Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

The most overrated manual lens? (Original thread!)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
What an excellent, and entertaining, read. The comments, views and ideas from everyone are thought provoking in a very interesting way.
The collective thought seems to be that an 'overrated lens' is purely subjective to the individuals view, which is often influenced by what they already know and like. Naturally we all want to progress to better lenses, and we do as we can afford them. But how often is the difference between the newer, faster, more expensive lens actually minimal compared to the lens we already have? If the new lens is 100 times more expensive than the lens we already have, and we know what it can achieve, do we see a 100 times jump in performance from the new lens? probably not.
And that's when we call the damn thing "overrated"


In order to say "overrated" there must be someone who rates.
And unless this person uses purely scientifical criterium, his rating is necessarily subjective.
Which, I think, devoids the whole topic of any real meaning except that of a vain argument.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
What an excellent, and entertaining, read. The comments, views and ideas from everyone are thought provoking in a very interesting way.
The collective thought seems to be that an 'overrated lens' is purely subjective to the individuals view, which is often influenced by what they already know and like. Naturally we all want to progress to better lenses, and we do as we can afford them. But how often is the difference between the newer, faster, more expensive lens actually minimal compared to the lens we already have? If the new lens is 100 times more expensive than the lens we already have, and we know what it can achieve, do we see a 100 times jump in performance from the new lens? probably not.
And that's when we call the damn thing "overrated"


In order to say "overrated" there must be someone who rates.
And unless this person uses purely scientifical criterium, his rating is necessarily subjective.
Which, I think, devoids the whole topic of any real meaning except that of a vain argument.


Yes, using scientific criterium makes the result objective rather than subjective, and being judged 'overrated' cannot be objective. It's much more fun to be subjective, that way we can judge with nothing more than our personal experiences and preferences. Which we all love to argue about. But importantly, it's how we end up seeing fabulous images from other photographers who use a lens we believe to be overrated to great effect.
It's only overrated until we are convinced otherwise, scientific criterium proves a lens' shortcomings, being thought of as overrated doesn't.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lets face it, if all Leica a Zeiss lenses were from £20-£60, we would all being saying how great they were and buy, buy, buy. Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 10:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
What an excellent, and entertaining, read. The comments, views and ideas from everyone are thought provoking in a very interesting way.
The collective thought seems to be that an 'overrated lens' is purely subjective to the individuals view, which is often influenced by what they already know and like. Naturally we all want to progress to better lenses, and we do as we can afford them. But how often is the difference between the newer, faster, more expensive lens actually minimal compared to the lens we already have? If the new lens is 100 times more expensive than the lens we already have, and we know what it can achieve, do we see a 100 times jump in performance from the new lens? probably not.
And that's when we call the damn thing "overrated"


In order to say "overrated" there must be someone who rates.
And unless this person uses purely scientifical criterium, his rating is necessarily subjective.
Which, I think, devoids the whole topic of any real meaning except that of a vain argument.


Any rating, even backed by measurable criteria is subjective. A lens which resolves X lp/mm is neither good nor bad, though it may resolve more or less lines than other lenses. "Good", "bad", etc. are all subjective judgements. So to discuss the perceived rating of lenses is hardly any more vain or devoid of meaning than it is to discuss whether a car, or a movie, the weather or anything is good or bad, or under or overrated.

We can still make subjective judgements based on measurable quantities though. If lens A performs as well as lens B in Y category, but costs 5 times as much, I think one can reasonably claim that lens A is overrated or at least overpriced. But somebody else might point out that lens A also has Z quality which lens B doesn't - so which is better just depends on who values what. Like just about any judgement about anything in life. On the other hand, sometimes a lens builds a reputation based entirely on one particular quality, and sometimes it can be demonstrated that that lens is not actually the best for that particular quality. The reputation may be subjective and spurious, but it still exists, so then again it is reasonable to say the lens is overrated I think.

On the matter of it being the photographer, not the lens, there are quite a few people who take excellent photos with Holgas, so perhaps all lenses are overrated and we're wasting our time looking for anything "better" Shocked


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 12:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

In order to say "overrated" there must be someone who rates.
And unless this person uses purely scientifical criterium, his rating is necessarily subjective.
Which, I think, devoids the whole topic of any real meaning except that of a vain argument.


....and what percentage of lens threads here (or anywhere) use scientific criterium? Rolling Eyes

e.g.: here's a shot I took with x lens (god knows what the variables were taking it)

reply: oh, that looks nice. (equally varied viewing parameters)

If we are lucky there is 100% crop from somewhere on the frame--god knows what shape the sensor and camera are in, how clean the lens. MTF charts are not comparable between brands--or so I'm told, i.e. zeiss MTFs are meaningless as tool to compare with leica/leitz.

And how are we scientifically measuring oof rendering?

Even the sites which do comprehensive review with a good bench provide scattered data and at best hints. e.g. Few give us an idea of performance at infinity past 100 yards as compared to 10 ft, which as we know, can vary dramatically with each lens.

A good debate can inspire exploration and self-examination, at least, while the squelching of same in the vain delusion we have the tools for CERN like measurement of reality produces nothing, except quiet.

In this universe there is no shortage of quiet.

Perhaps the prevalence of local objectivity is what's over-rated. Smile

Last edited by uhoh7 on Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:41 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 1:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hey I think Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is overrated and expensive, I've had a few,the same applies Konica 50mm F1.7 but it is low priced.
But I think Olympus 50mm (japan, made ​​in japan) is underestimated smaller and nicer to focus than Pancoler and probably sharper at large apertures 1.8-2.8 but unfortunately I have no Pancolar left to prove it.
Okej it is nice with the Zeiss name but.....
My opinion only


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 2:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeeke wrote:
Hey I think Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is overrated and expensive, I've had a few,the same applies Konica 50mm F1.7 but it is low priced.
But I think Olympus 50mm (japan, made ​​in japan) is underestimated smaller and nicer to focus than Pancoler and probably sharper at large apertures 1.8-2.8 but unfortunately I have no Pancolar left to prove it.
Okej it is nice with the Zeiss name but.....
My opinion only


This is the problem with the thread as we are saying "I think" or "I reckon" or whatever..and no one is proving anything, and then we would all probably disagree with the proof Wink


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
So much since my last read of this thread. Where to start?

Uhoh7: Welcome back, Charlie. And I had thought you left for good when you were actually waiting for the right moment to make a comeback. BTW, a Mini Cooper? I don't think I knew that. I remember the Z car. What steering wheel do you have on the Mini?
------------------------------------------------

When making points about equipment vs the actual photography, remember that this is a lens forum and as such will attract many people who are more into the tools than the end result. I have a natural attraction to gadgets, so must try to resist that as best I can.

When folks realize it is less about the technical and more about the experience, they will find peace with their lens selections. I have discovered that my favorite lenses are so because of both results and experience. By that, I mean that certain lenses just feel right when I'm using them. Some seem to focus easier and the actual feel of the physical lens is more to my liking. There there are the results which may or may not correspond to the "feel". In the end I favor the lenses that provide both, and this is according to what I like, not technical data or the hype of others. To give some examples...

The famous Flek 35/2.4 can provide some very sharp images. It can also provide images lacking in the corners, but overall my experience, the joy factor, isn't real good. The build quality and difficulty focusing does not give it a good feel for me. On the other hand, My Topcor 35/28 feels wonderful, focus easily, provides consistent results that I like and give me joy; all at a much lower cost. I will not make technical comparisons because it won't matter to me and I don't care if the Flek focuses closer or might have a tiny bit more sharpness in some situations; that is, if it does.

I had a so-so experience with my first J-9, a RF version. It wasn't great to look through and the results were okay, but not great. I tried again, but only because I had been offered a mint copy of a M39 version for cheap. There was a huge difference in my experience when using the M39 version. It felt good, and the results seemed remarkably better. Then during one shoot I made a switch between another lens I liked at a similar focal length to the Jupiter. I immediately perceived a big difference just from what I saw in the viewfinder - the J-9 was much more pleasurable to use.

Then there are more subtle differences I can't explain other than by my joy factor. I smile much more from my Lydith results than from my Pentacon results from the (supposedly) same 30mm lens.

I don't think I'm too much off topic here, except for the steering wheel question, but that was important. I suppose my message is to enjoy what you enjoy. And I suppose that also goes for those who enjoy collecting lenses more than photography itself.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
When folks realize it is less about the technical and more about the experience, they will find peace with their lens selections.


Amen

I've reached the point where I only really divide lenses into two categories 'like' and 'don't like'. I've got rid of any I didn't like and now, I really don't have much of an urge to acquire anything new, apart from some large format lenses to fill the gaps in the range I already have.

The lenses I didn't like, well, they were all of two categories really - bottom rung cheapo third party stuff and mint condition stuff that sucked. Pretty much every lens I've had that I thought was crap but shouldn't have been was in mint or close to mint condition, which strongly suggests that it was never used much because it was faulty from the factory. Examples include the Vivitar Series 1 2.3/135, which we know is a very good lens, but my copy was a dog, the first copy of the Vivitar Close Focus 2.8/28, that was a woofer too, but a second copy was nice and is still being enjoyed by a friend today; a Canon FD 1.4/50 that I am sure had a misaligned element, a Yashica ML 2.8/35 that was never sharp, there were others but my memory fails me.

On the flip side, I have several lenses that look like they have been thoroughly enjoyed like my Nikkor 2.8/24 that looks like it spent a couple of decades being used hard by a pro but shoots wonderfully and my Tair-3C 4.5/300 that looks like it was dragged through many a forest hunting down wildlife but is sharp like a scalpel in the eye.

So in all, I've learnt to be a little suspicious of decades old lenses that look like no-one ever used them.

I've also learnt that it's very dangerous to form a solid opinion on a particular lens based on only sampling one or two copies.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 27, 2013 6:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zeeke wrote:
Hey I think Pancolar 50mm f1.8 is overrated and expensive, I've had a few,the same applies Konica 50mm F1.7 but it is low priced.
But I think Olympus 50mm (japan, made ​​in japan) is underestimated smaller and nicer to focus than Pancoler and probably sharper at large apertures 1.8-2.8 but unfortunately I have no Pancolar left to prove it.
Okej it is nice with the Zeiss name but.....
My opinion only


I would agree. The Pancolar 1.8/50 has weak corner performance in my experience, and I've heard and seen this from enough other people's examples to believe I didn't just have a flawed copy. On the other hand it is very sharp in the center, and if it matters to anybody the OOF rendering definitely has character.

The Pancolar 2/50 by comparison seems ignored by most (and thus cheaper), but I like my copy a lot. I wonder if anybody has done a comparison of the two?


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leica might be overrated but I love the summicron R 50/2, beautiful colours and great sharpness and dof @ f2.
Underrated lens: Pentacon auto 50mm 1.8 Smile (m42)


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dogtag wrote:
Leica might be overrated but I love the summicron R 50/2, beautiful colours and great sharpness and dof @ f2.
Underrated lens: Pentacon auto 50mm 1.8 Smile (m42)


In my initial tests on a 400d...... the Meyer (Pentacon) at about 17ft distance and at F5.6 was slightly better in resolution compared to the super Tak 55mm f1.8........which is about correct as on a film camera my Meyer and Super tak are just short of razor sharp compared to the sharpest 50mms that I have.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now that fullframe senzors will be avaible soon on mirrorless cameras I forsay an increase in overevaluation.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What an "over-rated" lens can really do:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/crisrose/10554537115/


PostPosted: Sun Nov 03, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Geez this thread has taken off in a hurry. Pardon me if I don't read through all 10 pages.

If I'm duplicating something somebody else has already posted, well my response to that is "great minds think alike" Cool

The most overrated lens to me is actually more than one lens. Any lens with a name that begins with the letters "Noc"


PostPosted: Mon Nov 04, 2013 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
What an "over-rated" lens can really do:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/crisrose/10554537115/


You can make great photos also with crappy lenses. Who has ever doubted that.
But that soft image (larger: http://www.flickr.com/photos/crisrose/10554537115/sizes/o/in/photostream/) would look imho soo much better with a better lens like Canon 35/2 LTM, CV 40/1.4, Summicron 40/2, Nokton 35/1.2... and of course if you pay double Biogon 35/2, Summicron-M 35/2,... and of course if it doesn't have to be Leica-M glass, Planar 35/2, Samyang 35/1.4, Canon FD 35/2,..... I wouldn't wonder if even Konica 40/1.8 delivered a better picture in this case for 10% of the price.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I gotta weigh in with a popular choice for overrated: Leica Summicron-R 50mm version II and Summicron-M 35mm version IV "Bokeh King". I have both, and will be selling both, as many other, way cheaper lenses are as good or better (for my taste, and my purposes).


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tss, tss...Guess you just lost the right to use the "kraut" in your name... Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sat Mar 26, 2016 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Nordentro wrote:
Aanything wrote:
I think I must vote for the Trioplan too.


+1 Wink


Well, I have changed my mind over the years. It is not my cup of tea, but I can understand why people like the Trioplan after owning one myself. The Jupiter-6 is my new runner up after owning two of those Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Page 6 of 6