Another Legacy Lens

[rpcrowe]

I guess you know by now that I am a sucker for the renditions achieved by certain legacy lenses.

I am certainly not talking about all old lenses nor am I touting that for general use, these old lenses are the equal of today's modern glass. A cheap modern 50mm f/1.8 will run rings around most of these lenses when it comes to sharpness and lack of optical flaws. Of course, the modern 50's are equipped with auto focus capabilities.

However, used correctly, the optical flaws in many of these old lenses work to achieve beautiful and artistic imagery. One of the neatest lenses I have come across is the Meyer Gorlitz 50mm f/1.8 Oreston. This lens was produced for many years as a kit lens for the Pentacon type cameras made in East Germany...

https://www.flickr.com/search/?text=Oreston

As you can see in these images, the nest way to use this lens is for relative close ups imagery! taking advantage of its "magical" bokeh. However, this busy bokeh may not be everyone's cup of tea. I like it for certain images and don' like it for others...

The Oreston is avaiable in M-42 and Exaxta mounts and has one capability that is not matched by many of the older type lenses. It is fairly close focusing at .3 meters allowing closeup photos without the need for extension tubes. It is a relatively inexpensive lens, usually found between $30 and $60 USD. I have one, in a M-42 mount, coming from an eBay seller in the U.K. and can't wait to try it on my A6500 and my Canon 6D Mark 2,,,

[Manfred M]

Richard - I owned the 50mm f/1.8 Oreston and disliked it immensely. It was little more than a cheap Zeiss Planar knockoff and was sold as a kit lens on Praktica cameras. Loads of flare, quite soft until f2.8 or f/4 and unattractive boheh. I had access to the f/1.8 55mm Takumar lens and would shoot it whenever I needed to shoot in the 50mm - 55mm focal range, rather than the Oreston.

I had a real hate on for 50mm lenses until I got a Leitz 50mm f/2 Summicron-R, which is (I still own it) a fantastic lens with beautiful micro contrast and a very creamy bokeh. That being said; it cost a lot more than the Praktica LLC body AND the 50mm Oreston lens...

I guess I will never understand the love of some of these old lenses. They were truly mediocre.

[xpatUSA]

Richard - I owned the 50mm f/1.8 Oreston and disliked it immensely. It was little more than a cheap Zeiss Planar knockoff and was sold as a kit lens on Praktica cameras. Loads of flare, quite soft until f2.8 or f/4 and unattractive boheh.

Richard, Manfred,

The Praktica-mention touched a nerve, I had an MTL3, my first and only SLR. I bought a Zeiss-Jena 50mm f/1.8 Pancolar for it and that was quite a lens. I couldn't tell you about it's performance because back then I wasn't that interested in photography as such. But now that I have some M42 adaptors, I wish I still had it, and current eBay prices are indicative of it's performance, by the looks of it. They ain't cheap!

I had access to the f/1.8 55mm Takumar lens and would shoot it whenever I needed to shoot in the 50mm - 55mm focal range, rather than the Oreston.

Asahi Lens Co. Takumars seem to be well-respected and can still be bought in good condition complete with the hood and leather cases.

<>

I guess I will never understand the love of some of these old lenses. They were truly mediocre.

I'm just starting out playing with "legacy" lenses. The original intent was to find some with fewer elements and less heavy coatings and of course with the 'the Mark' for IR work. My first tries with those were a failure and I gave up, perhaps too quickly.

The only other lenses I have are Sigmas which are more known for their sharpness and flatness than anything else. OTOH, my 28mm Takumar takes quite a pleasant shot without excessive sharpness and quite nice color.

Interesting thread, thanks!

[rpcrowe]

"I guess I will never understand the love of some of these old lenses. They were truly mediocre."

I can see your point as I cannot understand the popularity of the Lens Baby lenses. I guess that they must appeal to some people because they are quite popular. I think that it might just be the softness and lack of contrast as well as the propensity to flare that attract some photographers to these lenses. Some images that they produce are just flat and unsharp while others have a toy quality about them.

I also have not had a love affair with the 50mm focal length. The Navy once supplied photojournalists with a Leica kit which included the 50mm f/2 Summicron a well as a 35mm and 90mm lens and a Leica M-2 body. It was from that kit that I eventually got to really like the combination of 90mm and 35mm lenses on a full frame camera. So much so that I would leave the 50mm behind when shooting...

Although I own a Canon 50mm f/1.8 (Mark-1) lens, I almost never carried it or used it to any degree on either my full frame or crop sensor Canon DSLR cameras and I never even owned a 50mm lens when I was shooting with Canon film DSLR cameras. However, with the little crop sensor Sony A6500 I have grown to like this focal length; possibly because it was the first native Sony glass that I owned and I really like the Eye AF that it allows.

Regarding the Takumar lens. I have used it and it is a decent lens. If I were aiming at a product photo, I would definitely pick that one ahead of the Oreston. However if I were doing any type photography in which I was aiming at a sharp and realistic image, the Takumar would be way down on the list of lenses I would select as it would probably be on your list It doesn't bring anything to the image that cannot be better done with a decent modern lens...

I can't see buying a vintage lens and expecting to use it for normal photography. The lower cost of these lens just doesn't make it worthwhile. However for experimenting, it is nice that these vintage lenses are low cost. I would certainly not spend a large amount of cash (over $2,000 USD) for one of these lenses like some people are paying for the slightly modernized Meyer Gorlitz lenses that are being sold today.

[xpatUSA]

"I guess I will never understand the love of some of these old lenses. They were truly mediocre."

<>

Regarding the Takumar lens. I have used it and it is a decent lens. If I were aiming at a product photo, I would definitely pick that one ahead of the Oreston. However if I were doing any type photography in which I was aiming at a sharp and realistic image, the Takumar would be way down on the list of lenses I would select as it would probably be on your list It doesn't bring anything to the image that cannot be better done with a decent modern lens...

I can't see buying a vintage lens and expecting to use it for normal photography. The lower cost of these lens just doesn't make it worthwhile. However for experimenting, it is nice that these vintage lenses are low cost. I would certainly not spend a large amount of cash (over $2,000 USD) for one of these lenses like some people are paying for the slightly modernized Meyer Gorlitz lenses that are being sold today.

If I knew what you meant by "the Takumar" I would be glad to respond. My understanding is that there are many Takumar models spanning a good few years ... all different.

[rpcrowe]

If I knew what you meant by "the Takumar" I would be glad to respond. My understanding is that there are many Takumar models spanning a good few years ... all different.

The Takumar lens that I used was the Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 model with an M-42 screw mount. I believe that the Takumar screw mount lenses were produced up through the mid-1970's when Pentax began calling their lenses Pentax and supplied them in K-mount. Although I did not own a Pentax until the MX was introduced with the K-mount. I used a Navy Pentax with a screw mount lens mount...

Although the Pentak M-42 screw mount has often been called "the Universal Mount" because of the number of cameras using that mount; the Pentax "K-Mount" was used on a large variety of cameras besides Pentax. Some of these were Chinon and Sears distributed products...

During that time. it seemed that, most pf the "normal focal length"lenses for SLR cameras were 55mm or even 58mm, rather than today's 50mm. That makes them a decent focal length for a portrait lens on a crop camera. In fact, Sigma has recently introduced a 56mm lens for Sony crop cameras...

[xpatUSA]

The Takumar lens that I used was the Super Takumar 55mm f/1.8 model with an M-42 screw mount. <>

Thank you!

[Manfred M]

Although the Pentak M-42 screw mount has often been called "the Universal Mount" because of the number of cameras using that mount

The only problem is that the Asahi company (which made the Takumar lenses and Pentax cameras) did not invent this mount. It was developed by Carl Zeiss for use on Praktica cameras (and was also used the East German Zeiss Contax S camera). I understand that it was commonly referred to as the "Pentax mount" in the USA. Up here in Canada, it was called the Praktica / Pentax mount

[rpcrowe]

The only problem is that the Asahi company (which made the Takumar lenses and Pentax cameras) did not invent this mount. It was developed by Carl Zeiss for use on Praktica cameras (and was also used the East German Zeiss Contax S camera). I understand that it was commonly referred to as the "Pentax mount" in the USA. Up here in Canada, it was called the Praktica / Pentax mount

"A rose by any other name", William Shakespeare

I realize that the "standard" or "normal" focal length for earlier SLR cameras was 55mm or 58mm, depending on the make of the camera, and that this longer (longer than the standard 50mm lens for 35mm rangefinder cameras) focal length was needed for extra distance between the rear element of the lens and the focal plane so that the mirror would have room to swing. However, I don't remember what innovation in SLR technology allowed the 50mm to become the standard focal length...

[Manfred M]

"A rose by any other name", William Shakespeare

I realize that the "standard" or "normal" focal length for earlier SLR cameras was 55mm or 58mm, depending on the make of the camera, and that this longer (longer than the standard 50mm lens for 35mm rangefinder cameras) focal length was needed for extra distance between the rear element of the lens and the focal plane so that the mirror would have room to swing. However, I don't remember what innovation in SLR technology allowed the 50mm to become the standard focal length...

The version that I heard is that Oskar Barnack, the Head of Research at the Ernst Leitz Company used some off the shelf components to construct a prototype miniature camera. The existing production lens that worked out best was a 50mm f/3.5 lens and that is what he used on his prototype. The 50mm lens became the "standard" lens on the Leica 1 and everyone else simply followed and that "standard" continues today.