Hi Nigel. I have a suggestion for a video. What about you talking about your life/careers/family etc. Thanks for all the videos you've made. I've really enjoyed them.

I've been following you for about 2 years and really enjoy your production. I'm 74 and started with a Leica 111frd with a 5omm f1.2 Sumicron (?) which was a beast to lean on. I have been through heaps of gear and now use Sony APSC and FF bodies (6000 & A7r) and a mix of about 25 heritage and new lenses. Nothing beats the pleasure of using finely machined gear so I use old lenses for fun and their rendering. However Sony lenses are superb and easy to use. Keep up your show! Thanks.

Hi Nigel I'm a recent convert to vintage photography, I've learnt so much from watching your videos 🙂 Got the Pentax and Miranda correct. 👍

Hi, Nigel! Thanks for your work again. That test actually totally controdicts my favorit way of testing - wide open with maybe one more stop down so you can see all the bokeh and flaws. Because as you rightly mentioned in this video, most lenses will perform almost identically stopped to f2.8 or 3.5 and then really no difference at all, just take what you have and go get some bloody pictures! Have a great day. I am currently use a apsc pergear 25 1.8 lens, new made chinese stuff, really good, but looses contrast in front of light source, this caracteristics wont be fixed by stopping down. So good expencive lens is usually needed for extremes, when ordinary lens fails. As always, really recommend you a Tamron Adaptall 2 lineup of lenses to try, they were produced till 1990s, not too expensive, still good, with caracter, at least some of them.

As suggested by another video I watched recently, GAS is just another term for 'the grass is always greener', or in other words it doesn't matter what you've got, you'll always be looking out for something better (whatever that means!). I've got to say that some lenses do have that something extra, something that may not show in direct comparisons such as this. Maybe much of that is psychological but I certainly find I enjoy using some lenses more than others, in part (but not entirely because) the images are more appealing to my eye. Of course, if you shoot a good image the chances are that the viewer won't care what kit you used to create it, but if you as the photographer feel inspired by a particular lens then you're more likely to create that image in the first place. Whether one lens is slightly sharper than another is largely inconsequential.

I just had a dark joke occur to me. The photographer's tombstone. With a large version of that sticker on your Olympus lens.

Thank you for your time in doing that -- to my eye, Lens 4 had brighter colors/mid-tones (assuming that all exposure was exactly the same) -- even if a teeny bit soft at the infinity end of the logn-focus shot. Lens 3 and 1 seemed to win on contrast. But as you pointed out -- they all are great choices!

Hello Nigel, many thanks! Last week I purcbased a Minolta MD Rokkor 1.4/50 mm - also a very nice lens with excellent built quality and decent performance. Minoltas can be had für little money, too. Bist wishes Ralf

Well said. So many people get hung up on the hardware where in fact its all down to how you use it.

Was out today taking photographs with my Sony attached to which was a Zuiko 50mm 1.4 from my old OM1. Got some good Bill Brandt style shots (B&W with high contrast). There is something about old lenses that modern lenses can't replicate.

Love your videos. Always food for thought!

Wholeheartedly agree Nigel. It doesn't matter if you get the picture you want.

I have gone full circle. . . Sold my X100V. Using the cheapest Nikon mirrorless and the cheapest vintage glass.

What didn't necessarily improve my photography was buying more modern, more expensive camera's. But I actually went from a Canon 5D3 to a Fuji XT-1, with manual Canon lenses. Because it was so light and so handsome, I took it everwhere. I would suggest: do buy new gear, be inspired. Just don't sit on it if you don't use it. Stuff you don't use, sell it. Take care of your gear so you don't lose on the trade.

I learned that all lenses are extremely sharp at or near their closest focal point. I shoot with a canon 6D, so the 6um pixels kill off any sharpness beyond that. I suggest that Smaller pixel cameras with full frame sensors can give more sharpness. Small sensors with higher resolution will also give more sharpness but not have the view of the full frame.

Hi Nigel This test has given me the idea to test my 50mm lens collection. 20 plus 50mm lenses need to be culled to two max. The Olympus lens won it for me. Another great YT vid and 👍🏻s up from me

Very interesting shootout and summary, to which I completely agree. Nevertheless Lens 1 and lens 4 were my favourites befor you disclosed it. I love my CZJ 50/1.8 and actually don't need another 50 mm (maybe one day a Takumar 50/1.4) Still would love to see the bokeh shots of all these lenses wide open to pick my favourite from these four.

I recognised 2 and 4 straight away not due to the sharpness or lack thereof but the flatness of the Takumar and the colours of the Zuiko revealed it.

Thank you for verrrymuch motivation! Love this kinde of comper videos.

Couldn't discern photo/lens with the exception of the Olympus lens and photos, Olympus has a very distinct image

any 50 mm pentax is a fine lens. i have 4 of them. don't ask. the best one is the radioactive takumar.

Nigel Simply is the Rock star of Vintage ...he also could read the phonebook and we would be captivated ...how much more when he talks about lenses ...Cheers Sir ...hope you are well

Smashing episode today, and very interesting conclusions. I tried to rate them using a simple 1,2,3,4 (with 1 being best) for Close Up, Sharpness, and infinity. I also added my own category, Bokeh, because who doesn't like a bit of blur? So, with the lowest points being the better lens here are my ratings:- 1st. 6 points Olympus 2nd 7 points Miranda Joint 3rd 8 points CZJ and Pentax. Now, this is all subjective, of course, and everyone will have a different viewpoint. My Bokeh ranking is:- 1st Miranda 2nd Pentax 3rd Olympus 4th CZJ This surprised me, the £10 Miranda backs up what you say in the summary, there's a hair's difference between a lens costing £200 and one costing £10 - but this is only in general, walk about, shooting. I wonder if anyone else agrees with my findings, probably not, as this is all in the eye of the beholder. 10 out of 10 for an interesting topic, now I'm going to read the rest of the comments (I purposely refrained from reading them until I posted this) George

"A dose of professionalism in every frame!" That says it all. Keep up the great work!

Great video again. I love using and getting results from old kit and think the differences between the lenses were marginal. So many people get hung up on the equipment performance when the greatest limiting factor is the user. As you said at the end just get out and use it.

The Pentax did a good job I am still building my collection something to look into.I own two modern lenses but the rest of my lens collection is vintage yashica Konica and Pentax it’s works fine with my fujifilm xt4 great video

My guess was: 1) Miranda 2) Pentax 3) Zeiss 4) Olympus. The Oly was my favourite and the Zeiss lens did not impress me.

That wallpaper

Another excellent and interesting video…….and that wallpaper Wow !

I think photography is wasting money unless you're making money on it

Thanks for all your videos. You are a great inspiration! thanks from Argentina !!!

Interesting. I guessed the best and worst (cheapest and dearest) correctly but couldn't separate the other two. However I do a lot of vintage lens testing (for my own amusement) on the 51mp Fuji GFX and there are other factors to consider? Firstly, lenses may compare sharpness wise in the centre of an image but could differ wildly on edge sharpness, so it depends on what type of photography you're doing? Portraits for example don't normally require edge sharpness whereas landscape images do, so if you're a landscape photographer you need an edge to edge sharp lens (which typically is a more expensive one). When a landscape photographer goes to the trouble of travelling to a specific location on a day when the light is right, there's nothing more frustrating than discovering your trees or mountains are all fuzzy at the edges of the image? Secondly, 50mm lenses (in 35mm format) are usually pretty good because they sold in millions as they were the "kit" lens of their day, and manufacturers wanted to make sure the lens that is the introduction to their system doesn't turn people off that system? Other focal lengths and especially wide angles are usually where you "get what you pay for". Just my two cents worth.

Amazing video! Really got me thinking.

And now you're telling me !!!

I'm a tad guilty of buying equipment I enjoy the "feel" of over purely specs. I generally could care less about lab tests and focus more on if I enjoy using it in real world applications and get back results I find adequate. In my case, I've sold down to 4 digital camera bodies: two MFT (E-M1.III/GX85) and two Pentax, an APS-C KP and Full frame K-1.II. My rule I tried to put in place was two bodies only for digital, so I sold my original KP I mostly shelfed and picked up the E-M1.III to go with my GX85 to share MFT lenses. While I can adapt my larger than it should be Pentax collection to my MFT bodies just fine, and I have, the crop factor kind of turns a standard 50mm 1.4 Pentax lens, a solid lens, into a 100mm mini telephoto with old coatings (the crop cuts all the "feeling" of the older lens that exist around the corners leaving a mostly sharp lens with weaker coatings/contrast). I picked up another KP (made 200 overall between buying/selling 2, not the worst) that has weathering form use in terms of paint wear but works perfect and still feels great. Not long after I got another worn but great working body with a K-1.II for full native K-mount 35mm full frame look. Day to day I use the E-M1.III the most probably but the GX85 doesn't collect dust since I offered it to my mother with a 12-60 PanaLeica and a 20mm pancake style (24-120 and 40mm FF equiv) when she wanted to get back into taking pictures for the first time since shooting film 30 years ago.

Well, what a surprise. I definitely have got my guesses wrong. That being said, the Pancolar is in my opinion the best performer here, which pleases me since it's also the only lens out of your set that I own. I wouldn't mind if you compared a few more lenses like this. Cheers!

Very very nice and informative épisode . Merci Mr Zenography

Hi and thanks for a fun and good video! When I looked at the photos I favored number 3, which turned out to be the Miranda. :) Cheers!

Nice Spinal tap reference there Zen ;-)

Nicely presented test ..... opted for number 3 ..... pleasantly surprised to learn that it was the Miranda!

You got me thinking, Nigel. Going to get a Nikon Z5 and mount all those cheap vintage lenses since it's the shortest flange distance.

Hi Nigel, I wonder if you miss focused on lens number 3 or it's infinity was off during the landscape shots. It seemed like the grassy field is extremely sharp. In comparison to all the other lenses, the field is out of focus.

I have a handful of 50s that I want to stack up against each other soon. Nice video! I agree. Cheap lenses generally do the job.

Hi Nigel, I bought a very nice lens (a Panagor, 200 mm 3.5) the other day on a thrift shop but unfortunately found lately that it has fungus on it (not watched probably when I bought it😁). Anyways, can I have that cleaned? Hope you can advise me. Thx!

Great one. Thanks 🙂👋

Absolutely spot-on assessment! I can't think of a single 50mm (ish) lens that has disappointed me, though I've never tried a Domiplan and I've heard mixed opinions on that one. I think the only prime lens that disappointed me was the CZJ 29mm 2.8 - I have two and I'm convinced they are both faulted and extremely bad apart from the very centre at apertures wider than 5.6. Great stuff.

I would've liked to see a 50mm f2.8 Tessar in the comparison, East or West German.

All four had different personalities. Each had a sweet spot for a different shot, but I did not find "one to rule them all". All are fantastic lenses I think. We are really way too much in our heads when we over-complicate out lens choices. (I certainly do, although I try not to....) On the weekend I went on a little trip, and I decided I will take only one lens with me. Took me quite a while to decide on one... (the Super Takumar 50mm ; )... the whole time I had second thoughts that I should have brought more lenses with me. Today, downloading the photos and looking at them I'm glad I only took a single lens. Huge thumbs up for your dinosaur wallpaper!! 👍👍🎶

I love it; I picked the Miranda! Great video, thanks!

To be honest I couldn't see much difference between lenses 1,2 and 3. I felt lens no.4 had a bit more sharpness, a bit more clarity and for that reason I chose no.4 as my favourite. I didn't know it was the Olympus until you did the big reveal. At the end of the day it was very close and all of the lenses did a good job.

Hello, I have a question because I have a problem, first I’m old, second I cant go outside much,, I want to do macro indoors, I have a spinal deformity that just wants to end my hobby, I cant turn my head, also Im stooped forward at the waste 90 degrees so I only see the ground, I use a wheelchair and I own a Nikon 5000 because if the screen flopping out, for me thats a God send, but I am not sure if I should buy a macro lense for It say $800 or should I get a more modern unit, please if you could suggest, now my Nikon 5000 is mint still, bought it brand new, last model they used crystal in?

I thought the Jena was 2, I was right on the Miranda ja.

yah, the more manual lenses i use, the most important thing for me is 1: lens condition (biggest factor on image quality output) 2: mount (for ease of addaptation) 3: focal length 4: minimal focus distance 5: widest aperture (for all them artsy fun) not the price

Thats really interesting. The olympus was my favorite. Olympus has always been my favorite for old glass. Maybe the best lens entirly personal? Thank for a good vid.

Excellent video

how do your miranda perform in lowlight, i skipped my miranda because it optically fall all apart both sharpness and colors

Hi there meistro! I was wondering if you could give me a hand, what are you top 3 mid-range zooms (30-100 area) that are full of character and affordable? Thanks :)

Hello, love your videos! Please can you help me? I have a Fuji XT-1 and need a general purpose lens ( A walk about type one) and the type of adaptor to go with it many thanks, not too expensive though. Thanks, Mike.

Would love to know where one purchases the mounts for the 35mm Zuiko lenses to the Panasonic G 80 ?

Great vid

I've only got three lenses that I use regularly, an Asahi 50mm f2, a Hanimex 75-150mm f3.9 and a Vivitar 28-70mm f3.5. As far as I can tell, they're all at least decent at what they do, and I've got sharp images out of all of them. People can buy these more expensive lenses, but I don't think there's anything wrong with (reasonably) cheap lenses, especially if they produce images of similar quality to each other.

thanks for this, love the blind comparisons.

A cheaper lens will probably not do just as well. The advance in lens coatings have reduced flare. That is my primary concern. I use Nikon AFSG lenses that are all F1.8. I have one Helios 44-3. I have various filters for my Nikon lenses; fogs, diffusion, and color effects.

Most prime lenses are sharp at some point but I’ve used some cheap cheap zoom canon lens they were sharp as soft cheese and contrast of black Labrador

I picked up a nice condition Pentax 55 mm f2 on eBay for £45. It came attached to an equally nice Fujica st 605.

Love the wallpaper at Zenography World HQ!!!

I enjoy this concept of hobography very much🙏

Well done.

Your jena looks like its either beyond or before real infinity. I own both olympus 50mm f1.2 and f1.8(MC version) both amazing, but the f1.2 is way better built, focus more precise and if u pair an f1.2 lens with an old slr viewfinder like the om2 it becomes a way better experience than the f1.8. Still the size, sharpness of the f1.8 wide open in the center of the little zuiko is special

Thank you very much sir. 🙏❤️🌹👌👍💐

Thank you for this video - I really enjoy watching you noodle around with these antique lenses. You're BAD for my (limited) budget, even when you're advocating inexpensive lenses - they seem to be quite a bit more expensive here in the States. This one really had me thinking. I think you are right, in that almost any lens, at a moderate aperture, is capable of taking a sharp photo. But, that's a fairly low bar. The extra speed that lets me separate the subject from the background is often priceless. I have nowhere near your level of experience with a sheer number of antique and modern lenses, but I too have experience with making iffy lenses perform, from back when I had NO money, little knowledge, and a desire to shoot pictures. I've owned for 40 years an incredibly bad Sigma 39-80 zoom - it's just SOFT at each end of the zoom, especially wide open. But, at a slightly smaller aperture, in the middle of the range, it's sharp enough to give me all the detail my 30 mp camera sensor can handle. So, I can walk down the street with it, and, if I know its limits, can get very decent shots. But, I'm limited to the "meat" of the range. If I need to open it up, or to squeeze out a little more length, it's going to let me down. As to the lenses you looked at here, I couldn't tolerate any frames from the Miranda lens - the all looked too soft for me to work with, even at the crappy resolution in a video. I wonder if another example would be better? That just seemed off. Of all the photos in this video, two stood out to me as just more engaging - though to be clear, I don't know what light shifts occurred while you were changing lenses. I also don't know whether you had the same focus point in all the horizon shots - whether it was the houses or the towers on the horizon. 1) the close-up of the post with the Carl Zeiss - it just has more depth - it's more interesting. And 2) the horizon shot with the Olympus - it just seemed to hold the detail better and to offer a delicate kind of color separation. So, for what it's worth, I'd run, not walk, to the Carl Zeiss after seeing your video. Currently, I'm playing with a few - a Canon FD f1.2 55mm (very "dreamy" wide open - lots of flare/artifacts - pleasing results, though - rock solid from f1.8 and down), a 7artisans f1.05 50mm (just stunning for the money), and a Helios 44-2 f2 58mm. I love all of them - and as you would probably point out, as soon as you get out to f2.8 or slower, you might as well roll a die to pick one - the results are going to differ a little, but they'll ALL be darned nice. I should note that I'll take the bokeh on any of these three over my Canon RF f1.8 50mm ANY day or time. As time goes by, it's the 7Artisans lens that spends the most time on my camera, for what it's worth.

Opinion on M42 to M42 adaptable helicoid please at some point Nigel ta mate!!

I'm waiting for your video where you say, "spend *all* your money on camera stuff." I'm sure we'd all listen 👂 😃 📸

My collection of Contax/Classic Zeiss lenses increases. I love my mirrorless camera. When i pick up the kit 24-50 RF lens, I feel disgust 😅

i picked #4 as my favourite

Great video. I will go now and buy the Sony 50 f1.2 😅

Anyone who have any idea how much a good condition Zenit 10 goes for?

You compared lenses that are divergent in price; but nut quality. All four of the contenders are very good lenses. Throw an Albinar or one of the off brands, and you will see a difference.

lovely video. I will try to find the middle way

The lens you're in love with is this: Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar electric 1.8/50 MC. €100 is a good price?

Lenses without an aperture ring are not useable in adaptor mode?

You need more 50mm lenses bro Great video

I did guess right- but it was guessing; I didn't base it on real knowledge. I had the Zuiko while I had my Olympus OM10 and I have the Pentax 1.8 version. But there wasn't much to separate these.

Same thing with the PC tech. People spend money on gear, whereas you can get used Thinkpad for laughable 300 $ with core i7. And it can browse, play, program - whatever you need.

Thanks.

0 for 4. But CZJ looks the best after the reveal. But by so small of a difference as to be not significant. I was most surprised that the Olympus colors were so muted. I have a lot of Canon FD and 4 Olympus OM mount film era lenses, the OM 28mm f3.5 and OM 135mm f3.5 lenses have such nice colors. The 50mm f1.8 and the 35 f2.8 are nice too, all but the 35 were dirt cheap

Sharpness isn't everything when it comes to lenses. Since I started shooting with vintage (1970s) manual Pentax M lenses, I much prefer the images I can get from them to the ones I was getting with my modern autofocus and stabilised Canon lens - which is also much bigger and heavier - but then I seem to have a preference for slightly softer and less contrasty images.

Interesting!

Thank you! Photography is a "technical" field, i.e. based on the technical properties of the equipment - it's obvious. But photography is also a field of art, and this is based on emotions, impressions, moods, hidden and symbolically expressed content, etc etc... Then the optical quality is important as long as it impresses the artistic values of the images. Perfect technique cannot replace the sensitivity of the photographer. Perfect technique is a tool, but a technically perfect photo doesn't have to be a good photo in terms of emotion and content. That's why I try to focus on the image, not the hardware. Regards

But the A7 is an expensive camera correct? Is it worth the money? Please advise? Would you recommend it or?

They were real close, but I was able to guess the leica. It really is great glass. Just wish I could afford one!

I love the idea of using old, fine MF lenses on our mirrorless cameras...in theory. In my case, it's not of much use. For one thing, my early M43 camera has such a coarse, crappy EVF, that manual focusing is hit and miss. Also, most of the old Nikkors I have will translate into telephotos, taking the crop factor into effect. I have one 35mm that will pass for a normal. If you have a newer mirrorless with a good EVF and perhaps even full frame-like the Sony you're using-then it's definitely an approach worth trying.

I don't think using landscape was the best choice for the comparison. I would recommend something in-town like storefronts, vehicles or people. That would make the comparison more fruitful.

i picked nr.3 on all tests for my fav shots^^

i called the olympus No4 i knew it tack sharp all day long and still the sharpest lenses made today.

I have a Fuji XT5 and I have been using cheaper but impressive Viltrox lenses.

I think lens 3 looked pretty good.

Yes I guessed right. 1 and 4 was sharper and better contrast

I really liked the format of this video. Comparing the 4 lenses with the same shot. Ranking them 1-4 was interesting for me. LOL Much like tasing a whiskey flight - all are good and ranking them 1st to 4th is part of the process of realizing the small differences ,and enjoying them all.

definitely the Helios 44-2, the only and one :)