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: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:21 am    Post subject: The most overrated manual lens? (Original thread!) Reply with quote
Hi!
I like to start this funny topic.
Which is the most overrated manual lens for your taste?

I've tried the Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.4 (Leica M) on NEX-C3 today and it was the most awful lens I tried since a very very long time - at least for my personal taste.
I was shocked. IQ behaves more like a standard zoom lens, even stopped down to the same apertures. And 500-700€ (new) and ~400€ (used) for this lens waaaay too much imho for this so called "bargain", even considered RF-coupling and its very tiny size. Any comparable Minolta, Konica, Nikon, Sony, Canon, "Russian",... primes I've seen are optically better and cheaper.
I've heard many prasing hymnes about this lens - I simply can't understand that.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:59 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Probably anything with a label like "Bokeh King"... Laughing

I'm also thinking maybe the Steinheil Quinon, for the prices they go for now there are better lenses out there. Maybe not as collectible or pretty though.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It will be something with a red dot on it and an inflated price. Smile

To be serious though, you can't judge that Voigtlander based on just one copy, there is always the possibility you got a bad copy.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:26 am    Post subject: Re: The most overrated manual lens? Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Hi!
I like to start this funny topic.
Which is the most overrated manual lens for your taste?

I've tried the Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.4 (Leica M) on NEX-C3 today and it was the most awful lens I tried since a very very long time - at least for my personal taste.
I was shocked. IQ behaves more like a standard zoom lens, even stopped down to the same apertures. And 500-700€ (new) and ~400€ (used) for this lens waaaay too much imho for this so called "bargain", even considered RF-coupling and its very tiny size. Any comparable Minolta, Konica, Nikon, Sony, Canon, "Russian",... primes I've seen are optically better and cheaper.
I've heard many prasing hymnes about this lens - I simply can't understand that.


Your lens has faulty I think, Leica owners often blind , but this sound cover rather a bad copy than bad lens.

Leica is most overrated in general I am over 10+ Leica item all cost was double than similar Zeiss and all performed lot less except one or two than Zeiss.

I don't think so any other item overrated than Leica stuff.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


To be serious though, you can't judge that Voigtlander based on just one copy, there is always the possibility you got a bad copy.


Yes, that may be the limitation of this kind of question I suppose. If others have a similar opinion of that Voigtlander, then a pattern might appear. Same goes for any lens mentioned here.
I wish I could contribute a lens to this list, but I don't shop at the rarified end of the price spectrum. My lenses tend to be the opposite - good/excellent performing cheapies for the most part.
Should be some interesting responses to the question though, and I look forward to hearing the experiences of others.
OH


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I could name some lenses I've owned that were crap but where the general opinion is that it's a good lens, which just indicates I had a bad copy. Interestingly, they were always mint condition, which strongly suggests that they left the factory in faulty condition. Two that stick out in my mind were the Vivitar Series 1 2.3/135 and the Chinon Tomioka 1.4/55, both were so terrible they must have been faulty and both were mint.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sometimes leica lenses are overrated. Sometimes, no.

I have not the following lenses, but i know who has them and speack very well. All M lenses, 21/1,4 Asph, 24/1,4 Asph, 90/2 Apo.

I had a summicron 2/50 last style. Good lens but not stellar.

Now I have the apo-telyt 180/3,4. I don't know how many zeiss are better.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
In general, any lens that you think the C/P is really bad is very overrated. Specifically, there are many lenses in low production but high demand due to weird/unique bokeh are likely much overrated by peoples in the East. For example, the Super-Six series from Dallmeyer.

My cheap 35/2.5 Color Skopar perform quiet well in film with sharp center from full open. Some reports on the internet said the Nokton 35/1.4 has some focus shift issues in the first bunches. It seems it is a lens that designed to give you a vintage look on your photos.....

About the Quinons, I got two in DKL but they are not expensive than my Xenon. They worth every penny if you can find on in decent price with patience. My copies is acceptability sharp from wide open with very balanced color. Like other Steinheil lenses, it will shows its magic in low light environment...

My 2 cents...


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 7:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would say Meyer Lydith 30/3.5 . The first copy I had must have been faulty as it never got really sharp and the second one is just OK but not impressive under any conditions. Even my Pentax M 28/2.8, heck even a good copy of Pentacon 29/2.8 outperformed it.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
It will be something with a red dot on it and an inflated price. Smile

To be serious though, you can't judge that Voigtlander based on just one copy, there is always the possibility you got a bad copy.


I've got quite a few lenses with red dots on them, usually to indicate how to line things up when putting them on the camera Very Happy

I'm not sure about what I think might be over-rated . . . my problem is that I look at images that people rave on about showing this or that wonderful effect and half the time I'm damned if I can see what they're going on about. Does that mean I think those lenses are over-rated, or that I'm actually lacking the discerning senses needed to recognise what others see so clearly? Or are many people suffering from 'Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome'? (see http://www.online-literature.com/hans_christian_andersen/967/)


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:


I'm not sure about what I think might be over-rated . . . my problem is that I look at images that people rave on about showing this or that wonderful effect and half the time I'm damned if I can see what they're going on about. Does that mean I think those lenses are over-rated, or that I'm actually lacking the discerning senses needed to recognise what others see so clearly? Or are many people suffering from 'Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome'? (see http://www.online-literature.com/hans_christian_andersen/967/)


Well I agree, quite a few shots posted are not presented well and the lens looks ordinary....e.g. It's no good saying "it's a very sharp lens" if the picture doesn't look sharp and so on.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 8:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
All Leica glass in general? Rolling Eyes At least the R glass is more affordable than the rest of it...


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Overrated about the IQ of the lens or of the price ?

I think that the price is a secundary cuestion.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 9:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My 35/1.4 Nokton was unused (new) btw., so if I had a lemon, I had a lemon straight from factory.

DR.JUAN wrote:
Overrated about the IQ of the lens or of the price ?

I think that the price is a secundary cuestion.


Overrated IQ but price and IQ are generally more or less coupled

Leitz lenses are overpriced compared to the competition but at least they are good. Or have you ever seen a "bad" Leitz lens?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
CV 35/1.4 is a low light "people" lens with unbeatable form factor. It distorts and edges that don't play that great on digital. Since it is widely trashed I would not call it "overrated", just the opposite. In the right hands and situations it's great.

Leica RF glass overrated? Over-priced maybe. Huge variety of character and performance. Incredible lenses. Very much underrated on this forum by many members, who just hate Leica, period. I just wish I had an M9.

Overrated? OK how about Contax G 45? Sharp sharp sharp. Horrible oof rendering. In fact all those Contax G lenses are overrated, IMHO.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:

Overrated? OK how about Contax G 45? Sharp sharp sharp. Horrible oof rendering. In fact all those Contax G lenses are overrated, IMHO.

Interesting. I had Contax G 28/2.8, 35/2, 45/2 and 90/2.8
I also didn't like 45/2 at all, even it was razorsharp and T* contrasty
So +1 for Contax G Planar 45/2

But I liked all the others, even if they were optically less perfect (28/2.8 vignetting, 35/2 lower sharpness wide open and sometimes harsh bokeh wide open, 90/2.8 CAs wide open).


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are no optically perfect lenses and when choosing between very good lenses, it becomes largely a matter of personal taste as they are all very capable.

It's very clear though that Leica lenses are overrated by some people, because those people evangelise about them and talk like they will magically make you a better shooter and the magical Leica glass will endow your pictures with special properties that only the Leica cognoscenti can discern because those who are too poor to pay Leica prices are too unsophisticated to appreciate their magical properties.

Bottom line, Leica don't make bad lenses, but their lenses aren't magical, no matter how big the price tag or how much some people hype them. Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
. . . . my problem is that I look at images that people rave on about showing this or that wonderful effect and half the time I'm damned if I can see what they're going on about. Does that mean I think those lenses are over-rated, or that I'm actually lacking the discerning senses needed to recognise what others see so clearly?


My feelings exactly.

Quote:
Or are many people suffering from 'Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome'? (see http://www.online-literature.com/hans_christian_andersen/967/)


Absolutely. But if you point out that the Emperor is actually not wearing any clothes then you are told that "clothes are not everything".


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I completely agree about the assessments about Leica. I've owned and used MANY lenses from MANY brands including Zeiss (west) but I never managed to own anything Leica because of the outrageous prices. I've tried, I've tried hard. But no Leica lenses ever came within my reach. And I refuse to pay $$$ for common items (most Leica lenses are definitely common and there is an abundance of them on the marketplace).


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Spotmatic wrote:
I completely agree about the assessments about Leica. I've owned and used MANY lenses from MANY brands including Zeiss (west) but I never managed to own anything Leica because of the outrageous prices. I've tried, I've tried hard. But no Leica lenses ever came within my reach. And I refuse to pay $$$ for common items (most Leica lenses are definitely common and there is an abundance of them on the marketplace).


+1
Never really saw the point. I too have a pile of Zeiss lenses, fantastic IQ, excellent rendering, top notch manual focus handling, and many especially Contax Zeiss which I got at very reasonable prices used. Don't know what else I could ask for. Some Leica R's sell at low prices, but nothing which I can't get better performance out of a Zeiss or even Nikon manual equivalent.

Even fake Leicas clearly labeled as fakes also command extraordinary prices. I wanted to get one of those collapsing fake Russian "Leica" LTM lenses just to fool with people but they sell for way more than I'm willing to pay for it.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:08 am    Post subject: Re: The most overrated manual lens? Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
I've tried the Voigtländer Nokton 35/1.4 (Leica M) on NEX-C3 today


I have the same lens which I use on an EOS M. My copy isn't extremely sharp but it has tons of character and a wacky out-of-focus rendering, so I guess it depends on what you look for. For me the main advantage of this lens is having a f/1.4 lens in such a small package. The entire camera and lens is (barely) pocketable which makes it a great carry-anywhere camera for me when I want to not take my SLR or deliberately be less obvious (street photography, etc.). Most people on the street look at my EOS M + 35/1.4 and see it as a retro P&S camera, so people on the street often don't mind me shooting, something which isn't quite easy with an SLR and a massive retrofocusing Samyang 35/1.4 or whatnot which makes you look like a scary professional journalist to the average Joe.

It also is plenty sharp at f/8 for landscapes, and some of the best landscape shots I've taken happen when I'm least expecting it, so it's good to have a camera+lens which I'm actually willing to carry 24/7. No tripod is no problem, I've taken plenty of low ISO shots with rice bags and whatnot.

The other thing to keep in mind is that this lens was designed for full frame (Leica M9) so you may take a significant resolution hit when using it on MFT which has a much smaller pixel pitch.

Last edited by wuxiekeji on Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:

DR.JUAN wrote:
Overrated about the IQ of the lens or of the price ?

I think that the price is a secundary cuestion.


Overrated IQ but price and IQ are generally more or less coupled


Overrated IQ for given price:

MOG Primoplan 1.9/75
MOG Primoplan 1.9/58
CZJ Biotar 1.5/75
MOG Trioplan 2.8/100
CZJ 20mm Flektogons
CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35

I have few Leica R mount lenses >50mm and they are overall very good to top (Elmarit-R 2.8/60, APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 2.8/100, APO Telyt-R 3.4/180, Elmarit-R 2.8/180v2). I bought most of them 2-3 years back, when they was at very acceptable price levels. Some are not so great Elmarit-R 2.8/180v1, Elmarit-R 2.8/90v1, Elamrit-R 2.8/28v1, but they was top lenses in their times ie. '60. Overall, I like tele lenses more from Leica and wide-angle from Zeiss.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
There are no optically perfect lenses and when choosing between very good lenses, it becomes largely a matter of personal taste as they are all very capable.

It's very clear though that Leica lenses are overrated by some people, because those people evangelise about them and talk like they will magically make you a better shooter and the magical Leica glass will endow your pictures with special properties that only the Leica cognoscenti can discern because those who are too poor to pay Leica prices are too unsophisticated to appreciate their magical properties.

Bottom line, Leica don't make bad lenses, but their lenses aren't magical, no matter how big the price tag or how much some people hype them. Rolling Eyes


Yes, there can sometimes be a thing that I think of as price syndrome.
Price syndrome to me goes like this ....... "I paid a shedload of money for this lens/camera/accessory and I'm damned if I'm ever going to find anything wrong with it, or allow others to criticize it in any way. It has to be the best because it cost so much!"
From this vantage point, any criticism can be seen as sour grapes by those who couldn't afford one - so the high ground can be maintained by the owner.
Put another way, how many people will admit that all that money did not buy the best that there is ............

As has been stated many times, it is the results that count, not the bling!
OH


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A lens that comes to my mind: The Kiron 105mm f/2.8 macro.
A good macro, true, but IMO not worth the $400+ they usually go for on ebay.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 23, 2013 11:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The only Contax G lens that I had/have is 90mm Sonnar. It's pretty much a perfect lens, optically I don't have a single complaint about it. Of course it's AF, so haptics of manual focus kind of sucks.

I think the most overrated lens that I came across is Konica 40mm pancake. That is if you buy into this "sharpest lens ever built" hype. Otherwise it's a decent lens. Jena Flektogon also comes to mind. Again, it's a decent lens, but I have a couple of 35mm that I prefer to it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6