Picrel is not mine, but a Pentax SMC-M 35mm F1.4 that nobody has ever been able to document in the wild, but one forum posts alludes to someone holding one at one point and packaging being sold on ebay 2 decades ago. My rarest lens is probably the Fuji EBC-W Fujinon-W 35mm f1.9, nothing spectacular in terms of value, but hard to find.
>owns rare glass>shows stock photoyeah I think sage
>>4439386It is the only known photo of the lens, fgt.
>>4439388>What is the rarest piece of glass you own?>Picrel is not mine, but a Pentax SMC-M 35mm F1.4makes it sound like the pic isn't yours but you have one of thesenigger
Probably my Tamron SP 51A 70-150mm f2.8 soft portrait zoom. Surprisingly decent (for it's age) as a f2.8 zoom when the soft focus is set to 0.
>>4439400Cool. Didn't know it existed. I would probably overlook it if I saw it for sale thinking it was one of the more common tamron zooms.
>>4439378yeah i also have that, i have three actually. not gonna post a photo tho since you didn't
>>4439378I had a Topcon 85mm f1.8But I sold it because I needed to pay for other things and there are other, more affordable options obviously at the 85mm focal length and seem to perform fine.
>>4439378Probably the Pentax SMC Takumar 24/3.5.
>>4439378tammy big green 300 f/2.8>>4439400kinda mogged
>>4439378I own a 1 of 1 lens but wont post it because it is doxxable
>>4439481I own 2 of 2 of a lens, but I also won't post
I only own one lens and it's not that rare.
>>4439487Nice! Have any photos to share?>Bess r2Why are these things over 1k on ebay? Makes me a little sad. Maybe this particular body was always sought after, idk, but I wish old gear was as cheap as it used to be.
>>4439507ILC rangefinders are pretty much all expensive except for soviet crap.
>>4439508even the soviet crap is expensive these days relative to what it is. scarcity only increases as the years go on. I'm honestly surprised the chinks haven't spun up a factory to churn out chinesium zorki clones or some shit.
>>4439527Funnily enough there was once a Chinese ILC rangefinder, was called a Redflag or some shit. They're rare as fuck though because they made basically none of them. I think a a new Xiaca would be cool tho
>>4439527I always look at rangefinders, and consider buying them, but then I pick up my VT and realise how much I hate using a rangefinder over SLR TTL focusing and a split-image screen. I'm surprised more people don't put them in cameras like the 5D/5D2 for a manual focusing, optical viewfinder experience. Pretty much every worthwhile vintage lens mount can be adapted to EF bar the rangefinder ones.
>>4439507Ya, I paid $400 for the camera in 2018. If you catch bidding auctions you can get me for less than $1k. They're great cameras
>>4439507You can get a Bessa T for ~$500, if you don't mind using an external viewfinder, and there is always an abundence of Barnack clones. Tbh, Bessas are nowhere near as overpriced as something like the Konica Hexar RF.
>>4439390>makes it sound like the pic isn't yours but you have one of theseOnly if you're retarded.
>>4439378probably the LLL Elcan copy idkdoes this even count? I think they are still being made, just not in great numbersneat little lens though, both on film and digital bodiesI have some vintage glass but nothing rare, just some soviet shit, some Minolta primes and some other cheap M42 primes.
This and probably the Noritar 17/4 in F mount
>>4439868
>>4439386>>4439390>zoom zoom too lazy to read the OP fullymany such cases!
>>4439868Cool. Had to do a bit of research on that Noritar brand. They made a 135mm f1.4 which is insane.
>>4439487That's my next lens. Anything that you really love or really loathe, anon?
>>4439378Leica Elmarit-S 30mm f/2.8 ASPH CS.Not really *rare* but spendy enough that they’re not common. And what a motherfucker. Only reason I still own a body for it.
>>4439546Looks like Superior.
>>4440177>ten thousand dollar non-cinema lensI kneel
>>4439378>>4439386In a similar ilk is Leica's Noctilux R 52mm f/1.2. while claimed to be a prototype, a small handful of lenses were built and sometimes get listed on eBay
I have the 50 mm Takumar which tends to yellow over time
>>4440436that's one of the radioactive ones, don't lick the rear element
>>4440440At our university physics lab I put it next to a Geiger counter. It produced a mean rattle.
>>4440417>A Leitz Noctilux-R 52mm f/1.2 prototype surfaced in July 2008 where the German Leica shop Arsenal Photo offered this for the price of 30,000 € (serial no 5175714). Few knew this even existed! – and unfortunately it never went into production.Very intredasting, thanks for sharing. Wonder what it would fetch in today's market, probably slightly less than 2 years ago, but still. Leica collectors pay out their yingyang.
Probably this 36" (914mm) f/6.3 large format "aerial reconnaissance" lens. When you google it Dallmeyer made some but this one is unbranded, I'm assuming it was probably military equipment. The actual lens is just the bottom section with the aperture adjustment lever sticking out about midway along it's length, the rest of it is just an adapter made from PVC pipe and a focussing helicoid salvaged from another lens.
>>4440460Finally, a lens I would be comfortable doing street photography with!
>>4440460That's fucking sick. What do you shoot with it? Post shots.
>>4440471I took maybe two or three photos of it and just to compare with my 150-500mm, the latter having better image quality even after cropping. The images were unfortunately on a drive that is now dead.
>>4440462Cunt.
Probably this Meyer-Optik Primoplan 1:1.9 58. Aperture limiter instead of aperture lever, which newer versions possibly (?) have.Not particularly rare, I don't think.
>>4440682When it comes to German post-war lenses there are so many varieties some of which are ultra rare and nobody cares for some reason. Rare mount varieties, newer revisions in low production numbers, identical lenses where one has more aperture blades and similar small changes. I guess lens collectors have to draw the line somewhere. I have a Schneider-Kreuznach Edixa-Xenon 50mm f/1.9 m42 late version which seems to be quite hard to come by, but does anyone care? No. Could also be because it does not look cool.
>>4439378 Hasselblad Carl-Zeiss 100mm f/3.5 Planar CFiIt's the most expensive and technically perfect piece of glass I own but it's also the least artistically interesting. It's a stop slower and slightly longer than the 80mm f/2.8, and it's obnoxiously bigger. This all makes it way less interesting to use. I don't know why I bought it. I've tried looking for photos taken with this lens and they're all horrible. Apparently no one has taken a picture of anything other than a test chart with this thing.
>>4448430>artistically interestingthis has always been and will always be a cope>MY LENS HAS CHARACTER>MY CAMERA HAS CHARM>BLUH BLUH BLUHNo, these are copes by people who can't frame or composit interesting images. A good lens and good camera are ones that capture something with perfect color reproduction exactly like the eyes saw them. Film is trash.
>>4440684I think it looks cool
>>4440079the 135/1.4 has a 6x6 coverage. probably the fastest 6x6 lens ever made. the DoF must be mental
>Take a piece of glass>Put it on a helicoidCongrats you now one own one of the rarest lens in the world
>>4448534Some things like specific bokeh effects and field curvature can only be done optically and it's just the right tool to choose for the job, but a lot of the time peoples character lens lust would be solved with a weak diffusion filter and some color grading. They would just rather buy the lens because then it makes it to the exif or can go into the "shot with" annotation, and they can express the way they really feel about photography by crediting the photo to the gear used.The latter is for lenses that aren't special at all, and are just soft and have slightly different color rendition. Like every lens sought after for "magic" or "3d pop" ever.
As someone who collects old glass I have to agree with the sentiment that it is overrated.. by a lot.I have a feeling that the allure is wearing off somewhat and that we have seen the peak in terms on interest in old glass after the adoption of mirrorless. They are still neat things to fondle with and look at though, historically interesting as well, but that is rarely the reason why people buy them, it is usually just hype thanks to social media. One appeal for me is to hunt for these things on the cheap because there is just so much of it around.. some of the rarer pieces in my collection I have barely paid anything for, unicorns such as the Canon SSC 28mm F2, the Konica 28mm F1.8 and more.
>>4450091I can't imagine buying a 28mm that's not on a disposable.>>4439378I no longer have it but it was probably the Soligor Tele-Auto 300mm in Miranda mount.
>>4440456I'd say 50,000 easily
Cosina 55mm f1.2Not that rare, come with all the flaws of 70s super fast 50s, bokeh/oof rendering rather unique and fun to play with from time to time.
>>4451363man that's some "3D pop", feels like I can reach into the screen and touch
>>4440178Oh dope. Lots of places have that kinda stuff I guess.>>4440115I love it so much I sold all my other lenses. Only complaints are weird filter size (39mm works fine though) and f2 doesn't cut the mustard in the winter walking to/from work. Other than that it's a perfect lens
>>4451363They were also sold under the Rikenon brand. The Rikenon seems to be more rare. The Rikenon can be had for less than half of the Cosinon because the Pentaxforum boomers don't know about it.
I think vintage ultra fast fifties is an interesting field to specialize in. Just a type set collection of sorts, but it would be very pricey really quickly to build something respectable. Sure you have first party lenses that there are tonnes of that can be found in the wild for cheap. I have a small collection consisting of the 55mm Canon FD, The NFD, the Minolta MD MKIII, the Olympus 55 1.2 and I would like to expand upon it, but I think it would be rather insane to pay market value for any of them, especially if I want to include unicorns such as the Fujinon STX, the FD 55mm Aspherical, the Minolta "Hawk's-eye" and such lenses.
>>4451713On second thought perhaps I was thinking about Tomioka. Either way the Rikenon is way cheaper and is made at the same factory.
>>4439386This isnt Reddit. You dont get upvotes here. Retard.
Not that rare I guess, but this is my only FL, have no idea if mine is, but these are supposed to have radioactive glass. Have also a decent collection of FD lenses, newest is 200mm f2.8 which is really nice.
>>4451728Tomioka is the original design in m42 mount, and yes, that is the rare one. Some say it itself is a copy of Leitz Canada Noctilux-M 50mm f1.0? don't know, but bokeh/oof do look somewhat similar and rather unique from what I can find online.Cosina bought the design after and made it under a few different names for K mount. I think the only derivative that's near impossible to find is Vivitar Series 1 VMC variant.
>>4451741Forgot about that one. It looks really cool. The Fuji 50mm F1.2 is another rebrand as well? I see a very similar Porst branded lens.
>>4451726>the Minolta "Hawk's-eye"I got one not too long ago.Havent had the rolls developed yet it so cant say anything there but is a monster next to the 1.4 58mm. I should have put a helios 44 next to both of them for scale, because the 1.4 isn't small
>>4451732Got any sample photos from the 200? I also collect FL and FD (mostly FL) lens and I've got several saved on my ebay account just not sure which one to get.
>>4451764This is taken with it and 50mm extension tube. Picrel is taken wide open so it is relatively sharp. I know of a guy that has taken some very nice astrophotos with the lens. As you might know shooting point source stars is something that reveals all the aberrations in the lens.
>>4451764They made 3 versions of it. The later NFD had 2 versions which are different optically, not sure how much that affects picture quality though.
I've got a 105mm apo-lanthar for 4x5 that is fairly rare. My 1040mm Rodenstock apo Ronar is also pretty rare. Both are pretty cool and fun. The lanthar has just enough coverage for 4x5, and the ronar needs 1 meter of bellows extension to focus at infinity, so they have their drawbacks. Still fun lenses to use.
>>4439378I doubt anyone has this camera.It's called Lord Martian.
This dude right here, I hasn't used it in a long time tho.A little scratch in the lens, making a pretty dreamy gloom when there's too much light, but it looks cute to me.
>>4453096>rarest lens thread>posts one of the most produced lenses in historyWhat did anon mean by this?
>>4453119anon, the ebay listing said it was rare, they would never lie!
Do cheap chinese screw on lens hoods produce vignetting? And if i use a generic one would it be better to use a filter first and thread the hood into that, or screw the hood to the lens and put a larger diameter filter over it?
>>4453238No unless user errs using one intended for a tele on a wide angle. Better screw hood on filter. If vignetting happens use filter without hood. Chinks also make cheap copies of lens-specific bayonet hoods.
>>4453119Could be a rare variety or something. The Helios 44 is usually the first lens people buy when testing vintage glass and its popularity thanks to social media has made it so that in some markets they are almost as expensive as a Biotar 58 which is a superior lens with much less availability. Fascinating how such things work sometimes where hype elevates an inferior product.
Also somewhat related to the whole Helios hipster swirly bokeh hype.. Cosina made some 50mm lenses with a similar swirly bokeh that nobody gives a rats rear end about and they are much rarer obviously, but still found easily for way less. I love these cheat codes for achieving the same optical performance for way less money.
>>4453250Posted in the wrong thread but thanks for the answer
>>4453119the thread title is "What is the rarest piece of glass you own?"well... that's the rarest I own. so... yeah. (?)
>>4439378Mine is a Zenitar 50mm f/0.95. I have never seen anyone with one or selling one other than the one I bought on ebay a while back.
>>4453799My bad, photo didnt send.
>>4453523Well possibly. Apologies, I actually thought it was a joke. Hope you're having fun with it, they're not a bad lens if you can get used to the weird aperture control. >>4453260>Could be a rare variety or something.I'm fairly certain that the 44-2 and specifically the 44-2 in M42 mount is the single most common variant of that lens as they were the kit lens on Zenit E's and they produced gorillions of those in particular. It is however probably rarer than the chinesium canikon kit zooms of the 2005-2015ish era.
>>4452098>The later NFD had 2 versions which are different optically, not sure how much that affects picture quality though.First one is the regular (unit focusing) version,latest one is internal focusing (IF) version.I owned the IF, the IF makes it really easy to handle and focus. It had some chromatic aberration. Just a little. The non-IF version, older, is supposed to be better in this regard.Bokeh of the IF version (200/2.8 New FD) is just amazing and beautiful. If you want to do model shoots/portraits, this is what you want.
>>4439378i don't own one, but the rarest lens that I would realistically attempt to buy is the ms-optic sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 for pentax Q mount. every now and then i google/ebay search but it's futile
I don't own any rare glass but the rarest glass I ever heard tell of is this f/0.7 lens by Carl Zeiss... only ten ever made and Stanley Kubrick bought one and had it fitted to his film camera for Barry Lyndon. Indispensable for his vision of cinema by candlelight.
>>4454444>ms-optic sonnetar 25mm f/1.1 for pentax QAh yes. Unicorns for dead mounts is always fun. I think there are a couple for the Samsung NX and Nikon 1 mount as well.
My favorite lens in the world is the Helios 33, rehoused in an old busted Industar. I use it for filmmaking on the Pocket 4K and seldom have to take it off. I've never met anyone in person who was aware of it. They always think I'm talking about the Helios 40 or 44-2.>I just think they're neat.
ok but what's the rarest piece of ass you've gotten tho
>>4460826your mom
>>4460848that anon said rare...
>>4460993No one has sex on 4chan, so that makes it rare.
>>4439388op are you retarded
>>4461083>>4461085>>4461086that's the 50mm, op said 35mm
>>4461083>op are you retardedIn fact I am, but evidently not as much as you.
rarest is picrelmodern lens and not particularly rare but relatively rare because the only people who would buy it are boomer pentaxians who just react "whew that's too pricey for MY wallet!!!" while clutching their DA* 600mm f4 they bought off another pentaxforums user 10 years ago for $2500
>>4461085hey I have the 1:1.2 somewhere slowly molding
>>4464139Probably one of the best vintage 50mm f1.2s.
>>4439378I have almost the full collection of Pentax67 lenses, and I have a huge set of extension tubes for macro. Seems like a nightmare to use and my medium format results usually fall short of my expectations. I may want to offload everything as a lot but it was a grail camera for me in the past and I’ll never obtain that collection again, so feels like a shame. But for some reason my medium format shots suck balls but maybe it’s because the Pentax67 lightmeter sucks balls. Im also getting lightleaks though. REE
>>4454447When Kubrick shoots .7 he’s a genius but when I shoot 1.2 im a bokeh chasing hack
Rodenstock-A 50mm f/2 on a Certo Probably one of a few hundred ever made Ill post pics later
>>4465023Pentax 67 and 67II both have a critical mirror slap flaw, it's so violent that the camera shakes a bit no matter what you do.I just have a Rollei 2.8 F I got a while back for MF. It's so small and nice and easy. Only the one forcal length though unless you hunt around for the stupidly expensive bayonet-mount tele and wide adapters.
>>4465377For me it’s the exposure never being satisfactory. The mirror slap isnt an issue I still get sharp images as long as i dont shoot too wide. I also use the mirror up feature as much as i can
>>4439378Technically not a lens on its own but it would be my 2.8E3 with only ~2000 units made, the Xenotar is pretty standard fare though. The least common interchangeable lens I own would either be the Zuiko 85/2, 180/2.8, or 500/8.
I don't own it but I watched this sell today at my local auction house. Was estimated £3-5k. Sold for £12,000 plus 30% commission.
>>4468243Seems like the market for ultra rare is healthy then.. rare/high end 60-80s has been going down by a lot.
>>4439378Nikkor AF-S 85mm f1.4Yes, I know, it's not rare at all. But I like it.
