'Legendary' status

Started 5 months ago | Discussions
Raffer76 Regular Member • Posts: 141
Re: 'Legendary' status
2

I was reading the thread and you called the lenses that I thought were missing: the 21. 2.8 c/y, 100mm f2 c/y and the 58mm 1.2 Rokkor. All legendary. The C/y 35mm 1.4 is also a desert island lens. I've never used the 21mm C/Y but it is only a question of time and budget...

norman shearer Senior Member • Posts: 1,148
Re: 'Legendary' status

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

-Olympus OM 21 3.5 MC. Life for UWAs is hard in the age of the Loxia 21, but the Oly is light, tiny and works well under the motto "f/8.0 and be there".

I've just been reading about this lens. Seems it can outresolve the rarer 21/2. I currently have the 21/2 in Luton Camera repairs. I dropped it onto carpet and the aperture seized and the filter thread got a little dented. Cost me £500 many years ago and it was allegedly a better performer than anything Canon had. I'm looking forward to getting it back in around a week and trying it out on Sony A7S. I'm hoping it'll make a good street lens on the A7S. I'll test out landscape/nature potential on A7R2.

 norman shearer's gear list:norman shearer's gear list
Samsung EX2F Nikon Coolpix A Sony RX1R Sony RX100 IV Canon EOS 5D +6 more
LasseS
LasseS Contributing Member • Posts: 647
Re: 'Legendary' status
2

Olympus OM Zuiko Auto-T 250mm f:2

Absolutely lovely, and a legend.

 LasseS's gear list:LasseS's gear list
Sigma DP1 Sigma DP3 Merrill Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III Sigma SD14 Sigma SD15 +2 more
vyoufinder
vyoufinder Senior Member • Posts: 1,304
Re: 'Legendary' status
1

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

 vyoufinder's gear list:vyoufinder's gear list
Sony a7S Sony a7S II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +180 more
OP Belgarchi Senior Member • Posts: 1,601
Re: 'Legendary' status

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

I wonder if it is really as good as the Zeiss?

A section view of a lens (they seem to be identical)  doesn't tell us about the glass used.

 Belgarchi's gear list:Belgarchi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Leica D-Lux 7 Olympus PEN-F Fujifilm X-T20 Pentax KP +69 more
sensiblename99 Regular Member • Posts: 368
Re: 'Legendary' status

Belgarchi wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

I wonder if it is really as good as the Zeiss?

A section view of a lens (they seem to be identical) doesn't tell us about the glass used.

It can't be as good. It focuses in the WRONG direction.

vyoufinder
vyoufinder Senior Member • Posts: 1,304
Re: 'Legendary' status

sensiblename99 wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

I wonder if it is really as good as the Zeiss?

A section view of a lens (they seem to be identical) doesn't tell us about the glass used.

It can't be as good. It focuses in the WRONG direction.

The glass is the same.  The coatings are different, however, so it comes down to Zeiss T vs. Pentax SMC.  Personally, I think the SMC coatings are better, but I admit am heavily blinded by my affinity for Pentax.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

 vyoufinder's gear list:vyoufinder's gear list
Sony a7S Sony a7S II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +180 more
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 4,493
Re: 'Legendary' status

vyoufinder wrote:

sensiblename99 wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

I wonder if it is really as good as the Zeiss?

A section view of a lens (they seem to be identical) doesn't tell us about the glass used.

It can't be as good. It focuses in the WRONG direction.

The glass is the same. The coatings are different, however, so it comes down to Zeiss T vs. Pentax SMC. Personally, I think the SMC coatings are better, but I admit am heavily blinded by my affinity for Pentax.

In those years (early-mid 1970's) Zeiss and Pentax had a parnership.

That explains how Pentax got the 28 2.0 & 15 3.5 lenses and how Zeiss' T* coating came out and was so good...

Zeiss eventualy ended up partnering with Yashica (later Kyocera) instead of Pentax for the new Contax line.

E Dinkla Senior Member • Posts: 1,649
Re: 'Legendary' status

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

Replaced by the Pentax M 28 f2.0 that was inspired by the Olympus 28mm 2.0 by Toru Fujii.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

OP Belgarchi Senior Member • Posts: 1,601
Re: 'Legendary' status

E Dinkla wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

Replaced by the Pentax M 28 f2.0 that was inspired by the Olympus 28mm 2.0 by Toru Fujii.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

I do have the 28/2.0 A, which is similar to the M version. It is very good in the center, but the edges are weak until f/4.0 and really good at f/5.6.

Results very similar to the Nikon 28/2.0 AIs at infinity (and the Pentax is a lot lighter!).

I didn't test seriously at close distance though. Do you know if it is a floating element design? Doesn't look like it when I turn the focusing ring, but it is hard to tell.

 Belgarchi's gear list:Belgarchi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Leica D-Lux 7 Olympus PEN-F Fujifilm X-T20 Pentax KP +69 more
E Dinkla Senior Member • Posts: 1,649
Re: 'Legendary' status

Belgarchi wrote:

E Dinkla wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

Replaced by the Pentax M 28 f2.0 that was inspired by the Olympus 28mm 2.0 by Toru Fujii.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

I do have the 28/2.0 A, which is similar to the M version. It is very good in the center, but the edges are weak until f/4.0 and really good at f/5.6.

Results very similar to the Nikon 28/2.0 AIs at infinity (and the Pentax is a lot lighter!).

I didn't test seriously at close distance though. Do you know if it is a floating element design? Doesn't look like it when I turn the focusing ring, but it is hard to tell.

The Olympus OM 28mm 2.0 has a floating element. I would assume that the Pentax 28mm versions that imitated it should have that part too but can not find any information on it. The earlier "Hollywood" Zeiss clone was the first Pentax lens with a floating element so they were familiar with that solution. Floating elements ask for precise adapter depths.

I do not have a vintage 28mm at all. Bought the Sony FE 28mm 2.0 as the price/performance could not be found in vintage ones. Distortion is solved in the RAW developers, basically it is more a 26mm lens.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

vyoufinder
vyoufinder Senior Member • Posts: 1,304
Re: 'Legendary' status

Belgarchi wrote:

E Dinkla wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

Add to this list:

Pentax SMC K 28mm f2

Nicknamed "the Hollywood" this Zeiss Distagon certainly fits the bill for "legendary."

Replaced by the Pentax M 28 f2.0 that was inspired by the Olympus 28mm 2.0 by Toru Fujii.

http://www.marcocavina.com/articoli_fotografici/Pentax_28_2_M/00_pag.htm

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

I do have the 28/2.0 A, which is similar to the M version. It is very good in the center, but the edges are weak until f/4.0 and really good at f/5.6.

Results very similar to the Nikon 28/2.0 AIs at infinity (and the Pentax is a lot lighter!).

I didn't test seriously at close distance though. Do you know if it is a floating element design? Doesn't look like it when I turn the focusing ring, but it is hard to tell.

Yes, it is in fact a floating element design. There is quite a difference from the M and A versions. The K is very sharp corner to corner, likely as a result of this and you've probably noticed the size. It's usually mistaken for a 135mm. There's a lot of glass in the K.  I think it might have been the first floating element design from Pentax.  It's definitely the first K mount lens, which was Zeiss' design, according to sources I saw.

The biggest difference in actual use is the fact that the K version focuses very close... and why Zeiss called it the Distagon.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

 vyoufinder's gear list:vyoufinder's gear list
Sony a7S Sony a7S II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +180 more
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 4,493
Re: 'Legendary' status
1

vyoufinder wrote:

The biggest difference in actual use is the fact that the K version focuses very close... and why Zeiss called it the Distagon.

???

Distagon is simply Zeiss' generic name for retrofocus (=SLR compatible) wide angle lenses.

It doesn't follow any particular scheme or have anything top do with MFD.

vyoufinder
vyoufinder Senior Member • Posts: 1,304
Re: 'Legendary' status

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

The biggest difference in actual use is the fact that the K version focuses very close... and why Zeiss called it the Distagon.

???

Distagon is simply Zeiss' generic name for retrofocus (=SLR compatible) wide angle lenses.

It doesn't follow any particular scheme or have anything top do with MFD.

It is Zeiss' generic name for close focusing wider angles. "Distance" and "angle" made up the name "Distagon," which, in Zeiss terminology, means a close focusing wide angle lens. It's not the only one.

I don't understand your question marks.

-- hide signature --

Your focus is your reality

 vyoufinder's gear list:vyoufinder's gear list
Sony a7S Sony a7S II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 45mm F1.8 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12mm 1:2 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 25mm F1.8 +180 more
Rol Lei Nut Veteran Member • Posts: 4,493
Re: 'Legendary' status

vyoufinder wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

The biggest difference in actual use is the fact that the K version focuses very close... and why Zeiss called it the Distagon.

???

Distagon is simply Zeiss' generic name for retrofocus (=SLR compatible) wide angle lenses.

It doesn't follow any particular scheme or have anything top do with MFD.

It is Zeiss' generic name for close focusing wider angles. "Distance" and "angle" made up the name "Distagon," which, in Zeiss terminology, means a close focusing wide angle lens. It's not the only one.

I don't understand your question marks.

It gets applied to all their retrofocus wides, irrespective of their MFD.

The "Dista-" problably refers to the (extra-) distance of the rear element from the film plane, compared to a standard wide design.

fferreres Contributing Member • Posts: 958
Re: 'Legendary' status

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

Belgarchi wrote:

Totally subjective but fun: which lenses are considered as a 'Legend', whatever the reason?

I can think of only a small number:

- Leica R 50/2.0

- Leica R 100/2.8 Macro Apo

Had it. Sold it. Didn't like the ergonomics and wasn't that "legendary" when used for landscapes.

- Contax Zeiss 28/2.0

- Contax Zeiss 50/1.4

My favorite 50 (not that I'm a great 50mm fan).

- Contax Zeiss 85/2.8

Had it, sold it. Good, but I like some other 85/90s better.

That's bizarre. Mine is the best of all 85-90mm in the center of the image (resolution, contrast, micro-contrast, definition) and in the corners, only my Leica R 90/2.8 (barely) beats it.

Mine was not quite as good as the best mainly in the corners (though still very good).

Also my Leica R 90 2.8 (older version) was a bit disappointing in that way. I even tried the last version R 90 2.8, without noticing a large difference. Again, still very good, but lenses like CY 100 3.5, ZM 85 4.0 or even Tokina 90 2.5 Macro are more even across the field.

Mine is stupidly sharp wide open under a 24mp sensor, both in resolution, contrast and micro-contrast. Like you have a magical sharpen algorithm with absolutely no noise the size of a normal 50mm lens and a bargain price. It's small. Weights nothing. I don't think ti should be considered legendary, because it looks like nothing, has a very simple design, doesn't even have any unique look: looks exactly like all the other german made all metal Rollei lenses. It's almost impossible to distinguish it from the 50mm Planar or even the Distagon 35mm at quick glance. At the time it was launched, based on all I've seen and read, while nobody makes the point, I think this was the best 85mm to have been ever made. The C/Y version appeared years later.

- Voigtlander 180/4.0 SL Apo

Have it. Good. Specs/weight on paper are great. In practice, I don't use it much.

I am disappointed by mine, excellent at f/5.6 and 8.0, but so-so at f/4.0

Mine is in the "maybe keep" category. As mentioned, I tend not to use it.

- Nikon 28/2.8 AIs

- Nikon 55/2.8 Macro AIs

Good. Find it flattens the image a bit in non-macro use. Prefer the Leica R 60 2.8 Macro.

True. Of course, the price is 'slightly' different.

Actually, when I bought it, it was only just slightly more expensive than the Nikkor 55 2.8.

- Nikon 105/2.5 AIs

Nice. Again, there are some 85/90/100mm lenses I like even better. AI version is pretty big & heavy.

- Nikon 180/2.8 ED AIs

Good lens, but legendary? Very bulky.

- Pentax 28/3.5 K

Very nice. But the Loxia 25 is hogging the 24-28 FLs for me.

- Pentax 31/1.8 FA Limited

- Pentax 85/1.4 FA*

- Pentax 135/1.8 A

- Canon 35/2.0 New FD

- Canon 50/1.4 New FD

I'll add:

-Canon TS-E 24 3.5 II. Lovely lens, but huge & heavy. Sold because I never used it.

-Leica M Summicron 35 2.0 Mk. IV ("Bokeh King"). Maybe not really a Bokeh King, but a very nice, tiny and light lens. The R Summicron 35 2.0 version is great with film.

-Rollei & CY Zeiss 35 1.4. Very nice rendering. My Desert Island lens. In the real world, it's a bit large and heavy.

-CY Zeiss 35 2.8 MM. Very flat field for a 35mm, though with a slight dip 2/3 of the way out. Still one of the best for landscapes, architecture & reproductions.

Interesting, I should try that one, pretty inexpensive too. I wonder if it will be good on APS-C and M43 though, taking into account your assessment of a lower sharpness at 2/3rd of the frame?

That dip is only (slightly) visible at stops wider than f/5.6. Generally speaking it has the flattest field of any 35mm I've used, more than the R 35 2.8 III or even the Canon FD TS 35 2.8 (I seem to have an especially good sample of that one). But brilliance & contrast are a bit below Zeiss' best.

-Rollei Zeiss 35 2.8. Optically different from the above. Field isn't as flat as the CY version (though in practice things are fine by about f/5.6 or so), but it has more character (and is smaller/lighter).

I am trying to find one in good condition for one year now...

Mine is a made in Singapore "Voigtländer Color-Skoparex", but is a better sample than several Zeiss branded made in Germany ones I had.

I had purchased one and it was horrible. I had to open it and fix the front optical group, including scratched pain and reposition it (all easy), but it changed it to quite bad lens sample to probably one of my favorite 35mm.

-CY Zeiss 35-70. Very nice. One of those lenses which can make the dullest light look almost decent. Sold it because I found the zoom range too limiting considering its size & weight.

-Leica R 60 Macro. Simply does everything extremely well.

Yes, I know that one, excellent. I didn't list it because I don't think it has a 'legendary' reputation. That list was about 'reputation', not real qualities of lenses.

-Nikkor 200mm 4.0 AI/S. Probably the best non-APO 200mm, decently light as well.

Very good, yes... but the underestimated Pentax A 200/4.0 (not the M, not as good) is as good and 20% lighter, and the Canon 200/4.0 FDn is sharper (but lightly built, and a lot of CA)

Interesting... How would you rate the Pentax compared to the Voigtländer 180 4.0?

I tried one sample of the Canon, but found it not as good as the FD 80-200 4.0 L at 200mm.

-Olympus OM 90mm 2.0 Macro. Takes portraits as well as a 90mm Summicron, landscapes as well as the CY 85 2.8 and 1:2 Macros as well. What not to like? (o.k., weight could be lower...)

-Tokina 90 2.5 Macro ("Bokina"). Very sharp at all distances. Bokeh: yes. Weight: lighter than the Olympus 90 2.0. Flare: can be present (only real drawback).

-Zeiss ZM 85 4.0. Does everything well in a small package.

-CY Zeiss 100 3.5. As far as pure sharpness across the field at medium/long distances goes, probably my best 85/90/100mm lens. A great landscape choice. Maybe a bit less "character" and atmosphere than some others.

-Canon FD 80-200 4.0 L. Very. very nice. Not impressed by its build quality, decided to keep the CY Zeiss version instead.

-CY Zeiss 80-200 4.0. Canon FD version might have a few points over it optically, but I didn't enjoy using it. The Zeiss feels more like a reliable workhorse.

-Canon EF 70-200 4.0 L (both IS & non-IS). Great user.

-CY Zeiss 100-300. Her Majesty... Sharpeness, contrast, colors - nearly perfect. Only drawback is that lack of AF and OIS can make itself felt.

Should be "Legendary" but less known, expensive or injustly overshadowed by others...

-Leica WATE 16-18-21 4.0. The Loxia 21 is a better 21mm, but the WATE is smaller, lighter and offers FLs down to 16mm...

-Leica R 21-35. Not perfect, but a very good user with great rendering. Gets the best out of dull light.

-Leica R 35 2.8 Mk. III. Very nice & contrasty. Avoid the optically different versions I & II.

In my opinion, it is indeed the best 35mm for SLR. The best, that's it.

-Minolta M-Rokkor 28mm 2.8. Have white spot problem, but tiny and sharp. Works well with Sony FF sensors!

-Canon TS-E 90 2.8 Mk. I. Nicely sharp for landscapes. Tilting can be useful.

-Canon EF 100 2,8 Macro USM. Very nice. Big & heavy for carrying around, but delivers.

-Leica R 180 3.4 Apo-Telyt. Great for longer distances.

Yes but I found it difficult to focus.

-Olympus OM 21 3.5 MC. Life for UWAs is hard in the age of the Loxia 21, but the Oly is light, tiny and works well under the motto "f/8.0 and be there".

OP Belgarchi Senior Member • Posts: 1,601
Re: 'Legendary' status

vyoufinder wrote:

Rol Lei Nut wrote:

vyoufinder wrote:

The biggest difference in actual use is the fact that the K version focuses very close... and why Zeiss called it the Distagon.

???

Distagon is simply Zeiss' generic name for retrofocus (=SLR compatible) wide angle lenses.

It doesn't follow any particular scheme or have anything top do with MFD.

It is Zeiss' generic name for close focusing wider angles. "Distance" and "angle" made up the name "Distagon," which, in Zeiss terminology, means a close focusing wide angle lens. It's not the only one.

I don't understand your question marks.

Nope, for example the Distagon 35/2.8 doesn't focus close at all: 40cm. Distagon means 'retrofocus-type of optical formula'.

 Belgarchi's gear list:Belgarchi's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ300 Leica D-Lux 7 Olympus PEN-F Fujifilm X-T20 Pentax KP +69 more
MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 37,699
Methinks “a legend in our own hands”
4

This can be a long list and there is a clear distinction between:

”My legend” - I own one and love it to death

”The legend I would like to have” - if I could find one

“The legend I cannot afford” - sometimes the lens “I cannot make myself afford”

“The legend that made lens history” - but it is unaffordable/unobtainable or not really practical for what I want to do - but I acknowledge that it was a technical milestone

The first category are perhaps the best legends - a legend in my own hands

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

(unknown member) Veteran Member • Posts: 4,469
Re: Methinks “a legend in our own hands”
2

I wish A) I could give this more likes and B) it had been the second post on this thread, as approx half the posts have been debating what should be considered legendary.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

This can be a long list and there is a clear distinction between:

”My legend” - I own one and love it to death

”The legend I would like to have” - if I could find one

“The legend I cannot afford” - sometimes the lens “I cannot make myself afford”

“The legend that made lens history” - but it is unaffordable/unobtainable or not really practical for what I want to do - but I acknowledge that it was a technical milestone

The first category are perhaps the best legends - a legend in my own hands

-- hide signature --

MattParvin.com
It’s a lot easier to post a photo than it is to write 1,000 words...
“I believe there is nothing more disturbing than a sharp image of a fuzzy concept” ~ AA

MOD Tom Caldwell Forum Pro • Posts: 37,699
Re: Methinks “a legend in our own hands”
2

Mathieu18 wrote:

I wish A) I could give this more likes and B) it had been the second post on this thread, as approx half the posts have been debating what should be considered legendary.

Tom Caldwell wrote:

This can be a long list and there is a clear distinction between:

”My legend” - I own one and love it to death

”The legend I would like to have” - if I could find one

“The legend I cannot afford” - sometimes the lens “I cannot make myself afford”

“The legend that made lens history” - but it is unaffordable/unobtainable or not really practical for what I want to do - but I acknowledge that it was a technical milestone

The first category are perhaps the best legends - a legend in my own hands

Thank Matt - I like to (sometimes at least) cut through the cackle and get to the point.

-- hide signature --

Tom Caldwell

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads