Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Classic Film RangeFinders & Other Classics > SLRs - the unRF

SLRs - the unRF For those of you who must talk about SLRs, if only to confirm they are not RF.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Which SLR camera and lens for portraits?
Old 12-29-2016   #1
Steve M.
Registered User
 
Steve M. is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,382
Which SLR camera and lens for portraits?

It's almost January, and everything is blooming right now in Florida :]

I'd like to buy a 35mm camera and take some B&W flower shots, as well as portraits. My preference for IQ is the old Leica 90mm f4 Elmar, but for this use a rangefinder won't work.

Is there a vintage SLR 90-135 lens out there that may image in a similar manner? Since I'm starting from scratch, I can always buy a body to fit the lens. M42 mount would be nice, but I'm open to any mount that might give a similar look. I am fully prepared to hear "nothing", as that is what I suspect, but you never know what others may have used.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #2
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 615
Pentax Spotmatic, and lens.
__________________
Nikon S2 Rangefinder.... F, F2, FM2, FA, N90S Nikons,
D80, D7000, D750 Nikon DSLRs, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #3
Jake Mongey
Registered User
 
Jake Mongey's Avatar
 
Jake Mongey is offline
Join Date: May 2016
Age: 16
Posts: 268
Try the ziess jena 135mm f3.5 and definitely on a spotmatic
__________________
Should probably spend less time talking more time shooting but unfortunately I dont have to leave my desk to talk
www.jmongeyphoto.co.uk
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #4
johnf04
Registered User
 
johnf04 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 165
Canon FT or FTb with the 85mm f1.8 Canon lens.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #5
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,688
Nikon FM3A/FM2N/FE2/F3 with

Nikon 85/1.4 AIS or Nikon 105/2.5 AI(s)
__________________
Keith
My website
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence.” ― Sebastiao Salgado
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #6
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
 
xayraa33's Avatar
 
xayraa33 is offline
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,962
I would go for a common SRT Minolta model body like the 101 and the like and the Rokkor MC 100mm f2.5 lens for that German made lens style look to the photos.


https://phillipreeve.net/blog/minolt...m-12-5-review/

Both camera and lens are relatively inexpensive these days .
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #7
narsuitus
Registered User
 
narsuitus's Avatar
 
narsuitus is offline
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
Which SLR camera and lens for portrais?
I use the following Nikon telephoto lenses for portraits on a 35mm camera (listed left to right in the photo):

105mm f/2.8 micro (excellent for portraits and flowers)
85mm f/1.8
180mm f/2.8
105mm f/2.5
80-200mm f/2.8
75-150mm f/3.5 Series E
135mm f/2 (not in photo)

All are excellent portrait lenses. The optical differences between them are very subtle.


Portrait Lenses by Narsuitus, on Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #8
Daryl J.
Registered User
 
Daryl J. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 241
I'm going to agree with the SRT and 2.5/100 Rokkor suggestion.
Minolta renders color beautifully.
The lens is "portrait soft".
In b&w one can get a vintage look.
The Rokkor extension tube turns it into a great closeup lens.
It's an unfound jewel in the 35mm world.


The Nikkor/Nikon 2.5/105 is an incredible lens indeed. But it shows every detail of lady skin. And that is generally considered not acceptable. And my guess is that less than 30-40% of your portraits are going to be adult males where the Nikon lens would perform well. I have it. I love the lens. But NoBody likes any photo I've made with it where there is a female subject. It's emotionally negative.

The 4/90mm Elmar is a decent suggestion however if the limits of rangefinders are not a issue for you and color film is not going to be used.

That's my two cents.

Last edited by Daryl J. : 12-29-2016 at 11:45. Reason: The fog tasted remotely of fudge
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #9
DoctorSLR
Kyle
 
DoctorSLR is offline
Join Date: Oct 2016
Location: England
Posts: 24
It can only be a Canon F1 with an FD 135mm f/2.5, period.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #10
zuiko85
Registered User
 
zuiko85 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 1,381
The cheap option.
Since you mentioned M42 mount.
A Fujica ST605n and the cheapest third party 135 f2.8 in M42 mount you can find.
Problem. Most of these lenses focus to 5 feet, not really close enough for some flower photos.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #11
jim_jm
Registered User
 
jim_jm's Avatar
 
jim_jm is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: San Diego, Ca
Posts: 193
Any Nikon manual-focus body with the 105/2.5 is a classic combination for portraits. Steve McCurry used this lens with an FM2 body to take the famous "Afghan Girl" portrait for Nat Geo.

For flower photography, it helps to have a waist-level finder capability so you can get the camera low to the ground and look down on to the focusing screen. Nikon F, F2, F3, F4 or F5 will give you this capability. My preference would be for the F3 body. Any of the Micro-Nikkor lenses will be very good, but the 105/2.8 Micro will let you shoot from a comfortable distance.
__________________
My Flickr
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #12
CMur12
Registered User
 
CMur12 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Moses Lake, Washington, USA
Age: 65
Posts: 597
I, too, am partial to manual-focus Minoltas. The focal length will depend upon what you want to do. For tight head-and-shoulder shots, I find the 135mm focal length to be just right.

The Minolta/Rokkor lenses I use for portraiture are the 85mm f1.7 (my favorite and "normal" lens), the 100mm f2.5, and the 135mm f2.8. Minolta also made a couple of zooms in this range: 50 - 135mm f3.5 and 75 - 150mm f4.0.

- Murray
__________________
Still shooting film: Medium Format with assorted TLRs; 35mm with manual-focus Minolta SLRs and a Canonet.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #13
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 615
Leicaflex.
__________________
Nikon S2 Rangefinder.... F, F2, FM2, FA, N90S Nikons,
D80, D7000, D750 Nikon DSLRs, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #14
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 615
Ihagee Exacta.
__________________
Nikon S2 Rangefinder.... F, F2, FM2, FA, N90S Nikons,
D80, D7000, D750 Nikon DSLRs, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #15
B-9
Devin Bro
 
B-9's Avatar
 
B-9 is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Michigan
Posts: 1,414
Just going to add my +1 for the 105/2.5 Nikkor, you can grab them all day in the 50-75$ range if you stick to n/AI. A classic portrait lens.

If you can afford more, I would grab the 180/2.8 for portraits. By far one of my favorite Nikkors it has such surreal out of focus areas, I'll try and post photos below.

I would add the 55/3.5 Micro which IMO is a stellar all around standard lens, you can get the 2.8 for a little extra, I could be partial! I paid a whole 10$ attached to a junk FM2 at a local auction. I still love this lens on my FT and adapted to a Fuji X-T1 it's my go to for close up.

Hmm... I do have some D3 shots with the 55 I'll try to post!
__________________
Made in Michigan

RangefinderGuy @ Instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #16
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 22,960
Do not neglect the 58/1.4 Nikkor: an amazing portrait (and flower) lens. The camera doesn't really matter so much.

For a cheaper option (silly cheap), try an 85/1.9 Pentax screw lens. Again, the body doesn't matter too much.

For REALLY cheap, consider a 58/2 Biotar or for that matter, and even cheaper, a 58/2 Helios. Avoid Exakta Biotars unless you're a masochist who likes Exaktas or Exas.

For a weird alternative, try the 135/1.8 sold as both Porst and Soligor.

Then there are REALLY CHEAP, nasty, old zooms like the 90-190/5.8 [sic] Yashinon that I used to have. Depends on how much you like (inadvertent) soft focus and distortion.

Finally, again in a search for quality so bad that it's good, stick an old, cheap teleconverter behind the fastest standard lens you can easily afford.

Beware of anyone who pretends that there's only one camera/lens combination that will meet your requirements, and that it's THEIRS. That's pure nonsense.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-29-2016   #17
Greyscale
Registered User
 
Greyscale's Avatar
 
Greyscale is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fort Dodge Iowa
Age: 56
Posts: 3,365
That old Yashica triplet zoom was the first zoom lens that I ever owned. It was a club. This old Yashinon 75-230mm is a baseball bat.

__________________
my flickr

My RFF Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2016   #18
skucera
Registered User
 
skucera's Avatar
 
skucera is offline
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Harrisburg, Oregon, USA
Posts: 104
I've always liked the look of lenses in he 75-100mm focal length for portraits. Shorter lenses leave people's noses looking larger than what we normally envision in our memories when we think of the faces of our friends and family. My best portrait lens for my Leica is the LTM Elmar 9cm. The lens I use most for portraits on my Konica is a Vivitar 70-210 zoom. Longer lenses can work nicely too, but take me too far from the subject to interact with them, and this can be awkward.

Scott
__________________
1955 Leica M3
1969 Canon New Canonette QL17-L
1976 Konica Autoreflex T3n
1977 Canon 110ED 20
1979 Minox 35 GL
1979 Olympus XA
1980 Pentax Auto 110
1996 Canon EOS Elan IIe
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2016   #19
ray*j*gun
Registered User
 
ray*j*gun's Avatar
 
ray*j*gun is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia area
Posts: 2,314
Quote:
Originally Posted by kxl View Post
Nikon FM3A/FM2N/FE2/F3 with

Nikon 85/1.4 AIS or Nikon 105/2.5 AI(s)
Plus 1 for this and an F would work as well.
__________________
Raymond
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2016   #20
Doug
Moderator
 
Doug's Avatar
 
Doug is offline
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Pacific NW, USA
Posts: 12,066
As to lenses.... Perspective is defined by where you stand in relation to your subject, nothing else. So, for portraits you'll probably want to be roughly four-to-six feet from your subject, conversational distance. On the close side for subjects with wide faces, farther for narrower faces. Ideally, once you've settled on a subject distance, you then control framing by choice of focal length. This will result in wider lens for groups, full-length shots, etc, and longer lenses for head shots. No one focal length will do it all perfectly, but you can find a compromise centered on your expected primary usage.

Roger, anything to add?
__________________
Doug’s Gallery
RFF on Facebook
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2016   #21
BillBingham2
Registered User
 
BillBingham2's Avatar
 
BillBingham2 is offline
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Ames, Iowa, USA
Posts: 5,209
F2 or F3 with a magnifying finder with a older 55/3.5 nikkor.

Swap out the finder for a plain prism and mount an early 105/2.5 or my favorite an 85/1.8 and you are all set.

B2 (;->
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-30-2016   #22
Bille
Registered User
 
Bille's Avatar
 
Bille is offline
Join Date: Nov 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 655
These recommendation threads never lead anywhere... thirty people, thirty cameras.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #23
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
It's almost January, and everything is blooming right now in Florida :]

I'd like to buy a 35mm camera and take some B&W flower shots, as well as portraits. My preference for IQ is the old Leica 90mm f4 Elmar, but for this use a rangefinder won't work.

Is there a vintage SLR 90-135 lens out there that may image in a similar manner? Since I'm starting from scratch, I can always buy a body to fit the lens. M42 mount would be nice, but I'm open to any mount that might give a similar look. I am fully prepared to hear "nothing", as that is what I suspect, but you never know what others may have used.
If you don't want to buy a Leicaflex, or Minolta SR, then I'd suggest: try a «mirror box» / «reflex housing» for your Leica, see my thread here
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #24
johannielscom
Leica II is The One
 
johannielscom's Avatar
 
johannielscom is offline
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Universitas Terre Threntiae
Posts: 6,922
The Tamron Adaptall 90mm 2,5 Macro is an excellent lens for sharpness in both macro and portrait. It can be made to adapt to a vast array of camera brands.
__________________
www.johanniels.com | flickr | instagram
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #25
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,114
These sorts of threads are completely useless without pics. As usual, a photography forum with no photographs.

Here's my suggestion: ISCO f4.5/100

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Rather common and cheap long focus triplet. Gives a sort of old fashioned look sort of like that of the Elmar.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #26
David Hughes
Registered User
 
David Hughes's Avatar
 
David Hughes is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,709
Hi,

Your question gets a couple of questions as the answer;

1, Portraits of people or of flowers or both?

2, My experience of flowers is that the exposure is tricky, so do you want a manual camera and a meter, or what?

BTW, if portraits of people then two lenses usually are needed, depending on the sitter; some like wishy-washy, vague not really sharp prints and some like razor sharp, warts and all prints.

The 90mm f/4 Leitz Elmar lens on an adapter and with some SLR or the other would give you the effect of an extension tube for close-ups of flowers...

Regards, David
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #27
Tompas
Wannabe Künstler
 
Tompas's Avatar
 
Tompas is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Ostfriesland - Northwestern Germany
Posts: 500
FWIW, what I use for classical portraits most of the time:

Pentax SMC-A 1.4/85 on K-3, at apertures 2 to 4.
Pentax SMC-67 2.8/165 on Pentax 67, at 2.8 or 4.
Leitz Elmar-C 4/90 on Fujifilm X-T1, wide open.
__________________
-- Thomas
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #28
Timmyjoe
Registered User
 
Timmyjoe's Avatar
 
Timmyjoe is offline
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,862
As stated above, any Nikon film body with the 105mm f2.5 would be great. Also a big fan of same body and old non-AI 85mm f1.8. And if you want to go exotic, try to find a 135mm f2.0 from Nikon, a superb portrait lens.

If you want to go "old Canon", I've always loved the portrait results from any F-1 and the 85mm f1.2L lens, but be aware that's a pretty heavy combination.

Best,
-Tim
__________________
http://www.timcarrollphotography.com

New Photo Books
Sturgis Stories & Scenes From Sturgis
now available
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #29
xia_ke
Registered User
 
xia_ke's Avatar
 
xia_ke is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Maine
Age: 37
Posts: 166
Another +1 for the Nikon 105mm f/2.5 and a Nikon F/F2/F3.
__________________
flickr

"A good photograph is one that makes the viewer so aware of the subject that they are unaware of the print."- Kodak
"...if you find afterwards that you made a mistake, the price of the film and chemicals was...tuition!" - greybeard
"The hard part isn’t the decisive moment or anything like that – it’s getting the film on the reel!" - John Szarkowski
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #30
Nokton48
Registered User
 
Nokton48's Avatar
 
Nokton48 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by xayraa33 View Post
I would go for a common SRT Minolta model body like the 101 and the like and the Rokkor MC 100mm f2.5 lens for that German made lens style look to the photos.


https://phillipreeve.net/blog/minolt...m-12-5-review/

Both camera and lens are relatively inexpensive these days .

I will second this. A good SRT snd the 100mm F2.5 are not expensive and are fantastic tools.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #31
johnf04
Registered User
 
johnf04 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Dunedin, New Zealand
Age: 66
Posts: 165
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bille View Post
These recommendation threads never lead anywhere... thirty people, thirty cameras.
What this should show the original poster, is that there are many ways of attaining his aim.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #32
tunalegs
Pretended Artist
 
tunalegs's Avatar
 
tunalegs is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,114
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnf04 View Post
What this should show the original poster, is that there are many ways of attaining his aim.
Except nobody has actually shown anything. Or even paid attention to question in half the replies it seems. There are a few good suggestions up there, but most of them aren't relevant.
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #33
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
 
ChrisPlatt's Avatar
 
ChrisPlatt is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Queens NYC
Age: 55
Posts: 2,322
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
The Tamron Adaptall 90mm 2,5 Macro is an excellent lens for sharpness in both macro and portrait.
If you also need macro for your flower shots the above is an excellent recommendation.
If not and you go Nikon the 105/2.5 Nikkor is a good choice, any manual focus version.

Chris
__________________
Bring back the latent image!
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #34
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 73
Posts: 3,378
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve M. View Post
..................... I'd like to buy a 35mm camera and take some B&W flower shots, as well as portraits. ...........
I think you hobbled yourself right out of the starting gate when you limited yourself to a 35mm camera. This is the area where Medium Format SLR's really shine. Even the cheapest and possibly worst Medium Format SLR will run circles around a 35mm image.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 12-31-2016   #35
Bill Clark
Registered User
 
Bill Clark's Avatar
 
Bill Clark is offline
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Minnetonka, Minnesota
Age: 68
Posts: 1,803
It depends.

For 35mm full frame digital or film I usually use an 85. I have a Zeiss 85 f1.4 for my Canon stuff. Love the lens but it's only manual focus. But, for groups, I have a Canon 24 to 70 f2.8 that works great.

For medium format I usually use a 150 lens on one of my Hasselblads.

But I make due with whatever I have on me.

I just made a group portrait of my daughters family using a 50 f1.4 Canon lens on my digital camera. Works with the right distance from subject to camera so things don't look too funny and wackey!
__________________
I use my real name. How about you?
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #36
Addy101
Registered User
 
Addy101 is offline
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 1,522
You like a Leica 90mm? Well why not get a 90mm Leica? There are Leica lenses in R-mount and there are R-mount cameras. Why not pick up a Leica R4 or R5 and a 90/2.8 (if you want something slightly faster, the 90/2.0).

If you think those are to expensive, most makes have good 85mm lenses that will do the job. Pick the one that appeals to you - I'm partial to the Minolta system and really like my 85/2 on an XD or X700, but if you prefer a mechanical camera, the SRT's are nice as others have mentioned.
__________________
Das Bild ist ein Modell der Wirklichkeit - Wittgenstein
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #37
skopar steve
Registered User
 
skopar steve's Avatar
 
skopar steve is offline
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Hampshire
Posts: 313
Quote:
Originally Posted by johannielscom View Post
The Tamron Adaptall 90mm 2,5 Macro is an excellent lens for sharpness in both macro and portrait. It can be made to adapt to a vast array of camera brands.
This is the lens I would go with. I use it on my OM4T and RTS.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #38
lawrence
Registered User
 
lawrence's Avatar
 
lawrence is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: London, UK
Age: 65
Posts: 1,887


I can recommend the old 85mm f1.8 Nikkor, here it is wide open.
__________________
'Never trust any photograph so large that it can only fit inside a museum' Duane Michals
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #39
radi(c)al_cam
-
 
radi(c)al_cam is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: ~46.9° N, ~14.4° E
Posts: 983
Quote:
Originally Posted by radi(c)al_cam View Post
If you don't want to buy a Leicaflex, or Minolta SR, then I'd suggest: try a «mirror box» / «reflex housing» for your Leica, see my thread here

addendum:

You can use your Elmar the way I've shown, see:

  Reply With Quote

Old 01-01-2017   #40
peterm1
Registered User
 
peterm1's Avatar
 
peterm1 is offline
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,973
An option I would seriously consider is a Pentax Spotmatic camera because of the wide range of M42 lenses available for it at usually competitive prices. Its lenses tend to have "classic " rendering which is what you want. The older preset and semi auto versions of the lenses are especially good for classic rendering given their single coating technology.

My favorites are Takumar Super Multi Coated 85mm f1.9 or 85mm f1.8 (an earlier lens) Both perform exceedingly well but are among the rarer and more expensive lenses in the Takumar stable. The 105mm f2.8 is superb for portraits. Simply wonderful. It also sells quite cheaply. And both the 135mm f3.5 and the 135mm f2.5 perform extremely well. Both can be had for a song.

If you want to go beyond the Pentax line of lens (although I seldom find a reason to) the Jupiter 85mm f2 in M42 is also terrific. Being a Sonnar design it is perfect for portraits and general work as it has that lovely Sonnar rendering. Also an inexpensive lens.

Any of the Nikkors in this range will serve you well too. Do not discount the Nikkor 85mm f2 which is said to be a poorer lens than the 85mm f1.8. They are wrong. And as others have said the 105mm f2.5 is a super lens too.

Finally another marque to consider is Canon FL mount. These lenses are beautifully made and render superbly. I can personally vouch for the 85mm f1.8, the 135mm f3.5 and the 135mm f2.8. The range of lenses available is somewhat less though than with the M42 ones.

The good thing overall is that the main camera companies made many versions of lenses in this range and pretty well all of them are good to excellent as short tele lenses were core business for them back in the day. In fact I think you would have to work damn hard to find one that is poor. Of all of the above possibly the most classic rendering might be had from the Jupiter and i think this might render closest to the Elmar in terms of IQ.

Here is a candid photo made with the Takumar 105mm several years ago. I ended up with several of these as they were cheap and nice and because I wanted to compare them - early preset, semi auto diaphragm, Super Multi Coated and SMC versions. They all do very nicely with less flare from the later ones which have superior coating.

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 22:48.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.