Three lens kit

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Sep 23, 2015.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    As I get older I find that I am less interested in acquiring new stuff than ever before. In fact my wife's recent bout with breast cancer and being a 14 year cancer survivor has really served to remind me that the things that bring me greatest joy aren't the things that I own but the experiences I have had with those I love.

    With that in mind I was looking at my pile of lenses and realized that while I do appreciate them as objects the vast majority get used very little and if I am perfectly honest with myself I have to admit that I could have only one or two lenses (maybe three) and be just as happy as I am with fifteen or twenty lenses. In fact, I would probably be happier because it would be less to think about.

    So if I had to pick one or two lenses what would I pick?

    Well, with the lenses I have:

    Minolta MC 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 100/2.5, 135/2.8, MD 35-70, 70-210, 35-105 and 24/2.8
    Nikon AiS 28/2
    Super Takumar 35/3.5
    Konica 40/1.8
    Olympus OM 28/3.5, 50/1.8, 50/1.4, 100/2.8
    Vivitar (Komine) 28/2 close focus, 70-210

    When it comes to choosing which lens, I could be happy with any number of them as I am not terribly picky. They all have something to recommend them or I wouldn't have bought them in the first place.

    So which would you choose? I know what I would pick (probably).
     
  2. tjdean01

    tjdean01 TalkEmount Regular

    37
    Jan 14, 2015
    Interesting thread. I have a good 30 lenses and would like to get it down to around 5 m4/3s lenses, 10 adapted lenses I can use for either system, and the 28-70 and Batis 85 for the A7.

    I have some of the lenses you do. And I'm kind of thinking to use nothing but the Vivitar 28/2 and Canon 85/1.8 (until I get the Batis 85) for the A7. Anyway, for you, IMO, I'd do the following:

    Vivitar 28/2 - I'd pick this over the 24/2.8 because 24 is kind of too wide on full frame and plus f2.0 is nice in situations.

    Konica 40/1.8 - This is tiny, not worth more than $20, and pretty good at F2.8 and up. Plus f2.8 is still faster than the f3.5 of the Takumar.

    50: Whichever one you like best.

    And then a 100 and/or a 135. That's 4 lenses, but that's fine :)
     
  3. soeren

    soeren TalkEmount Top Veteran

    658
    Dec 12, 2014
    N├Žstved, Denmark
    Soeren
    I like the "One stop" approach to focal lenght and don't find the 24mm to wide at all on full frame especially if it's one with close focus abilities. I personally find the 28mm to boring so my long lastning 3 lens kit is 24mm(actually now its the 25mm zeiss), 50mm and 105mm.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. RnR

    RnR TalkEmount Regular

    29
    Jul 23, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse
    Been having the same issue. A stack of Konica's, and a good handful of Nikons and Contax Zeiss. The problem is that I don't have a full frame camera as yet, so the relative lens qualities are somewhat unknown atm.

    As for your list, the Nikon 28mm f2 is kinda special - so a hard choice between it and the Komine. The MD 35-70 is also pretty special...

    Nikon 28/2, Konica 40/1.8, OM 50mm/1.4, Minolta 100/2.5? If you really only want two, keep the 28 and 100.
     
  5. jai

    jai TalkEmount Top Veteran

    589
    Feb 4, 2013
    I would make sure I held onto at least MC 50/1.4, MD 35-70 and 24/2.8. I am a big fan of those 3.

    And then, since you have so much on 1 mount, I'd get a speedbooster (unless you want to go full frame).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    I like the idea of a single mount. It's tough because I have a number of these l ensues that I consider "special". The Nikon 28/2, MD 35-70/3.5 and the MC 100/2.5 are just a few. I tend to like to get close to my subjects so the 35-70, 35-105 (both with 1:4 closeup) Nikon 28/2 and the Komine 28/2 fall into that camp but I am finding more and more that I can do the same with a 100 and it's actually a bit easier.

    As it stands right now the three lens kit I would likely choose is the MD 24/2.8, MC 50/1.4 and 100/2.5 (probably my single favorite lens in terms of IQ). I would get a single mount, they are all color matched and give me way more than I would ever really need.

    Now if my priority was a compact kit...OM 28/3.5, Konica 40/2.8 and OM 100/2.8 would fit the bill nicely. Even swapping out the OM 50/1.4 for the Konica wouldn't add that much more size wise.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  7. jai

    jai TalkEmount Top Veteran

    589
    Feb 4, 2013
    There are times having a zoom is handy, and I use my 35-70 for this. Otherwise I like a set of primes.

    I think getting down to 3 lenses is a little unrealistic, but I think you could probably sell half of what you have and still have a good collection.
     
  8. RnR

    RnR TalkEmount Regular

    29
    Jul 23, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse
    What about picking 2-3 lenses for each usage?

    Landscape/Nature: MD 24, 35-70, 70-210
    Portrait: MD 50/1.4, 100/2.5
    Walkabout: V 28 (MD mount?)
    Lowlight: V 28, MD 50/1.4

    Then you don't really have a choice when you go and do your photography. The choice has already been made. And yeah, getting down to one mount would be interesting if you have ever thought about a focal reducer.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. roundball

    roundball TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Oct 8, 2013
    USA
    Varying distances are the unknown wildcard with such a thought about categories of course, so depending on that, my choices would be among the following Canon FDn lenses:

    Landscape/Nature:
    24-35/3.5-L, 35/105/3.5, 80-200/4.0-L, 300/4.0-L, 400/4.5
    Portrait:
    50/1.4, 85/1.8, 70-150/4.5
    Walkabout:
    35-105/3.5, 50-135/3.5, 70-150/4.5
    Lowlight:
    35/2.0, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2.8, 200/2.8
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  10. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    One option is to go back to a single mount. I know that I could sell off all the non Minolta lenses and with the exception of the Nikon and Konica not ever miss them.
     
  11. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    From a convenience factor the zooms are really appealing. Especially so because the MD zooms (specifically the 35-70/3.5 and 35-105) are very very good.
     
  12. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    Such a hard thing to only pick three lenses, but I get your desire to "lighten your load."

    I personally have eliminated a few lenses, (never had as many as some), as I had about 15 and many were nice lenses, but simply were not getting used.

    In AF, native lenses, have a nice multi-purpose zoom, a nice wide angle small prime and a good low light lens.

    Then I have a few MF lenses. A longer range zoom and a nice Macro lens.
     
  13. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount Top Veteran

    943
    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    Well, I don't have experience with all of the lenses you list, but I do have a few Minoltas, so I'll chime in with my picks:
    - MC 50/1.4 (I love that lens);
    - MD 24/2.8 (I don't have one, but would love to get one someday); and
    - one of the MD zooms - while I have the MD 35-70/3.5, I feel like the 35-105 or the 70-210/4 would be more useful from a focal length reach perspective - I'd probably choose the 70-210 as I think my preference is for long reach, but the 35-105 is mighty tempting as a general purpose walk-around lens.

    That's my 2 pence, for what it's worth. ;)
     
  14. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    The MC 50/14 is by far the best fast 50 I have ever had and the MD 24/2.8 is on a par with the MC 24/2.8 I had (but about twenty pounds lighter). The MC 100/2.5 would round out the three lenses really nicely and IMHO is the best lens I have. The 35-70/3.5 macro probably has gotten used than any other lens I have and the 35-105 might be a touch better optically but it has that weid push/pull focus that drives me a bit nuts.
     
  15. GateCityRadio

    GateCityRadio TalkEmount Regular

    56
    Oct 9, 2014
    Kev
    I went through a serious bout of GAS about a year ago and had way more photography gear than I ever needed. When I made the decision to switch from pentax to sony mirrorless I decided to stick with a smaller kit. I wanted to have both aps-c and FF mirrorless...the apsc being mainly for fun (street and manual focus lenses) and the FF for more serious work (pro quality lenses with AF). I understand the whole adapted lenses thing, but I'm shooting for a native e-mount kit. Ended up with very few lenses as you can tell by my sig. But to me my picks for the FF are zeiss 35/2.8, zeiss 55/1.8 and hopefully soon the batis 85/1.8 and the sony 24-240 for the all rounder work. For APS-C my picks are Rokinon 12/2 and the two new rokinon lenses 21/1.4 and 50/1.2 and I haven't really decided on if I want the zeiss 32/1.8 or mitakon 35/0.95 as my normal lens.

    I know when I had my pentax dslr and film cameras I used the 35mm, 50mm, and 75-85mm equv focal lengths the most and occasionally needed an all purpose zoom or wide angle prime. This may vary for other people. The best thing is to get out and find out what you like to shoot then do some research and find out what focal lengths and lenses are good for those subjects.
     
  16. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    I have been shooting with these lenses for years (with both Sony and Fuji bodies). I know all of these lenses intimately. I have produced thousands of images with them so at this point I could probably take any one of my lenses and shoot exclusively with it and get the kinds of images I like. Maybe because I don't shoot professionally anymore. I guess it was important to me then but these days I could care less. That is in part what is making me think that my cabinet full of lenses is just a bunch of useless clutter.

    I still enjoy the process of making images but the gear stuff...not so much anymore. I'd get one of my old film compact RF cameras out if I wanted to go the film route again. I have a lovely Konica Auto S3 or an Olympus 35RC. That's the experience I am trying to get back to. Simple, elegant and basic. About the closest I have ever came to that is the Konica 40 or the Vivitar 28/2 on on my NEX.
     
    Last edited: Sep 23, 2015
  17. RnR

    RnR TalkEmount Regular

    29
    Jul 23, 2013
    Brisbane, Australia
    Hasse
    Then I would select one of those two lenses ie K 40 or V 28 and pack the others away for 6-12 months and see how your photography goes. At least then you will have a data point one way or another.
     
  18. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    My photography would be fine. I've shot for several months (on two occasions) with both of those lenses with three different bodies and I know it would work. The Konica 40 has a tiny bit of an edge between the two. It's also the smallest, lightest and has a mercifully short focus throw. It has an abysmal MFD and is rather soft and glowy wide open (so much so I wonder why they didn't just release it as a 40/2.8). It benefits greatly from a hood and peaks very well. It even peaked well on my Fuji whose focus peaking was all but invisible most of the time.

    The downside for the Konica is that I don't particularly like the FL on an APS-C sensor like my NEX 6 has. The 28 has an EFL is much more to my liking. The Vivtar's big advantage is that it is a close focus lens and I tend to favor closeup shots. It flares pretty significantly in harsh light, has the longest focus throw of any lens I have making it a less than ideal for just strolling around (which I do a lot of).

    Probably the best alternative of the lenses I have is an Olympus OM 28/3.5. It can achieve much better subject isolation that you would imagine from a lens with a minimum aperture of 3.5, is incredibly compact and get close enough for when I want to get close. That said I really do not like Olympus lenses. I don't like the build quality, the aperture ring on the nose or their overall image qualities. That said, I do like THIS copy of the lens. Go figure.
     
  19. WoodWorks

    WoodWorks Super Moderator

    Dec 12, 2012
    Ashland, OR, USA
    David
    I've only owned one the lenses you list, so I'm no help in choosing among them. But if I were trying to cull the herd, I think I'd try to pick the three that I enjoyed using the most in a 24, 50, and 100, even if they weren't the absolute best at that focal length.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    That's about where I am. I enjoy that combo the best. A set of 24, 50 and 100 would serve me really well. They're all pretty fun to use and for what I like are very flexible. I really don't care all that much which is best as so many things go into what constitutes "best" and its different for everyone. That said, I have a special affection for that Minolta 100/2.5. That lens has given me some of my favorite shots ever.