Need suggestions for 50mm and above

[Portrait Painter X]

I'm totally new to legacy lenses. I'm looking for a reasonably priced prime that I'm primarily going to use for photographing oil paintings. So it needs to be sharp and have minimal distortion. It needs to be at least 50mm, but a longer lens, 85mm and above, would be welcome as I then can use it as a portrait lens.

 

I have a Sony A7II. Thanks in advance.

[Portrait Painter X]

Because I'll be using a tripod 75% of the time, speed isn't critical. f/4 would probably be fine if it's sharp, has accurate color and little distortion.

[Guest all8]

I have a Leica Elmarit 90mm f2.8 which is compact, no distortion and very sharp. Its not too expensive these days.

 

If you search on Elmarit you should find some threads I started. 

[addicted2light]

I have two suggestions for you:

 

1) Pentax M 50/4 Macro (up to 1:2): super sharp, great colors and dirty cheap

 

2) Contax 60/2.8 Macro S-Planar (up to 1:1 magnification) or C-Planar (up to 1:2). The C-Planar is much smaller, but the optics are exactly the same, what changes is only the size of the helicoid, so the "body" of the lens. The Contax is an extremely sharp lens (even though, to be fair, I don't think the Pentax is that far behind if at all, at least in macro use). Probably around 350 / 450 plus 10€ for a suitable adapter.

 

I'm suggesting macro lenses because they are usually extremely well corrected in terms of distortion, and super sharp.

[Sprocketdog23]

I recommend the Nikon 105mm micro Nikkor. I have the f4 version. It cost me £60 and is outstanding optically. At 50mm my Zeiss Planar 'T' f1.7 gives awesome sharpness, but so does my f1.8 Voigtlander (QBM mount). The Latter has a very cool colour rendition which would really suit the reproduction of paintings. These are way cheaper than the Zeiss T, and mine is optically as good.

[Portrait Painter X]

timde, a2l, sprocket: Thanks for your input! I'm researching every lens you suggested. They all seem like awesome lenses. For my first legachy lens, the Pentax 50mm and the Nikon 105mm hit the spot price wise, to see if I'm comfortable and so on.

 

One question regarding the Nikon 105mm f/2.5, I can't figure out the difference between AI, AI-S and non-AI. A little confused here. Does it even matter which one I get?

[addicted2light]

One question regarding the Nikon 105mm f/2.5, I can't figure out the difference between AI, AI-S and non-AI. A little confused here. Does it even matter which one I get?

 

With the 105/2.5 the distinction is actually a tad more complex than this, you will have to check the serial number of the actual lens to decide which one to buy. First of all, to orient yourself you can check this website:

 

http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/lenses.html#105

 

The 105/2.5 in its first incarnation (first row) had a Sonnar optical scheme (5 elements in 3 groups, with a small-ish rear element). Citing Bernard Rosslett: "It is a great performer at f/5.6 and provides for good performance even wide open, but flare could be a problem here". Being a Sonnar it will probably have good/great bokeh as well.

 

In its second incarnation the optical scheme was modified to a Gauss type (5 elements in 4 groups). To cite again Rosslett: "Probably they did this because of the 105 mm's growing popularity as a portrait lens. Since the Gauss formula gave better performance towards the near focusing limit this seems a wise move. [...] Compared to the earlier type of the 105/2.5 Nikkor, the new formula offered even better image definition, enhanced close-range performance, and a much improved colour saturation for the multi-coated versions. It performed better than its predecessor wide open, and delivered tremendously sharp images from f/4 onwards. Flare is only a problem under the most extreme of adverse light conditions and ghosting is rarely a threat to image quality."

 

If you're interested you can read more of his comments here: Medium long lenses (80-200 mm)

 

Ai, Ai-S and non-Ai matter only if you have a Nikon body. Ai (Automatic Indexing) or Ai-s (the updated version) are the only one you can safely mount on almost all new (i.e. made in the last 40 years, film or digital) Nikon bodies. Non-Ai lenses will damage the AF contacts or possibly even more unless they have been Ai-converted.

 

But you can safely use even a non-Ai lens on any non-Nikon camera (Canon, Sony etc.) without the slightest problem, and with the added benefit that non-Ai lenses, given that they are of no interest for the majority of Nikon shooters, tend to sell for much cheaper prices.

[Portrait Painter X]

I have to say I missed that you actually recommended the f/4 and not the f/2.5 - my bad. I will no through Ebay again, looking for f/4 and look at samples. Cheers for the AI definitions, it's much clearer now. And thanks for the links as well, I quite enjoy learning about these cool legacy lenses, it's like a whole new world opening up for me.

[addicted2light]

I have to say I missed that you actually recommended the f/4 and not the f/2.5 - my bad. I will no through Ebay again, looking for f/4 and look at samples. Cheers for the AI definitions, it's much clearer now. And thanks for the links as well, I quite enjoy learning about these cool legacy lenses, it's like a whole new world opening up for me. Nikon, Leica, Zeiss, Yashica, Pentax - they all seem to have fantastic glass that can be bought for cheap. I mainly bought into mirrorless for the size and weight, but this legacy glass thing is a huge bonus!

 

Skickat från min GT-I9505 via Tapatalk

 

 

No I was actually talking about the f/2.5 version! 

 

 

When I said "look at the first row" I meant the first row of the 105/2.5. Sorry for the misunderstanding!

[JimmyD]

Portrait Painter X:

 

There is a trade-off in terms of price as it is a little more expensive that other glass mentioned here, but If size is an important consideration to you then I would heartily recommend the Zeiss ZM 85mm f/4.  Since it is a rangefinder lens rather than an SLR lens it is tiny in comparison, yet all-metal rock solid.  The lens is known for its extreme sharpness and being virtually distortion free.  

 

One other suggestion (which I apologize for in advance as I know this is a legacy glass forum, and I do love legacy glass), is the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8.  It is certainly more expensive, but it is universally recognized for its optical qualities--including extreme sharpness--and is particularly well suited to taking photographs of paintings. I understand you usually use a tripod, but with the speed of this lens you can photograph paintings in museums with very little light where tripods are not permitted.  The attached image of Van Gogh's "The Olive Orchard" was taken at the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C., USA handheld in (the not much) available light, ISO 400, 1/60 at f2/2.  I don't know how sharp the image looks at your end following the extreme down-sizing needed to post to this forum, but at home the underlying weave / bumps of the canvass are clearly detectable.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Portrait Painter X]

Thanks for all the input - it certainly steered me in the right direction. After spending a lot of time googling and ebaying I ended up pulling the trigger on a Yashica ML 50mm 1.7 which optically should be identical to Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.7. Apparently they were factured in the same factory and even rumored to be exact copies but branded differently. I got it for 37 euros plus a simple Y/C to NEX adapter. So I'm going to try it out and see if I like this legacy glass thing. And if I do, I might well order a longer lens from the suggestions in this thread. 

[Portrait Painter X]

Portrait Painter X:

 

There is a trade-off in terms of price as it is a little more expensive that other glass mentioned here, but If size is an important consideration to you then I would heartily recommend the Zeiss ZM 85mm f/4.  Since it is a rangefinder lens rather than an SLR lens it is tiny in comparison, yet all-metal rock solid.  The lens is known for its extreme sharpness and being virtually distortion free.  

 

One other suggestion (which I apologize for in advance as I know this is a legacy glass forum, and I do love legacy glass), is the Sony Zeiss 55mm 1.8.  It is certainly more expensive, but it is universally recognized for its optical qualities--including extreme sharpness--and is particularly well suited to taking photographs of paintings. I understand you usually use a tripod, but with the speed of this lens you can photograph paintings in museums with very little light where tripods are not permitted.  The attached image of Van Gogh's "The Olive Orchard" was taken at the National Gallery of Art in Washington D.C., USA handheld in (the not much) available light, ISO 400, 1/60 at f2/2.  I don't know how sharp the image looks at your end following the extreme down-sizing needed to post to this forum, but at home the underlying weave / bumps of the canvass are clearly detectable.

The Sony Zeiss 55mm looks fantastic, but for the price... Well, I'm saving up for a Sony FE 70-200mm f/4, so the 55mm is a bit much for me now. But thanks anyway!

[xya]

have a look at my website, there are about 50 legacy lenses with full resolution images to compare. just finished it today.

http://www.a7camera.com

[Portrait Painter X]

xya, looks like a solid website, will be interesting to see what you add in the future.

[Portrait Painter X]

Update: I also pulled the trigger on a mint Zeiss Sonnar MMJ T* 135mm 2.8 Y/C for $240 with free shipping. From what I could see, it looked pretty much like new, so I'm happy with the deal. Anxious to try my two legacy lenses out now!

[addicted2light]

Thanks for all the input - it certainly steered me in the right direction. After spending a lot of time googling and ebaying I ended up pulling the trigger on a Yashica ML 50mm 1.7 which optically should be identical to Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.7. Apparently they were factured in the same factory and even rumored to be exact copies but branded differently. I got it for 37 euros plus a simple Y/C to NEX adapter. So I'm going to try it out and see if I like this legacy glass thing. And if I do, I might well order a longer lens from the suggestions in this thread. 

 

I have both. The ML is quite a bit weaker than the Planar up to f/5.6, especially at the borders (and BTW, f/5.6 is the sharpest aperture with both, at f/8 diffraction starts to soften details quite a bit). After that they become almost impossible to tell apart. Especially if you focus at the borders instead that in the center, the Planar is basically almost veil-free right from f/1.7 while the ML needs at the very least f/4.

 

As a rule of thumb, the ML needs to be stopped down at least a stop more to catch up the Planar, sometimes two more. Besides, the Contax is built "nicer" if not better. That being said, the ML for the price is good value anyway

[Portrait Painter X]

I have both. The ML is quite a bit weaker than the Planar up to f/5.6, especially at the borders (and BTW, f/5.6 is the sharpest aperture with both, at f/8 diffraction starts to soften details quite a bit). After that they become almost impossible to tell apart. Especially if you focus at the borders instead that in the center, the Planar is basically almost veil-free right from f/1.7 while the ML needs at the very least f/4.

 

As a rule of thumb, the ML needs to be stopped down at least a stop more to catch up the Planar, sometimes two more. Besides, the Contax is built "nicer" if not better. That being said, the ML for the price is good value anyway

Oh, cool, I mostly shoot my paintings around f/5.6 or f/8 anyway. How much did you pay for your Planar?

 

Do you have samples to share from the ML compared to the Zeiss? Especially curious to see samples at fast apertures.

 

Cheers!

[addicted2light]

I paid for mine around 75€, with an UV filter. I bought it just a few days ago, so I still had in the trash folder the test shots I did to compare it to the Yashica.

 

Technical notes: A7r on heavy tripod, self release 2s, manual focused with 14x magnification; no sharpening, no CA reduction, no noise reduction, the same adapter (a K&F) has been used for both lenses; 2.8m distance from the library.

 

Here are a few crops, extreme borders and center of each lens, (the Contax always top row, the Yashica ML bottom one).

 

f/1.7, focusing the center of the image

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

f/1.7, focusing the extreme borders

 

f/2

 

f/2.8

[addicted2light]

f/4

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

f/5.6

 

f/8

[Portrait Painter X]

Thank you very very much! That's really helpful. What a difference! We'll see how my ML copy turns out. If I don't like it, I'll probably get the Planar.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9505 via Tapatalk

[Portrait Painter X]

Also, I think you got a pretty sweet deal on your Planar. On Swedish Ebay, I've seen them go for at least the double.

 

Skickat från min GT-I9505 via Tapatalk

[addicted2light]

Yep, they're usually more expensive. I've "stalked" one for a while, and in the end managed to buy this one at a good price on Italian Ebay.

 

I didn't think to find all that difference between the Planar and the ML; as a matter of fact I bought the Planar just to use it on a Contax ST I received for free with the 28-85 Vario-Sonnar. Instead it will see quite a bit of "A7r time"

[pfogle]

Sorry I'm late to the party, and I hope the lens you chose worked out. I had the same issue - photographing paintings for a catalogue. I went with the Sigma 50mm macro on Canon EF, but now I would go for a Canon fd 50mm f3.5 macro - probably the sharpest lens you'd ever see, and available for around $50-60.

 

IMO a much better solution than trying to adapt a normal lens. For copy work the most important thing is flatness of field, and it's hard to get that in lenses faster than f2.8 or so...

[ACG]

I have to highly recommend the pentax m 50 f1.7

Really sharp. Small but f1.7!

Very cheap to buy. Extremely well made so reliable and longevity assured.

Very well commended in pentax forum. See lens database for numerous excellent reviews.

 

I use it on the a7r.