Choosing Manual Focus Lenses - Part 2

Minolta 24mm, 35mm, 58mm, 100mm, & 135mm MC & MD Rokkors

    Welcome to Part 2 of Choosing Manual Focus Lenses. We will now delve deeper into the categories of focal lengths and the differences between them. As in the previous post, we will be looking at this in terms of vintage 35mm format manual focus (MF) lenses, but you can use the principles for more modern glass and other formats. WARNING - There may some numbers involved! (I'll try to control myself ;-))  

  Fun With Focal Lengths

    In 35mm format: "Normal" lenses range from 40 - 58mm (with 50mm being by far the most common and was the basic kit lens offered with SLRs for years); Wide-angles go from about 28 - 35mm; Extreme wide angles from 15 - 25mm; Ultra-wide angles are less than 15mm; Telephotos from 65 - 300mm; and Super Telephotos are greater than 300mm. All of these categories are approximate, but you get the general idea. We will look at single focal-lengths and, in the next article, discuss how zooms combine several focal lengths into one lens and the advantages/disadvantages of doing so.

   Normal Lenses (40 - 58mm)

• 50mm - We will start with the most common focal length, the ubiquitous 50. There were two basic varieties, delineated by maximum aperture. "Fast" 50s had a max. aperture of at least f/1.4 (some were a half-stop faster at f/1.2, and in a completely different price bracket :-)) and "slow" 50s from f/1.7 - f/2. One of the elemental rules of lens cost is that more aperture = more money, all else being equal. "Slow" 50s were the standard kit lens for most SLRs from the late-1950s to the mid-'80s. Higher-end models sometimes offered a 50/1.4 as their kit lens. By the time you closed either model down to f/4, resolution and sharpness were usually a wash. Maximum aperture was for low-light emergency use only, as things like veiling flare and low contrast took their toll. However, stopping down to f/2 or 2.8 often brought a considerable improvement. Nowadays, in the used market, a 50/1.4 will generally be 1.5 to 2 times more expensive than its slower counterpart. But there are other factors in making a decision between the two: the way the faster lens "draws" or "renders" backgrounds or foregrounds will usually vary considerably from the slower lens and you may find one or the other preferable. Go with the one that looks better to your eyes. 50s are still the least expensive lenses to buy and are worth trying out. Even if you end up not liking the perspective/framing, rendering, etc., you can send it down the road and not take much, if any, of a loss on it. They often come with a body to boot and that is generally the most cost-effective way to get one. Cost: $30 to $100 USD ($300 to $700 USD for most f/1.2s;). Verdict: An excellent starting point for your lens set if the "normal" perspective agrees with you.  

• 55 & 58mm - When SLRs came on the scene most existing 35mm-format lenses had been designed with rangefinders in mind. Adding the mirror box to the front of a camera had the effect of moving the rear of the lens further away from the film plane. This required redesigning the optical path of lenses to allow them to focus at infinity. Early on, the easiest thing to do was just bump the focal length a few millimeters to bring the focus node forward. So the late-'50s and early-'60s saw a bunch of 55 & 58mm lenses introduced while the lens makers worked on their 50mm designs. Most 58s were f/1.4 or f/1.2 and most 55s were f/1.7 - f/2 although there were a few 55/1.2s. Some excellent lenses can be had in these focal lengths. There are more famous (and expensive) optics like the Minolta MC Rokkor 58/1.2, Canon 55/1.2 S.S.C. Aspherical, and the Nikkor 58/1.2 Noct. (nocturnal, especially designed for astrophotography), but there are some lesser known, and very economical lenses such as the Asahi (Pentax) 55/1.8 & /2 Takumars, and Minolta 55/1.7 & /2 Rokkors that are excellent little lenses. Though the difference in focal length is a small one, some people find themselves drawn to these slightly longer normal lenses. Another feature is a bump in viewfinder magnification over a 50mm when a 55 or 58mm is used, which can make focusing a bit easier. Cost: The same range as the 50s (excepting the aspherical 1.2s which can punch into the $3500 USD range. Verdict: The same as the 50s :-).

• 40 & 45mm - These focal lengths are less common than the 50s and were generally used for what were known as "pancake" lenses, very compact optics that looked like a flattened (pancaked) 50mm. Generally found with f/2 or f/2.8 maximum apertures, they sometimes gave up a touch of image quality and had a longer minimum focusing distance than the 50s. Two notable exceptions were the Konica AR 40/1.8 which focused to 0.45m/18 inches (the same as contemporary 50s), and the Olympus OM Zuiko 40/2, introduced in the mid-'80s, which focused as close as the standard 28 & 35mm wide angles (0.3m/12 inches), and is a somewhat rare, and therefore, overpriced piece of glass (it originally sold for less than a 50/1.4). Cost: $25 to $600 (cough, cough) USD. Verdict: If you absolutely have to have the most compact optics designed for your SLR or you just can't get enough of the 40 or 45mm perspective or the particular look of a certain lens, and the 50s just leave you cold, give one of these a try. Or you may just want to drop down to a 35, and bypass the 40/45s altogether.

   Moderate Wide Angle Lenses (28 - 35mm)

• 35mm - Prior to the 1970s if someone referred to a wide angle, 9 chances out of 10 they were talking about a 35mm lens. Long used by photojournalists when their 50s couldn't fit all they wanted in the frame, the 35 was a workhorse from the heyday of the rangefinders well into the '70s. It was also economical to obtain and many photogs found that they preferred its perspective to that of the 50, and so it was often the second lens purchased and the one they used the most. Available in a wide range of apertures (some manufacturers had up to three versions: f/1.4, f/2ish, f/2.8, f/3.5, or /4), and physical sizes, there are no shortage of options for the vintage SLR user to choose from. As always, as max. aperture numbers drop, prices go up. It is wise to compare a 35 with a 28mm as there is just as wide a variety of options in that focal length and most people find that they will prefer one perspective/framing combination to the other. Doing so will also have an effect on your choices when it comes to super wide angles. We'll get into that more later on. Cost: $75 to $400 USD. Verdict: One of the most versatile focal lengths, but make sure that its perspective fits your eye (which can be said for any focal length). The f/2.8s and 3.5s pack a lot of punch into a smaller, inexpensive package.

• 28mm - Since the mid-'70s this has become the standard wide angle focal length. Not coincidentally, the 28mm field of view (FOV) of 74 degrees has been adopted as the de facto smartphone value due to its versatility. If you are just getting into 35mm SLRs and have been using your smartphone as your primary camera, a 28mm lens will probably feel very comfortable to you when it comes to composing. Cost: The same as the 35s. Verdict: This will be one of the most important choices you make when it comes to a lens set, because selecting a 28 or not will impact your choice(s) of super wide angles and as noted above, whether you choose a 35 or not. Perhaps even more versatile than the 35, but it depends on your preferences and applications. 

• 30mm - A very rare focal length for 35mm film, this is just what it sounds like, a compromise between 28 and 35mm. That is not a bad thing, and you may find that it suits you to a T. However, I am only aware of a 30/2.8 offered by Pentax in the mid-'70s among the Japanese lens makers. Its relative rarity and reputation come at something of a cost, though not nearly as steep as the Olympus 40/2.8. Cost: $250 to $300 USD. Verdict: If you are a Pentax shooter, you have one more option to consider than users of other brands ;-).

   Extreme Wide Angle Lenses (15 - 25mm)

• 24 & 25mm - For some photographers, 24mm is where real wide angles start. Even though it is only 4mm shorter than a 28, the change in perspective is noticeable. This is where the earlier point about your possible preference for the 28mm perspective impacting your other lens choices comes home to roost. A 28mm user may well feel that a 20/21mm fits their lens set better as an extreme wide angle than a 24, whereas those who prefer a 35mm may find the 24 a more natural progression. This is by no means a hard and fast rule, but a general observation. There are not quite as many aperture options in the 24 - 25 mm lineup, but every manufacturer made at least an f/2.8 or f/3.5 version, with a smattering of f/2s and an f/1.4 from Canon (at a fairly steep $700 USD on average) thrown in. Cost: $125 to $700 USD. Verdict: A 24mm can often be the bottom limit of a lens set. Going wider than that means more money, and more effort and practice to learn how to properly utilize the perspective and FOV offered. 

• 20 & 21mm - Whatever a 24 or 25 gives you, a 20 or 21 gives you MORE of it :-). Whether you actually need more, as noted above, will take some serious pondering. It takes a fair bit of skill to manage the foreground/background relationship effectively with such focal lengths and that usually comes with experience gleaned from using less extreme wide angles. So, a 20 or 21mm most likely will not be at the top of your "lenses to get first" list. You will have plenty of time to grow into them (and save up the money for one). Actually, prices for such lenses, while not exactly bargain basement, do not get as extreme as some of the other examples already cited. There are a couple of reasons for this: 1) max. apertures topped out at f/2 in the MF era, with the vast majority coming in at f/2.8 - f/4 as f/1.4s simply were not feasible technologically and size-wise in remotely affordable form, and 2) demand was never as high as we are starting to get into more specialized uses for such lenses. You also have to be prepared to deal with more barrel distortion and field curvature as these aberrations get harder to correct optically the wider you go. Cost: $300 to $750 USD. Verdict: Will do the job if you need them, but carefully weigh your options and needs. 

• 15 - 18mm - It took until the mid-'70s for these lenses to appear in some (small) quantity. They were pushing the limits of the optical engineering of the day. While most performed very well in the center, corners trailed behind, with field curvature and barrel distortion being even more noticeable than on the 20mms. These focal lengths were even more specialized in their application and were produced in far smaller quantities than the 20 - 24mm optics. Apertures were generally in the f/3.5 to f/4 range. Cost: $250 - $3000 USD (that is not a typo, most are less than $600) USD. Verdict: If you are just starting out, these lenses should probably be lower on your list, as there are more versatile optics offering greater value.   

   Ultra-Wide Angle Lenses (Less than 15mm)

• 14mm - In 1982, Canon introduced the first 14mm rectilinear lens, and with an f/2.8 max aperture to boot. Those are some impressive specifications, even today. Apart from the Carl Zeiss Contax T* 15/3.5 and the Pentax 15/3.5 of the same basic design, no other manufacturer came even close until Nikon brought out an auto focus 14/2.8 in 2000. When compared to the Zeiss on price alone, the Canon and Pentax are a steal at around $1000 - $1500 USD versus $3000 for the Zeiss ;-). Verdict: Same as the 15 - 18mms. 

• 13mm - Nikon had Canon beat by a millimeter with the widest-angle rectilinear prime lens ever built (so far), the "holy grail" 13/5.6 of 1976. It was a built-to-order lens, with about 350 made over a 23-year period. It was a $20,000 lens new, and still pulls in $25,000 + (in today's inflationary dollars) used. Verdict: This was perhaps the greatest statement of Nikon's lens-making capability at the time, and is still a fascinating lens. However, it is beyond the reach of most mortal photographers. If you find one of these in Grandpa's attic, watch out during the next thunderstorm that comes along ;-).

   Moderate Telephotos (85 - 135mm)

• 85 - 90mm - Another couple of focal lengths from the rangefinder era, these have long been favored for portraits due to: their mild compression effect that is very flattering to facial features, a pleasant working distance, and little to zero distortion. They also make excellent all-around lenses, being very usable for many applications. Similar to the 28mm versus 35mm decision, most people find that they prefer one or the other when it comes to the 85mm versus the 100 - 105mms. So it would be wise to compare both before deciding on one or the other. 85s tend to be more popular and so bring higher prices in general than the 100 -105s. Apertures ranged from f/1.2 - f/2.8, with a few soft-focus options (especially aimed at portraitists in the late-'70s). Cost: $130 - 2,300 USD (Zeiss Contax strikes again with their 85/1.2). Verdict: Lots of choice to meet a wide range of budgets, many photographers will bypass a normal lens for a 28/85 or 35/85 combo as their primary set. An all -time classic focal length.   

• 100 - 105mm - An often-overlooked focal length, due to the popularity of the 85s. But don't quickly dismiss them, especially if you like 50mms. They make a nice jump from the normal lenses as far as perspective, and are just as versatile as an 85. Again, it will come down to your preference for framing/perspective. A bonus is that they are often less expensive to obtain than an equivalent max. aperture 85. Apertures ranged from f/1.8 to f/3.5 during the MF era, with f/2.8, f/2.5, and f/2 being the most popular. Cost: $80 - $700 USD. Verdict: Some of the best bang for your medium telephoto bucks can be found in these focal lengths if they work with your eye. 

• 120 - 150mm - The 135mm focal length is the most familiar in this range and is generally considered as the maximum of the "portrait" lengths. 135s were the basic telephoto for most 35mm photographers until the mid-'70s and the rise of the first decent telephoto zooms. While available in apertures from f/4 up to f/1.8, by far the two most common versions were the f/3.5s and f/2.8s. 135s were a favorite focal length of the aftermarket manufacturers. OEMs can often be had for $50 to $70 USD and sometimes even less for the 3.5s. The 135s are a classic example of the relationship between size/weight and maximum aperture increasing ever more with focal length. For instance, with a 35/2 versus a 35/2.8, length may only grow by 5mm or a bit more and weight by 30 or 40 grams, whereas with a 135/2 versus a 2.8 we are talking a 20% increase in diameter and often double the weight. This is due mainly to the much larger pieces of glass required to get that one-stop increase in light-gathering capability. Thus, the 135/2s and 1.8s were much rarer and are much more expensive, even today. A 135 is an appreciable step up from an 85, but might not be enough of a jump from a 100 or 105, in terms of perspective/framing. Pentax made 120/2.8 and 150/4 lenses in M42 screwmount, K, and M versions.The 150s are a bit rarer than than the 120s. If you are a Pentax user, you may find one or the other preferable to the 135s. Their relative rarity does push prices a bit higher than those for 135s, but they are still quite reasonable if they fit your needs. Cost: $50 to $1000 USD. Verdict: If the focal length works for you, the f/2.8s are a steal at current values and many of the f/3.5s, especially from the late-'70s and early-'80s are very compact and light while offering excellent performance. 

   Standard Telephotos (180 - 300mm)

• 180 - 200mm - Right from the get go, the Japanese SLR manufacturers took advantage of the SLR format to use telephotos with a greater focal length than 135mm (the limit of rangefinders without the use of a clunky add-on reflex box) and so 200mm lenses have been available since the late-1950s. It took until the '70s, however, for 200mm primes to really start pushing the 135s into the background. Their reign was short-lived as the first decent 2.5 - 3x telephoto zooms soon did unto the moderate-aperture 200s as they had done unto the 135s. The last stand for the 200s was in the large-aperture category (f/2.8 and wider), with Nikon and Canon offering super-speed f/2 and f/1.8 versions towards the end of the MF era. The mainstays of the 200 lineup, however, were the f/3.5 to f/4.5 models, which offered a nice balance of size, weight, and performance at affordable prices for many enthusiasts at the time. And today, they are even more affordable, being overlooked by many in favor of said zooms. So why would you even consider a 200 prime? Here are a few things to consider: 1) if you tend to mostly use the long end of a 70 or 80-200 zoom, you can likely reduce size and weight (by as much as 300 grams) by going with a straight 200, 2) almost all of such vintage zooms are not at their best optically at the 200 end and often do not reach a true 200mm focal length (it is often in the range of 180mm, which is not the end of the world, but is a loss, nonetheless), 3) by the mid-70s, most manufacturers had refined their "slow" (f/4ish) 200s to such a degree that they could be comfortably used wide-open with excellent results. Most zooms required stopping-down to compete optically. Cost: $50 to $2000 USD. Verdict: 200mm is the usual cut-off for a basic lens set. If you regularly use a variety of focal lengths in the 70-210mm range, you might be better off with a zoom. But if 180 or 200 hits your sweet spot, you can gets some amazing results for less than $100 USD with a 200/4. 

• 250 - 300mm - This will mostly deal with 300s as only Olympus offered a 250mm lens (with an f/2 aperture, no less!) at the end of the MF era. While the 300mm focal length was available from the early days of the Japanese SLR era, they were rare, expensive, bulky, and frankly, not the greatest performers even with moderate apertures. It was not until the adoption of fluorite elements by Pentax in 1968 and Canon in 1969 and extremely low-dispersion (ED) glass by Nikon in 1972 that the 300s really began to show their stuff. As focal length grows past 200mm, chromatic aberration becomes more and more prevalent, eroding image quality. If you are seriously considering lenses in this category, I would highly recommend getting one with fluorite or ED glass. Once you get to the level of 300s, size and weight begin to climb exponentially. A basic 300/4.5 will weigh over twice as much as an equivalent 200/4. You really have to need the extra focal length to justify the extra bulk and weight. Also, you will need to use a stout tripod collar that mounts to the lens to get the best results. A 300/2.8 again doubles the weight over an f/4.5 - f/4 model. Cost: $300 to $1000 + USD. Verdict: Careful analysis is required when you are thinking about 300mm + lenses. You are going to need a stout tripod (more weight :-)) to get the most out of such lenses. Sports and Wildlife were the genres of choice and such MF lenses require a good deal of skill to use in such situations. You do not hear pros who shoot in such genres today wishing that they could go back to film and MF-only for a reason ;-).

   Super Telephotos (350 - 2000mm)

• Everything that was said about the 300mms times ten. These are very specialized lenses that don't come cheap. They are definitely not basic components of a lens set ;-). Cost: $500 to $3500 USD. Verdict: See 300mm verdict and multiply by 10 ;-).

  Coming Up

    In Part 3 we will the advantages and disadvantages of zooms and how these can impact your lens selections.