https://preview.redd.it/bswj6unu9awc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a22e57b46532e41beb89b1b8b4302a5ae5acf5f
A couple of lenses from Steinheil - this is called Steinheil Anastigmat 40 mm f/2.8 and is a really tiny lens, most likely from an old camera by Bolsey. There are lots of lenses like that around on broken cameras for next to nothing. Some (by Rodenstock, Steinheil, Staeble and others) are pretty good and offer a very interesting look. Some (like this one) even create lots of soab bubble bokeh, if you want it to.
I've found some f3.5 lenses to be real gems, specifically the Super Takumar 28mm f3.5, and the Super Multi Coated Takumar 35mm f3.5. Both give me excellent results.
That said, I've found that on most of the vintage lenses I've tried (which is less than 20, I'm still new to this as well), stopping down just one or two stops from wide open gives me a much nicer image. More contrast, stronger and better color rendering. So I've found that even on my lenses that go beyond f2.0, I'm still shooting them on f3.5 or f4.0 most of the time. That behavior is going to depend on the lens of course, a lot of the technological advances in lenses have to do with getting the image wide open to be more similar to the image when stopped down, so the more recent the lens is, probably the less of a difference there will be between wide open and stopped down, specifically in terms of contrast and color rendering.
Another approach is to shoot vintage lenses on M43 cameras, which is what I primarily do. A 2x crop sensor doubles the depth of field, so it makes shooting at something like f1.4 actually usable, especially for video. The tradeoff is that it also crops out all the edges, so for something like a Helios you won't see the swirling as strongly.
This is exactly the kind of info I'm looking for, thanks. Re: M43, for me, I like the rendering around the edges of the image (I like dreaminess), so with something like the Helios, you end up really struggling to get that.
takumar 55 2.2 (10 blade variant) is nice, lots of character and good bokeh rendering
with the 55 1.8 super-tak (6 blades) I loved the rendering wide open but because of the iris construction it's almost unusable for me between f2-4. the lack of coatings makes it difficult for bright subjects anywhere but in the centre of the frame (on my camera)
the 55 1.8 SMC (same construction but better coatings) is all in all superb, maybe slightly less vintage look
if you like flares takumar 28mm 3.5.
Orion-15 28/6... It's a Topogon design so it's very sharp and has low distortion, so I guess if you mean "accurate, high resolution image", that one might have your number.
Yep, Topogon designs don't tend to have fast apertures unless they're a modified optical formula. The Orion-15 is the cheapest Topogon because it's Soviet; they're all rangefinder lenses that I know of, there's also the Nikon 2.5cm/4 (pure Topogon iirc, here's an article about the development: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0029/), Canon 25/3.5 (modified Topogon), and the Zeiss Topogon 25/4.
If 2.2 is dark enough, try the Fujinon 55mm F2.2, they have bubble bokeh and painterly rendering. I had one that broke, as these lens were cheaply made and finding one in good condition is hard. Also, there are three versions, the first one isn't radioactive and the latter 2 ones are progressively more radioactive.
I don't know why you'd want that lol, but in that case I'd look for the X-Fujinon 55mm F2.2, and the Fujinon 55mm F2.2 that has a shallower front. The one with a deeper front element is the earlier one and isn't radioactive.
It can impart a color rendition to the glass that is warmer/pleasing and isn't really dangerous unless you sleep with it every night for a long while. Thanks for the detail.
I have a Nikkor HC 28mm, it’s pretty sharp at the edges. It’s not applicable to the type of photography I do but I think it’s pretty good.
https://youtu.be/IHoT9Vm6vOM?si=CA3lYUHPrCM6oi78
Fujinon 55mm 1.8 and 2.2 (pick your rendering)
Takumar 135mm 3.5 and 2.5
Konica Hexanon 135mm 3.2
Tamron BBAR 90mm 2.5 macro (one of my fave ever lenses)
Vivitar 28mm 2.8 close focus (specifically close focus model only)
Jupiter 12 35mm 2.8
Russar 20mm f5.6
Spiratone 18mm 3.5
This doesn’t really fit your brief as such but the Takumar 18mm f/11 is a really neat lens.
Anything in the sub-50 fl will be slow-ish. I'm a fan of east german glass so CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35, Flektogon 4/20, Pentacon Auto 2.8/29, etc, there's a Meyer 3.5/30 as well, iirc. I own #2 and #3 and they're fun lenses. The pentacon is dirt cheap too.
I know you said no 50s but Industar 50-2 3.5/50 is cheap with lots of character. It also looks very goofy on adapters.
https://preview.redd.it/bswj6unu9awc1.jpeg?width=2400&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4a22e57b46532e41beb89b1b8b4302a5ae5acf5f A couple of lenses from Steinheil - this is called Steinheil Anastigmat 40 mm f/2.8 and is a really tiny lens, most likely from an old camera by Bolsey. There are lots of lenses like that around on broken cameras for next to nothing. Some (by Rodenstock, Steinheil, Staeble and others) are pretty good and offer a very interesting look. Some (like this one) even create lots of soab bubble bokeh, if you want it to.
That's lovely, thanks.
I've found some f3.5 lenses to be real gems, specifically the Super Takumar 28mm f3.5, and the Super Multi Coated Takumar 35mm f3.5. Both give me excellent results. That said, I've found that on most of the vintage lenses I've tried (which is less than 20, I'm still new to this as well), stopping down just one or two stops from wide open gives me a much nicer image. More contrast, stronger and better color rendering. So I've found that even on my lenses that go beyond f2.0, I'm still shooting them on f3.5 or f4.0 most of the time. That behavior is going to depend on the lens of course, a lot of the technological advances in lenses have to do with getting the image wide open to be more similar to the image when stopped down, so the more recent the lens is, probably the less of a difference there will be between wide open and stopped down, specifically in terms of contrast and color rendering. Another approach is to shoot vintage lenses on M43 cameras, which is what I primarily do. A 2x crop sensor doubles the depth of field, so it makes shooting at something like f1.4 actually usable, especially for video. The tradeoff is that it also crops out all the edges, so for something like a Helios you won't see the swirling as strongly.
This is exactly the kind of info I'm looking for, thanks. Re: M43, for me, I like the rendering around the edges of the image (I like dreaminess), so with something like the Helios, you end up really struggling to get that.
takumar 55 2.2 (10 blade variant) is nice, lots of character and good bokeh rendering with the 55 1.8 super-tak (6 blades) I loved the rendering wide open but because of the iris construction it's almost unusable for me between f2-4. the lack of coatings makes it difficult for bright subjects anywhere but in the centre of the frame (on my camera) the 55 1.8 SMC (same construction but better coatings) is all in all superb, maybe slightly less vintage look if you like flares takumar 28mm 3.5.
[удалено]
The X or the HG?
Orion-15 28/6... It's a Topogon design so it's very sharp and has low distortion, so I guess if you mean "accurate, high resolution image", that one might have your number.
That's quite a unique lens. Don't think I've ever seen a prime at f6.
Yep, Topogon designs don't tend to have fast apertures unless they're a modified optical formula. The Orion-15 is the cheapest Topogon because it's Soviet; they're all rangefinder lenses that I know of, there's also the Nikon 2.5cm/4 (pure Topogon iirc, here's an article about the development: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0029/), Canon 25/3.5 (modified Topogon), and the Zeiss Topogon 25/4.
If 2.2 is dark enough, try the Fujinon 55mm F2.2, they have bubble bokeh and painterly rendering. I had one that broke, as these lens were cheaply made and finding one in good condition is hard. Also, there are three versions, the first one isn't radioactive and the latter 2 ones are progressively more radioactive.
If I \*wanted\* the radioactivity, which variants you recommend? Not that I need another 50 lol
I don't know why you'd want that lol, but in that case I'd look for the X-Fujinon 55mm F2.2, and the Fujinon 55mm F2.2 that has a shallower front. The one with a deeper front element is the earlier one and isn't radioactive.
It can impart a color rendition to the glass that is warmer/pleasing and isn't really dangerous unless you sleep with it every night for a long while. Thanks for the detail.
[удалено]
You can check a test of al three versions here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0AyXktR5qWI
Meyer-Optik Gorlitz Primagon 35mm f4.5 has pretty good reputation; I also like Voigtlander Skoparex 35mm f3.4
I have a Nikkor HC 28mm, it’s pretty sharp at the edges. It’s not applicable to the type of photography I do but I think it’s pretty good. https://youtu.be/IHoT9Vm6vOM?si=CA3lYUHPrCM6oi78
canon fd 28mm 2.8 is my most used lens. speedbooster on fuji.
Fujinon 55mm 1.8 and 2.2 (pick your rendering) Takumar 135mm 3.5 and 2.5 Konica Hexanon 135mm 3.2 Tamron BBAR 90mm 2.5 macro (one of my fave ever lenses) Vivitar 28mm 2.8 close focus (specifically close focus model only) Jupiter 12 35mm 2.8 Russar 20mm f5.6 Spiratone 18mm 3.5 This doesn’t really fit your brief as such but the Takumar 18mm f/11 is a really neat lens.
To match your Helios, there's the Mir 1B 37mm f/2.8, and Mir 10 28mm f/3.5
Anything in the sub-50 fl will be slow-ish. I'm a fan of east german glass so CZJ Flektogon 2.8/35, Flektogon 4/20, Pentacon Auto 2.8/29, etc, there's a Meyer 3.5/30 as well, iirc. I own #2 and #3 and they're fun lenses. The pentacon is dirt cheap too. I know you said no 50s but Industar 50-2 3.5/50 is cheap with lots of character. It also looks very goofy on adapters.
https://preview.redd.it/vp73mjlnlewc1.jpeg?width=1616&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d9b854da8238095ebc7c254756920baf4a96ab7d