Good, bad lenses

NickTrop said:
So -- some years ago I had an epic commute to work and, being American, I (barely) speak one language properly. Dammit! I'm gonna to use this commute time productively, quit listening to the same old 60's/70's rock songs endlessly and vapid talk radio and learn a second language, I says to myself...

I picked Japanese and got mp3s of the Pimsluer series... And I listened to them over, and over, and over again. Hours and hours. At the pinnacle of this undertaking I was able to watch "Shall We Dance" without subs and understand enough to follow the plot.

Today I basically use two phrases:

Hiaku! (translates to "hurry!" You hear that one a lot in those old Kaiju flicks when the city evacuates as Godzilla approaches...)

And "chotto matte kudasai". "Slow down..."

... around the office when I want people to speed it up or cool their jets, respectively.

Can't say listening to those tapes over and over was time well-spent.
Click to expand...

Dear Nick,

I have always found I can get by with "hai desu ka" and "wakarimasen". If I were female I flatter myself I might have found more use for "iye".

Then again, the only phrase I remember from trying to learn Dutch (from tapes, again) was "In paar minuten, voll ik op slaap": "In two minutes, I fall asleep". Maybe I should have looked for a Dutch girlfriend. Or not, for her sake.

Cheers,

R.
 
maryland_fotos said:
I have the 55 1.2 K as well as the 55 1.2 S Nikkors, both I think are the same optically as the AI version mentioned above. I did not know it classified as a bad lens :) Just love what it does to the background. . . .
Click to expand...
YES! This is what I mean. There's a French phrase: les fautes de ses qualités, the faults of its qualities. This phrase sums up good, bad lenses. Or possibly les qualités de ses fautes, the qualities of its faults.

Cheers,

R.
 
I am sure there are plenty of old lenses with obvious defects which their owners claim have "character." I just love my 1934 Acme Crumicron. Without more, I'm not sure how helpful developing such a list is.
 
zuiko85 said:
This is an interesting thread. Not many of us get to try out all the different lenses mentioned. Probably also drives some GAS in some of us too.
There is a related question; have you ever purchased a camera only because you found a great deal on a lens in that mount and needed a body to put it on.
Click to expand...
Yes, and that touched a memory. Maybe a bit off-topic, as the lens in question wasn't "bad", a Tokina 500mm mirror lens in Olympus mount. Nice complete kit in fine condition. I thought the mount was interchangeable and intended to use it on Pentax K so I bought it. Error! Then I compounded the error by buying an inexpensive Olympus OM-G that the lens would fit. Oh well, life goes on!
 
Auto Takumar 35mm f/3.4.

After owning the Takumar 85/1.9, and the Takumar 58/2, and liking them because I found them to be good/bad lenses, maybe even great bad lenses, the Auto Takumar 35/3.4 fell right into place for a wide angle which could make me happy for all the wrong reasons.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Nick,

I have always found I can get by with "hai desu ka" and "wakarimasen". If I were female I flatter myself I might have found more use for "iye".

Then again, the only phrase I remember from trying to learn Dutch (from tapes, again) was "In paar minuten, voll ik op slaap": "In two minutes, I fall asleep". Maybe I should have looked for a Dutch girlfriend. Or not, for her sake.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Years ago, I worked with a bloke who had been a tour bus courier. He could walk into a bar, and say "Two beers, please" in 10 languages.
 
I've only shot a roll or two, but I like my non-ai 58mm Nikkor f/1.4 from 1960. Lots of character. Relatively inexpensive. Which is surprising, because some well known folks have bashed the lens, and I only got one because it came with an F camera. I guess you need to sample stuff for yourself, and make your own decision.
 
johnf04 said:
Years ago, I worked with a bloke who had been a tour bus courier. He could walk into a bar, and say "Two beers, please" in 10 languages.
Click to expand...
Surely most people can do at least five, at least verbally if they don't have to write it down grammatically or with correct spelling:

Deux bieres, SVP

Zwiemal biere, bitte

Dos birras, por favor (works OK in Portugal to if you make it very clear you're not Spanish)

Dva pivo, spassibo (works in most Slavic languages though you have to be careful with spassibo)

and you can always hold up two fingers and say "beers" which most Europeans and many others will understand. In Hindi beer is beeyar.

Until twenty or thirty years ago the difficulty in the US lay not in their failing to understand "two" but in their failing to understand "beer" and bringing you Coors or Miller or (fake) Budweiser instead.

Cheers,

R.
 
steveyork said:
I've only shot a roll or two, but I like my non-ai 58mm Nikkor f/1.4 from 1960. Lots of character. Relatively inexpensive. Which is surprising, because some well known folks have bashed the lens, and I only got one because it came with an F camera. I guess you need to sample stuff for yourself, and make your own decision.
Click to expand...
Dear Steve,

I loved mine, as I said in the original post, but I've not seen them relatively inexpensively for many years. What do they go for now?

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Steve,

I loved mine, as I said in the original post, but I've not seen them relatively inexpensively for many years. What do they go for now?

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


They seem to go for $75-$150 from what I have seen lately. I barely broke even when I sold mine recently. It was the lens I always kept on my Nikon F and I did enjoy it. But the 58mm focal length wasn't my favorite and while I liked how it rendered, it was a bit too low contrast for my taste. When I sold my F I sold it as well, keeping my F3 and 55mm f1.2 which is honestly what I reach for more often.
 
AFenvy said:
They seem to go for $75-$150 from what I have seen lately. I barely broke even when I sold mine recently. It was the lens I always kept on my Nikon F and I did enjoy it. But the 58mm focal length wasn't my favorite and while I liked how it rendered, it was a bit too low contrast for my taste. When I sold my F I sold it as well, keeping my F3 and 55mm f1.2 which is honestly what I reach for more often.
Click to expand...

Oh, bugger. I think I might have bought it off you had I known! I take your point about the drawbacks of 58mm but I suspect it may be at or close to the perfect portrait length on 35mm/full frame. As for contrast -- well, why do they make Grade 4 paper after all!

I had the 50/1.2 which I found a bit bland (then, most things are bland next to the 50/1.2 Canon and the 58/1.4) but I've never had the 55/1.2. My standard lens on my Nikon DF is however my 55/2.8 Micro Nikkor, so I have no problem with the 55mm focal length.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
......I take your point about the drawbacks of 58mm but I suspect it may be at or close to the perfect portrait length on 35mm/full frame.........
Click to expand...

A couple of years ago you mentioned that the 58mm is a great focal length for portraits. I decided to try some portraits with my ancient Canon R58/1.2 that I use on my old Canonflex. You were correct, 58mm does seem to be a natural focal length for a good portrait.

As for the R58/1.2 Canon, a most unusual lens. Wide-open, it’s actually pretty sharp in the center which grades into delightfully soft in the corners. A very unique signature which I personally like.

Jim B.
 
Mackinaw said:
A couple of years ago you mentioned that the 58mm is a great focal length for portraits. I decided to try some portraits with my ancient Canon R58/1.2 that I use on my old Canonflex. You were correct, 58mm does seem to be a natural focal length for a good portrait.

As for the R58/1.2 Canon, a most unusual lens. Wide-open, it’s actually pretty sharp in the center which grades into delightfully soft in the corners. A very unique signature which I personally like.

Jim B.
Click to expand...
Dear Jim,

Perhaps we should start a 58mm portrait thread...

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
......Perhaps we should start a 58mm portrait thread...
Click to expand...

I'm game.

Canon R58mm F1.2 at about F4 (I think). Ferrania P30 film.

P-30.jpg


Jim B.
 
"Years ago, I worked with a bloke who had been a tour bus courier. He could walk into a bar, and say "Two beers, please" in 10 languages."

That's only half the equation John. He has to say, preferably in those ten languages, "Two beers please, and my friend here is paying for them".
 
You know Roger, I got a "new" 30(?) year old Nikkor in the mail just today. (Where's that "What did you just buy" thread with a million posts...?) Anyway, it's a 55/3.5 macro AI converted Nikkor. Now I got this lens cheap, cheap (US $20-ish) because the front element has a gash in it.

So. This got me to thinking about this thread. This 55 is a "good" lens -- sharp, well-made, nice IQ, nice macro capabilities. But it's also a "bad" lens because of the defect in the front element that doesn't appear to affect image quality, you see.

Your thread can be taken two ways. So my "good, bad lens" is my particular sample of the Nikkor 55/3.5 pre-AI with the gash in the front element. A good lens that's also bad.

Wakarimasu ka?
 
Mackinaw said:
A couple of years ago you mentioned that the 58mm is a great focal length for portraits. I decided to try some portraits with my ancient Canon R58/1.2 that I use on my old Canonflex. You were correct, 58mm does seem to be a natural focal length for a good portrait.
Click to expand...

For the very small amount of portrait shooting I've done, I also found 58mm to work pretty well. In my case a Minolta Rokkor 58mm f/1.4. It holds its own nicely as a portrait lens and also does well in the street. But that's a good/good lens; we can't have that here!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top