscale version of the Yashica one.

 

I own the 28 (pretty good), the 50/1.7 (spectacularly sharp from 2.8 onward, matched my Makro-Planar 60 point for point; decent enough WO), and my favorite: the 28-85. Now, I never owned the equivalent Contax zoom, but I had and have several other Contax lenses (25, 60 Makro, 85/2.8, 100-300 Vario Sonnar), and the Yashica holds definitely its own.

 

It's sharp at every focal length, it produces the best colors I ever seen from every lens with the exception of the Vario Sonnar (especially in flat light), the OOF areas are rendered not as "gritty" as Contax lenses usually do, and it is extremely cheap; I paid for mine 60€, shipped!

 

It has only two faults:

- it is not as flare resistant as the Contax line; no T* coating, after all

- the minimum focus distance it is a tad short (1.7meters); if you want to get closer (up to a ratio of 1:4, it works on every focal length) you have to use a separate macro focusing ring (a tip: just focus mid-way with the main ring, and instead use the macro ring when you're out shooting street)

 

I bought it when I still used a Canon 5D mark II and it performed pretty good; strangely enough now on the A7r (with its supposedly more demanding sensor) it performs much better! Go figure...

 

If you want to see a picture of it, this is the lens I'm talking about:

 

http://www.addicted2light.com/2011/04/28/review-yashica-28-85mm-f35-45-ml/

[3dit0r]

I think you must have tested some bad copies of Leica lenses, either that or you had adapter issues, or the A7r sensor didn't work well with them. I've owned a lot of Leica lenses, as well as the Contax ones you mention and others, and I'd choose Leica every day over most Contax lenses. Don't forget that M lenses aren't retrofocal designs so might give issues on certain sensors.

[panzerbjorne]

I think you must have tested some bad copies of Leica lenses, either that or you had adapter issues, or the A7r sensor didn't work well with them. I've owned a lot of Leica lenses, as well as the Contax ones you mention and others, and I'd choose Leica every day over most Contax lenses. Don't forget that M lenses aren't retrofocal designs so might give issues on certain sensors.

Had to happen. There is always a Leica flag waver in every crowd.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk