First of all a big thank you for your reply! Do you talk about about Zeiss C/Y Distagon etc. lenses or where is there a difference to the Yashica ML? Which Minolta lenses would you recommend, or speaking more generally which route would you take if you could't pay more than 120€ (better if cheaper) a lens? Sorry to bother you again, but you seem to have so much more knowledge on this topic than I do. Best regards Jan

The Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5 is the worst zoom lens I have. Try the Tokina, if you want a nice lens in that range of focal lengths. The Minolta 24-50 is also very nice

VortekShow, adapters are cheap, so don't feel limited to a single brand or mount. Buy whatever you can find. Each different lens has its own look and feel, so it's hard to generalize by brand. I have Minolta 28/2.8, 35/2.8, and 50/1.4 mm primes, and they're fine.

I have a lot of vintage lenses, but I mainly collect Rokkor/Minolta lenses and i love them all. They are the best bang for the bug. You can get a 50mm 1.7 for under 20 Euros. If you buy old Minolta camera collections on ebay, you coud get 4-6 lenses with a film camera for 60-80 Euros. Often this collections include old unsharp zooms, but also 28mm primes or my favorite 45 mm 2.0 prime lens. The 45 mm 2.0 is small, sharp and still fast enough. Over the years i bought over a hundred vintage Minolta Md/MC lenses, sold the most of them and kept the best. There were also some funky Soligor MD lenses, for example a macro Zoom lens with an icy Color look. I also have Pentax Auto 110 lenses, which i use with my Gh-2. They are extremely small and not the sharpest, but the 75 mm has a swirley bokeh, which you only get for much more money. By the way, i use the Minolta lenses with my Nx-1 and with my Gh-2. Zeiss and Yashica lenses are all in all rumored to be better, but are much more expensive. The price-performance ratio of the Minolta lenses is the best in the camera world. The 135 mm 2.8 MD lens can keep up with the big boys, some say it is one of the best tele lens of all time. The Russian Jupiter and Helios lenses are also pretty good, but have been growing in price and are often 2 times more expensive than the corresponding Minoltas. The only Problem is, that full frame lenses realy shine on full frame cameras. My lenses are noticeably sharper on a A7s than on my Nx-1 and Gh-2.

But all in all there is nothing you can do wrong with vintage lenses.

Just try them all.

Cheap and pretty sharp: Rokkor MD 45 mm 2.0, Rokkor MD 135 mm 2.8, Rokkor 50 mm 1.7, Minolta MD 35-70 3.5 Macro, Rokkor 200 mm all in all 100 - 120 Euros.

But never forget: Vintage lenses are cheap and often have a dreamy look, but for example newer Samyangs are affordable and all in all much better.

I have been using Contax Zeiss lenses for couple of years now. Only problem has been breathing and softness when shooting at <f2. I have 21mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.4, 60mm f2.8 macro, 85mm 1.4, 135mm 2.8 and 35-70mm 3.4. All MMJ except 60mm. Most used is 60mm. It's super good with 1:1 macro feature. Declicking is recommended. Samyang set gives cleaner and more modern look though.

For beginners considering buying set of old lenses usual advice is the same - if you are doing it for fun or for special purpose it is good idea. If you want in short time get more or less matched lenses and be sure in quality - just buy Samyang cine set. Later you can get old lenses, but slowly and checking condition.

Well, initially the Minolta lenses were made to match very well in color – remember, there was no Photoshop or Lightroom then, and some photographers used color reversal film. But over time some lenses changed their color (normally to yellow), so the can be quite a bit apart by today. Plus, before you'll achieve such perfect lighting of your scenes that it really matters, you may have bought other lenses too.

Regarding the Yashica lenses, which were made in cooperation with Zeiss, often have the same optical formula, but they never got the famous T* coating, which is responsible for the colors and lower flare of the Zeiss C/Y lenses. They are quite a bit cheaper, though and worth a try.

My Rokkor 28 is a bit soft, but still usefull. Because you can crop the 4k image of the Nx-1, the next step would be a 50 mm 1,7, the Standard lens. I like the litle zoom lens (35-70), but perhaps it`s better to buy some prime lenses first. The Zeisses and Yashica lenses are better than the Minolta though. But i still recomend buying 2-3 used Samyangs to get the best results. You can get them for 140 to 170 Euros, a 35mm and a 85mm are a good start for cinematic work.

I love my Canon nFDs! 100f2, 50f1.4, 35f2, 24f2. Tack sharp @f2 and very pleasing contrast and color. Only issue is close focus distance.

Another good non vintage choice to start with is the all round Sigma ART 18-35f1.8.

Canon FD primes are really fine lenses. But prices are rising.

How do you define that look? IMHO, everybody would have a different opinion what that really is…

That said, the Canon FD might be a tad more dreamy / old school and the Zeiss a bit more clinical / analytical. But that describes a lens as well as all the words used to describe a taste. You need to see it!

I second that. It might answer the (in)famous question: "Which lens to take if you can choose only one?" (Well, one and a half with the booster…). Only drawback when filming is the one-touch zoom in my eyes. Oh, wait, it's not constant aperture either.

So, it's more like a variable prime for me than a zoom, but it's very good at that. It's weight is about the same as that of three of the slower Zeiss Contax primes, like a 28mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.7 and a 85mm f2.8, but if you have some patience you'll still find it for less than or about the same as the sum of those three. I'd say it's perfect if you want to react quickly and need to avoid changing lenses.