Best Vintage MF lenses

InPhoto wrote in post #19445365
Thank you!! Canon engineers of the time (around 1960, I guess) have replaced the focusing helicoid of the rangefinder with the black one shown in the photo.
When I checked it with the EOS the helicoid couldn't focus properly, so I had to remove a part and have an inner sleeve with threads and appropriate length made in a mechanics shop. Then I punched a hole in a camera mount cap and glued it at the lens' end. It works nicely, I can focus to eternity and also have a better minimum focusing distance. I can also mount projection lenses on the helicoid, but as there is no focus confirmation chip, nailing the focus with my eyes is not easy.

Hosted photo: posted by InPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=194​45365&i=i69883141
forum: Canon Lenses

Hosted photo: posted by InPhoto in
./showthread.php?p=194​45365&i=i184275042
forum: Canon Lenses

Sounds like a lot of work!!

This lens and a 24mm Cosina for FD mount were a PITA to adapt, at least they give me a shorter minimum focus now...

Prakticar 35-70mm, a compact and sharp lens. I like it because it is shorter in size when at 70mm, makes for a very compact telephoto.

CZJ Biotar 58mm

From some objective testing of max delivered resolution, using 200 lp/mm ( ) as the threshhold
https://www.lensrental​s.com …solution-mtf-experiments/

"We did find several prime lenses that could meet those criteria stopped down to f/4 in the center of the image, but none could near the edges. The best results were for the Zeiss Otus 85mm f/1.4 lens at f/4. A few other lenses (Zeiss 135mm f/2 APO-Sonnar; Sigma 135mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art; Zeiss 55mm f1.4 Otus) were acceptable at f/4 in the middle portion of the image. Nothing wider than 50mm was really acceptable, although the Canon 35mm f1.4 Mk II and Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art were close."

But, raw umbers do not tell the whole story

"Let me repeat, for those of you who want to mistake this test as having something to do with, say, the 60-megapixel full-frame camera you’re shooting; it doesn’t. Somewhere around 80 lp/mm would be more than sufficient for that. If you compare the orange lines of the Sony and Sigma 135mm graphs, you’ll see that at 96 lp/mm the Sony is actually a bit better than the Sigma. At ridiculously high frequencies, the Sigma is better. The takeaway message is important: better MTF at one frequency doesn’t mean better MTF at all frequencies."