Vintage Lenses - "Super Slow" Set

[BTM_Pix]

7 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

Turns out I had the Makinon in a cupboard all along

The cupboard in question

[MrSMW]

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

The cupboard in question

And that is just Section 13b in building 21 on site 17.

There’s also an entire empty facility just in case ‘missing’ deliveries from MPB via DHL, turn up.

[kye]

OP asks for lenses that focus the Canon way....

Queue long discussion of lenses from Nikon, Pentax etc.

OP asks for lenses that are slow to use wide-open....     responses include stopping down faster ones!

😆 😆 😆

Lots of people really just waiting for you to finish talking so they can go back to stream of consciousness without any thinking required!

[kye]

Surprisingly, it seems that Minolta didn't make so many slower lenses?

This list here might not be complete, but it barely lists any slower ones: https://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens Reviews.html and the page on the lens history doesn't include many extras either: https://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens History.html

Is Flickr still a thing? maybe some searching on there might reveal some other options, and with bonus sample images too.

[homestar_kevin]

8 hours ago, kye said:

OP asks for lenses that focus the Canon way....

Queue long discussion of lenses from Nikon, Pentax etc.

OP asks for lenses that are slow to use wide-open....     responses include stopping down faster ones!

😆 😆 😆

Lots of people really just waiting for you to finish talking so they can go back to stream of consciousness without any thinking required!

Whoops, we did blow right by that focusing direction one didn't we lol. I just automatically go to super takumars when I think of awesome character, slower, and readily available primes for cheap, they're the kings.

To be fair, it's in the list of preferred characteristics, so maybe theres some wiggle room for the right set.

If it's a requirement, I'll double down on my Olympus OM recommendation and also throw out SSC Canon FD lenses,  there's a 17mm 4, 28mm 3.5, 35mm 3.5, and a 50mm 3.5 macro and 100mm f/4 macro.

Bonus/wide lens could be the 24-35mm 3.5 L which might be just over budget. 

[mercer]

Although it's not exactly what you're looking for, I'd have to second the Nikon Series E lenses. They truly are remarkable little lenses. I haven't been able to find a good copy of the 35mm 2.5 but the 36-72, 50mm and 100mm are nice little lenses, especially the size of the 100mm. Also the older non-ai lenses are pretty spectacular as well. One lens I hate to mention because it does get such bad reviews is the 35-70 3.3-4.5 ai-s lens. It's tiny and a lot better than the bad reviews give it. I mean, it isn't great, but there's something very Nikon in its not greatness.

Another zoom lens I love, which I assume you're familiar with is the Canon FD 35-105mm 3.5. This lens is ALMOST parfocal. Obviously constant aperture. Internal zoom. Fairly compact. I've had a few copies over the years, then end up selling it because I didn't use it too often, regret it and seek another one. My most recent copy I put on the Sigma FP and here's a sample of it at 105mm wide open...

 

No mind-blowing image by any means, but fairly sharp wide open and I like the way it handles the highlights. Of course it's a mess in direct light... as I found out last week during a shoot. However, there are rumors that Canon considered putting the L badge onto it because they were so happy with the lens.

As far as primes, other than the Nikons, the Takumar lenses are a personal favorite of mine. I've heard people argue that the 28mm 3.5 is one of the best 28mm lenses they've used. I haven't used that one but the 35mm 3.5 is excellent.

I've used a couple of the wide angle Tokina lenses from the late 70s, early 80s and they were decent, but I think they were f/2.8 lenses. Obviously you could get a cheap Neewer fixed ND to pop on the lens and leave there to give you that slower stop and to protect the front of the lens. Also check out the old Vivitar lenses, I have a set of mostly Tokina made ones in the m42 mount and I have always been very fond of them. The image instantly feels like an old 70s made for TV movie. I'm probably going to sell them though, not because I don't like them, I just have too much stuff and really need to scale back.

I guess you could also look at some of the older Zeiss Jena lenses... even the MF ones would give you the slower apertures you were looking for wide open.

Great thread! Wish there were more threads like this on here like it.

[stephen]

Just discovered that Minolta MD 35-70mm f3.5 is parfocal. 🙂 

[Ninpo33]

On 8/18/2025 at 9:46 PM, kye said:

OP asks for lenses that are slow to use wide-open....     responses include stopping down faster ones!

😆 😆 😆

Lots of people really just waiting for you to finish talking so they can go back to stream of consciousness without any thinking required!

Did you even really read my post?

I gave several suggestions and the OP never clarified or said his requirements were set in stone. Soft vs clinical, deep focus and circular bokeh right?

There are a few ways to achieve that look. Most vintage lenses are soft compared to modern lenses. Does OP want REALLY soft? Why? Very easy to take a vintage soft lens and add a desired look in post for anything extreme. My vintage Yashicas and old Vivitars all have many bladed apertures and produce round apertures at f/2.8 so I get some low light benefits as I need it while still being vintage soft. But I can live at f/3.5 or f/4 as desired. So no, I wasn’t just waiting to talk, I was offering a perspective and fostering a discussion. 

[kye]

4 hours ago, Ninpo33 said:

Did you even really read my post?

I gave several suggestions and the OP never clarified or said his requirements were set in stone. Soft vs clinical, deep focus and circular bokeh right?

There are a few ways to achieve that look. Most vintage lenses are soft compared to modern lenses. Does OP want REALLY soft? Why? Very easy to take a vintage soft lens and add a desired look in post for anything extreme. My vintage Yashicas and old Vivitars all have many bladed apertures and produce round apertures at f/2.8 so I get some low light benefits as I need it while still being vintage soft. But I can live at f/3.5 or f/4 as desired. So no, I wasn’t just waiting to talk, I was offering a perspective and fostering a discussion. 

With great interest and care!

As an enthusiast with complex requirements myself I sometimes come upon a new set of requirements and try to find something that will suit my situation but it's hard to find something that meets all the specifics I have.  This is typically when I would post as people who know more than me might know of a particular thing that meets all my needs.

This is why it frustrates me when people just give random thoughts and riff on my carefully set-out requirements.

TBH, now I just ask AI.