Very cool video! There's just something special about lenses with character. In an age of near-perfect lenses, taking a step back to revisit the past is a nice change of pace.
This is the video i was looking for for like 2 years. Thank you! I also really liked the way you tested the lenses, no bullshit about sharpness with charts, what i need to know is "very sharp, sharp, kind of sharp, soft" so thanks again. The history may annoys some people, but it was consise and i enjoyed it
Love the video, wouldn't say that the Canon 14mm is the "widest" rectilinear vintage lens that was ever made. The 14mm is probably the widest that you can get your hands on. The Nikkor 13mm 5.6 might be a contender, but Nikon only made like 350 of them and just finding one is basically impossible.
14:06 30k is wild for any lens... if it were true :) From what I can see in the 1980 Contax Yashica dealer price list, Distagon 15mm 3.5 cost 1325 USD, which is a little over 5k adjusted for inflation. What really is wild is that you managed to find and compare all these vintage lenses, thanks for the great video!
That price makes so much more sense! The only price I could find was from the Contax Zeiss media division video so thank you for the insight. Really glad you enjoyed the video, I had a blast making it and collecting all these lenses over the years
@@calebbrunkow the fact that you couldn't find the price for the Leica lens has been bugging me for a couple of days now, so I decided to do a little reseach. And who would have thunk that I'd find the answer on the same website that I did with the Zeiss 😅 In the 1981 through 1983 catalogues the price of Leica is listed as 2835 USD, but in 1987 catalogue the price shoots up to 6375 USD. This price increate is sort of in line with all other lenses and cameras, but that left me puzzled of what happened betweend 1983 and 1987 that caused such a sharp rize in prices. And just in case you're interested, the website is "pacific rim camera" - it's a treasure trove of all sorts of brochures and manuals for different camera systems. I especially love looking through the Mamiya section that is filled with weird and endearing fashion shots 😁
@@calebbrunkow the fact that you couldn't find the price for the Leica lens has been bugging me for a couple of days now, so I decided to do a little reseach. And who would have thunk that I'd find the answer on the same website that I did with the Zeiss :) In the 1981 through 1983 catalogues the price of Leica is listed as 2835 USD, but in 1987 catalogue the price shoots up to 6375 USD. This price increate is sort of in line with all other lenses and cameras, but that left me puzzled of what happened betweend 1983 and 1987 that caused such a sharp rize in prices. And just in case you're interested, the website is "pacific rim camera" - it's a treasure trove of all sorts of brochures and manuals for different camera systems. I especially love looking through the Mamiya section that is filled with a little naive and endearing fashion shots.
Minolta has some great wide-angles, 17mm rectilinear, 16mm fish eye and a 7.5 mm fish eye. On full frame the 7.5mm turns your image into a circle, kinda like an insta-360 gone wrong, hard to find and expensive!
They do have some great options. For this video I was only going with rectilinear lenses and also just wanted to include 15mm and below since if I go up to 17 or 18 there’s a tonnnn of other lenses
I just cheaped out and bought a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED for emount used for like $160 USD. I figured if I used it a ton then I would buy a vintage lens, turns out I would rather use my Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS when I need wide shots. So glad I kept that money.
The Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS is a screaming deal. I got mine used in mint condition with the original box and dice from a trusted source in Japan for a great price.
Once upon a time I had a Pentax15mm f3.5.It was so heavy and I was afraid I would loose the lenshood. I got the 15mm f3.5 DA lens and for practical purposes was the one I kept.
Great video Caleb. I’m a Contax guy so my workaround for my wides was to grab a CY 18/4 and a HFT 16 fisheye/2.8. Both of them together were less than the CY 15/3.5. The 16 fisheye I use on S35 and lens correct in Resolve Studio :)
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. That’s a great workaround for sure. The 18 is a really nice lens, I got one years ago cause I thought I was never gonna be able to buy the 15
Agreed. I love the 18 generally, but it has two slight disadvantages. It’s a bit slow. And focus moves the front barrel, so VNDs are out. Workarounds are pretty straightforward though. A touch higher ISO (if needed) and I bought a couple of standard NDs to screw into my Simmod front ring.
Awesome video! If you ever get the chance, you have to try the Kinoptik 9.8mm t2.3 (f1.8) super 35 ultrawide from the 60's (about 14.7mm full frame). It was the ultrawide lens of choice for cinema at the time. Used by Kubrick in The Clockwork Orange, The Shinning, and famously in Wong Kar Wai's Fallen Angels.
Was hoping to find the Konica UR hexanon 15mm f2,8 among the tested lenses! Otherwise enjoyed you video, even when not knowing how they compare to my Konica!
For finding lenses I just search eBay a ton as well as local selling spaces like Facebook, OfferUp, etc and see what comes up. For info on them I watch a lot of TH-cam videos and google certain lenses I’m interested in
uhh there were wider lenses, particularly if you include wide angle adapters. I think there was a Kinoptik one that produced a super35 lens with a 11mm ff equiv.
Wait, o my understanding F stopping down a lens with periferal fog will make it sharper, since you are in theory using less of that peripheral foggy area to create the image... contrary to scratches and dust, the wider the aperture the less visible they are because the mage is being formed with the "whole" glass/lens.
It was interesting that you considered that Canon’s EF 14mm f2.8 was not a new lens. I would say it’s a fair assessment, many of the FD lenses were “ported” over with minor refinements and coating updates. Now the question is what does the FD version have over say the Mk I version of the EF 14mm? An Exc copy of the EF is 1/10 of the price.
True, the EF MK I is a fantastic alternative to the FD 14, especially for people on a budget. I found my 14 for a price I couldn’t turn down so had to get that. Also from the flare comparison I’ve seen, the FD blows the EF out of the water, the flares on the EF are really bad in my opinion
the prices about vintage are become totaly mad. Just mad. Take a good copy from Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC and you will see what is a good UWA with real micro-constrast edge to edge wide open. A way head any 14mm from canon. i am a canon user, but, absolutely not concern UWA. don't waste money. Today, a EF 14mm...I don't want it, even for 100€.
I don’t know if it’s exactly the same but it’s for sure close. Lens rehouse companies have the EF MK I 14mm available for rehouse since the FD is so pricey and the EF looks very similar
@@calebbrunkow Hahaha I mean there is no other video on the hole youtube talking about super ultra wide vintage lenses that's not fisheye! So this is the best one XD@calebbrunkow
Yeah as I watch your full video your Nikon 15 is not good for comparison. I've used it extensively on commercial shoots and it looks nothing like your copy.
True I would consider than an ultrawide as well. Point of this video was to get my hands on the widest ones I could from the 5 of the major players in the game at the time
Anything under 20mm is usually considered Ultra Wide Angle. Anything above 20mm to 30mm is usually deemed Wide Angle. And that new Laowa 10mm is just RIDICULOUSLY Wide Angle. 🤣
To get the same field of view on the 15mm lenses (focusing at 12 inches) you need to make sure the position of the entrance pupils is the same. If the camera / sensor position remains fixed - and you have lenses which are slightly different physical lengths - the position of the front optics will vary and so will the perceived shot field of view.
Great job man! Making me want to add that Nikkor 15 to my Nikkor set
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it and you should! It’s such a fantastic lens, it’s the first 15 I got
Very cool video! There's just something special about lenses with character. In an age of near-perfect lenses, taking a step back to revisit the past is a nice change of pace.
I totally agree!
loving the vibe on this one, crazy set of reviews and awesome story telling !
So glad you enjoyed it
This is the video i was looking for for like 2 years. Thank you! I also really liked the way you tested the lenses, no bullshit about sharpness with charts, what i need to know is "very sharp, sharp, kind of sharp, soft" so thanks again.
The history may annoys some people, but it was consise and i enjoyed it
Really glad you enjoyed it, I had a blast putting this video together! I can’t stand sharpness charts for vintage glass either
Love the video, wouldn't say that the Canon 14mm is the "widest" rectilinear vintage lens that was ever made. The 14mm is probably the widest that you can get your hands on. The Nikkor 13mm 5.6 might be a contender, but Nikon only made like 350 of them and just finding one is basically impossible.
Oh my god how did I forget to mention the 13mm f5.6! Thank you for bringing that up. Really glad you enjoyed the video
14:06 30k is wild for any lens... if it were true :) From what I can see in the 1980 Contax Yashica dealer price list, Distagon 15mm 3.5 cost 1325 USD, which is a little over 5k adjusted for inflation.
What really is wild is that you managed to find and compare all these vintage lenses, thanks for the great video!
That price makes so much more sense! The only price I could find was from the Contax Zeiss media division video so thank you for the insight. Really glad you enjoyed the video, I had a blast making it and collecting all these lenses over the years
@@calebbrunkow the fact that you couldn't find the price for the Leica lens has been bugging me for a couple of days now, so I decided to do a little reseach. And who would have thunk that I'd find the answer on the same website that I did with the Zeiss 😅
In the 1981 through 1983 catalogues the price of Leica is listed as 2835 USD, but in 1987 catalogue the price shoots up to 6375 USD. This price increate is sort of in line with all other lenses and cameras, but that left me puzzled of what happened betweend 1983 and 1987 that caused such a sharp rize in prices.
And just in case you're interested, the website is "pacific rim camera" - it's a treasure trove of all sorts of brochures and manuals for different camera systems. I especially love looking through the Mamiya section that is filled with weird and endearing fashion shots 😁
@@calebbrunkow the fact that you couldn't find the price for the Leica lens has been bugging me for a couple of days now, so I decided to do a little reseach. And who would have thunk that I'd find the answer on the same website that I did with the Zeiss :)
In the 1981 through 1983 catalogues the price of Leica is listed as 2835 USD, but in 1987 catalogue the price shoots up to 6375 USD. This price increate is sort of in line with all other lenses and cameras, but that left me puzzled of what happened betweend 1983 and 1987 that caused such a sharp rize in prices.
And just in case you're interested, the website is "pacific rim camera" - it's a treasure trove of all sorts of brochures and manuals for different camera systems. I especially love looking through the Mamiya section that is filled with a little naive and endearing fashion shots.
Minolta has some great wide-angles, 17mm rectilinear, 16mm fish eye and a 7.5 mm fish eye. On full frame the 7.5mm turns your image into a circle, kinda like an insta-360 gone wrong, hard to find and expensive!
They do have some great options. For this video I was only going with rectilinear lenses and also just wanted to include 15mm and below since if I go up to 17 or 18 there’s a tonnnn of other lenses
I just cheaped out and bought a Rokinon 14mm f2.8 ED for emount used for like $160 USD. I figured if I used it a ton then I would buy a vintage lens, turns out I would rather use my Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS when I need wide shots. So glad I kept that money.
That was smart! Always test out cheaper options before investing a ton
The Sony Zeiss 16-35mm f4 OSS is a screaming deal. I got mine used in mint condition with the original box and dice from a trusted source in Japan for a great price.
The other "secret" lens is the APS-C Sony 10-18mm f4 OSS... It works totally fine on full frame from about 13-18mm.
@@bradl2636I wonder how the new zero-d 10 laowa compares to these lenses
Once upon a time I had a Pentax15mm f3.5.It was so heavy and I was afraid I would loose the lenshood. I got the 15mm f3.5 DA lens and for practical purposes was the one I kept.
It is a heavy lens for sure
Great video Caleb. I’m a Contax guy so my workaround for my wides was to grab a CY 18/4 and a HFT 16 fisheye/2.8. Both of them together were less than the CY 15/3.5. The 16 fisheye I use on S35 and lens correct in Resolve Studio :)
Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. That’s a great workaround for sure. The 18 is a really nice lens, I got one years ago cause I thought I was never gonna be able to buy the 15
Agreed. I love the 18 generally, but it has two slight disadvantages. It’s a bit slow. And focus moves the front barrel, so VNDs are out. Workarounds are pretty straightforward though. A touch higher ISO (if needed) and I bought a couple of standard NDs to screw into my Simmod front ring.
@mcgrathfilms thankfully those workarounds are pretty simple. I can’t stand the rotating front, it’s so annoying that it’s even on the FD 24 1.4 L
With ya on that. I don’t do matteboxes, but it still drives me nuts all the same! Price we pay for being vintage obsessed I guess.
@mcgrathfilms this is true! Until we can afford to rehouse them haha
Damn that Nikon is something
It sure is
Thanks for fine contents! Are those same as fish eye? If it is different, then what is it?
@@Choetaesun glad you enjoyed it, these are ultrawide rectilinear lenses
A fine relatively original review. Nice.
Thank you
Awesome video! If you ever get the chance, you have to try the Kinoptik 9.8mm t2.3 (f1.8) super 35 ultrawide from the 60's (about 14.7mm full frame). It was the ultrawide lens of choice for cinema at the time. Used by Kubrick in The Clockwork Orange, The Shinning, and famously in Wong Kar Wai's Fallen Angels.
Thank you so much and that lens sounds awesome! Gotta do some research on it now
Curious if you ever tested the Zeiss classic 15? and how you think it compares to the contax?
I have not tested it before, I believe it’s a different optical design than the Contax since it’s a 2.8 and not a 3.5
Was hoping to find the Konica UR hexanon 15mm f2,8 among the tested lenses! Otherwise enjoyed you video, even when not knowing how they compare to my Konica!
I was only doing rectilinear lenses for this video
great video, could you do a video on vintage macro lenses?
Thank you! That would be a super interesting video, I need to get more macros for it though
awesome video! Thanks !
You’re welcome! Glad you enjoyed it
Do you have a good resource for finding vintage lenses along with the info around them?
For finding lenses I just search eBay a ton as well as local selling spaces like Facebook, OfferUp, etc and see what comes up. For info on them I watch a lot of TH-cam videos and google certain lenses I’m interested in
How about image circle??
They all are full frame lenses. I don’t have any way to test the actual image circle of them unfortunately
uhh there were wider lenses, particularly if you include wide angle adapters. I think there was a Kinoptik one that produced a super35 lens with a 11mm ff equiv.
I was only doing lenses without adapters and true on the 11mm but it’s for s35 so ends up being almost a 17 full frame equivalent
@@calebbrunkowit's a 6.8mm on s35, which is an 11 equivalent, not 11mm on s35
@ChrisThe1 ohhhhh gotcha
Wait, o my understanding F stopping down a lens with periferal fog will make it sharper, since you are in theory using less of that peripheral foggy area to create the image... contrary to scratches and dust, the wider the aperture the less visible they are because the mage is being formed with the "whole" glass/lens.
I’m not a lens tech but from my experience this is true
It was interesting that you considered that Canon’s EF 14mm f2.8 was not a new lens. I would say it’s a fair assessment, many of the FD lenses were “ported” over with minor refinements and coating updates. Now the question is what does the FD version have over say the Mk I version of the EF 14mm? An Exc copy of the EF is 1/10 of the price.
True, the EF MK I is a fantastic alternative to the FD 14, especially for people on a budget. I found my 14 for a price I couldn’t turn down so had to get that. Also from the flare comparison I’ve seen, the FD blows the EF out of the water, the flares on the EF are really bad in my opinion
the prices about vintage are become totaly mad. Just mad. Take a good copy from Samyang 14 mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMC and you will see what is a good UWA with real micro-constrast edge to edge wide open. A way head any 14mm from canon. i am a canon user, but, absolutely not concern UWA. don't waste money. Today, a EF 14mm...I don't want it, even for 100€.
What about the Nikon 13mm f/5.6, or the Ultra Wide Heliars?
Completely forgot about the Nikon 13mm! That would’ve been cool to test but it’s insanely rare
Increíble video
Thank you!
So is the 14mm FD identical to its younger brother in the EF body from 1991? What are the differences if any?
I don’t know if it’s exactly the same but it’s for sure close. Lens rehouse companies have the EF MK I 14mm available for rehouse since the FD is so pricey and the EF looks very similar
Best Video on TH-cam?🎉
No way it’s the best but I appreciate you!
@@calebbrunkow Hahaha I mean there is no other video on the hole youtube talking about super ultra wide vintage lenses that's not fisheye! So this is the best one XD@calebbrunkow
@user-ji4cj3gu5n I noticed that there wasn’t one and thought it’d be fun to make, hope you enjoyed it
I have a pristine Nikon 15 f3.5 and it's sharp wide open your haze is abnormal for that lens and causing all sorts of issues. Can see it in your video
Yeah as I watch your full video your Nikon 15 is not good for comparison. I've used it extensively on commercial shoots and it looks nothing like your copy.
Appreciate the info! I’ll need to have it serviced
I'm curious what your criteria was to label a lens "ultra wide angle". For example, I think my vintage 17mm f3.5 Tokina lens is ultrawide.
True I would consider than an ultrawide as well. Point of this video was to get my hands on the widest ones I could from the 5 of the major players in the game at the time
Anything under 20mm is usually considered Ultra Wide Angle.
Anything above 20mm to 30mm is usually deemed Wide Angle.
And that new Laowa 10mm is just RIDICULOUSLY Wide Angle. 🤣
@classic.cameras that thing is insanely wide! Especially for an AF lens. The canon 10-20 is crazy too
I'd love an old 13mm AIS Nikon lens ... 🦘
That would’ve been cool to add to this but it’s really hard to get
would like to see how the Konica 15mm F/2.8 would stack up against these
That would be cool! Isn’t that a fisheye though?
@@calebbrunkow Yes technically, but with the distinction of being a full frame fisheye, so its distortion is minimal, and manageable.
Gotcha
My god, The FLARES!!!!! 😲😲🥹
Love some good flares!
To get the same field of view on the 15mm lenses (focusing at 12 inches) you need to make sure the position of the entrance pupils is the same.
If the camera / sensor position remains fixed - and you have lenses which are slightly different physical lengths - the position of the front optics will vary and so will the perceived shot field of view.
Really appreciate the insight! You are a wealth of knowledge Daniel!
I’d probably trade my 19V2 for the 15mm Leica
Really?!? The 19 v2 is amazing
Great video. Hit me up if you’re selling the NFD 14mm 😊
Thank you! Don’t think I’ll ever sell the 14 as I got crazy lucky to find it. If I ever sold it though it’d be with the whole FD set I’ve built