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

Underrated lenses :)
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
The short and silly answer is most lenses are underrated.
Most SLR lenses that were sold for consumer use are not only usable but can produce excellent pictures with just a little care.

And for most normal purposes most such lenses perform so closely to each other that distinguishing between the results of a poor lens and a great one may not be easy for a casual viewer.

If I shoot at f/5.6 - f/8 in bright light with proper exposure there are an enormous number of excellent lenses. Some may have more distortion, or worse corners, or less contrast, but this sort of problem will rarely be apparent to someone who doesn't know what to look for.

Some have "character", usually only seen wide-open - called defects by the unkind - that likewise can be put to creative use. That takes more thought though.

+10


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
The short and silly answer is most lenses are underrated.
Most SLR lenses that were sold for consumer use are not only usable but can produce excellent pictures with just a little care.

And for most normal purposes most such lenses perform so closely to each other that distinguishing between the results of a poor lens and a great one may not be easy for a casual viewer.

If I shoot at f/5.6 - f/8 in bright light with proper exposure there are an enormous number of excellent lenses. Some may have more distortion, or worse corners, or less contrast, but this sort of problem will rarely be apparent to someone who doesn't know what to look for.

Some have "character", usually only seen wide-open - called defects by the unkind - that likewise can be put to creative use. That takes more thought though.


Agree totally.
The original intent of the thread (correct me if I'm wrong) might have been to allow experienced lens users the opportunity to point out lenses that show excellent performance, but are neglected/forgotten examples that the market has relegated to lowly standing - price wise.
I, for one, am intrigued by such lenses.
These might include lesser known brands, difficult to handle lenses and ugly ducklings.
On this forum we have seen numerous examples of splendid work wrung out of even poorly regarded lenses - WolverineX's work with the Domiplan was one such - and is indicative of his skill with all of his lenses.
If this thread heads in that direction, it would gain in relevance to me.
OH


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
luisalegria wrote:
The short and silly answer is most lenses are underrated.
Most SLR lenses that were sold for consumer use are not only usable but can produce excellent pictures with just a little care.

And for most normal purposes most such lenses perform so closely to each other that distinguishing between the results of a poor lens and a great one may not be easy for a casual viewer.

If I shoot at f/5.6 - f/8 in bright light with proper exposure there are an enormous number of excellent lenses. Some may have more distortion, or worse corners, or less contrast, but this sort of problem will rarely be apparent to someone who doesn't know what to look for.

Some have "character", usually only seen wide-open - called defects by the unkind - that likewise can be put to creative use. That takes more thought though.


Agree totally.
The original intent of the thread (correct me if I'm wrong) might have been to allow experienced lens users the opportunity to point out lenses that show excellent performance, but are neglected/forgotten examples that the market has relegated to lowly standing - price wise.
I, for one, am intrigued by such lenses.
These might include lesser known brands, difficult to handle lenses and ugly ducklings.
On this forum we have seen numerous examples of splendid work wrung out of even poorly regarded lenses - WolverineX's work with the Domiplan was one such - and is indicative of his skill with all of his lenses.
If this thread heads in that direction, it would gain in relevance to me.
OH


Which is why I'll mention the MIR 1B, which although it has a decent reputation, is a lens that frustrates the hell out me. When its good its great, and very underrated. Or possibly, it could go in the overrated topic, but that would be unfair.

How about the Novoflex for genuinely underrated ? I only have one, the 240 / 4.5 which came with a bag of Pentax gear. I thought it might have novelty value with it's pistol grip focusing. But I handled it and it felt well made, very good quality. I was surprised. But not as surprised as I was when I tried it! The quality of the optics is excellent, the whole lens is actually very good indeed. I have no idea if the other Novoflex lenses are as good? but I'd be willing to take a chance on them.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 6:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'll have to mention the humble Auto Sears 50mm f2.
I think general opinion seems to indicate that this is an XR Rikenon.
Cheap as chips and common as dirt ......



There are always plenty of these begging for a home on ebay for next to nothing, yet they produce results like this:



OH


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Looks a good lens OH, I've only got a Centon 50mmF1.7 for my Ricoh film camera (Pentax mount)...maybe Centon should be investigated, surely they all can't be bad.... which seems to be the general opinion.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Looks a good lens OH, I've only got a Centon 50mmF1.7 for my Ricoh film camera (Pentax mount)...maybe Centon should be investigated, surely they all can't be bad.... which seems to be the general opinion.


Definitely check out the Centron Possibilities.
The Sears is sooooo good for soooo little that it has to be somewhere near the top of the most underrated.
Here is another couple of shots, with the last being a 100% crop of the previous.




OH


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:

Which is why I'll mention the MIR 1B, which although it has a decent reputation, is a lens that frustrates the hell out me. When its good its great, and very underrated...


I must agree with Lloydy, Mir 1B is one of my most underrated lenses. It's often painful for me to use it as well, but when I stop whinging about long throw focus ring, it produces beautiful images. From portrait, by candid shots or some walk about shots - it's just great. What's more, here in Poland you probably have an uncle/father/grandfather who has it so you could get it for free or just buy online for about 5-10Euro in excellent condition with original case and papers.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Oldhand wrote:
I'll have to mention the humble Auto Sears 50mm f2.
I think general opinion seems to indicate that this is an XR Rikenon.
Cheap as chips and common as dirt ......

There are always plenty of these begging for a home on ebay for next to nothing, yet they produce results like this:

OH


Great results! I really want to pick one of those up next time I visit the States. They are going pretty cheap as you say.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
PhantomLord wrote:
Quote:

Which is why I'll mention the MIR 1B, which although it has a decent reputation, is a lens that frustrates the hell out me. When its good its great, and very underrated...


I must agree with Lloydy, Mir 1B is one of my most underrated lenses. It's often painful for me to use it as well, but when I stop whinging about long throw focus ring, it produces beautiful images. From portrait, by candid shots or some walk about shots - it's just great. What's more, here in Poland you probably have an uncle/father/grandfather who has it so you could get it for free or just buy online for about 5-10Euro in excellent condition with original case and papers.


Is this the right lens? Sounds like a good lens to buy.



PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
"uddhava":

Yes, this is the one. But understand that you have been warned Wink - as I said somewhere, it is love AND hate lens for me. Just like the Lloydy wrote: "When its good its great", for me it is quite hard to focus with the damn thing, but every time I take it for fun, it surprises me with the results. I have two versions - first just like on your photo and the second - newer version like this:


While the newer version is a little bit easier to focus it is a little bit softer as well. Older version (like on your photo) is sharp in the center WO and sharp across whole APS-C by f5.6. Both of them have 16 aperture blades, so the bokeh is great even if closed to f/8. Downside, apart from focusing, is MFD which is 0,7m. There are however some tips how to take off the limiters and focus from ~0,3m.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The industar 3,5/50. M42.

Rivaliced with tessar and sometime wins.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 1:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
PhantomLord wrote:
"uddhava":

Yes, this is the one. But understand that you have been warned Wink - as I said somewhere, it is love AND hate lens for me. Just like the Lloydy wrote: "When its good its great", for me it is quite hard to focus with the damn thing, but every time I take it for fun, it surprises me with the results. I have two versions - first just like on your photo and the second - newer version like this:


While the newer version is a little bit easier to focus it is a little bit softer as well. Older version (like on your photo) is sharp in the center WO and sharp across whole APS-C by f5.6. Both of them have 16 aperture blades, so the bokeh is great even if closed to f/8. Downside, apart from focusing, is MFD which is 0,7m. There are however some tips how to take off the limiters and focus from ~0,3m.


Thank you for giving more information about this lens, I will see if i can buy it.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm... Sony SEL50F18 [AF]
it's better than Zeiss ZM 50/1.5 and maybe better than Zeiss ZM 50/2 for about 1/5 of their prices. It's not usable for MF and FF-sensors though and it's build is not as good but hey - on NEX its optics are almost unbeatable.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The already mentioned Mir 1 is agood example:
It's so cheap and common that is easily overlooked, but a fine lens.
I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
The already mentioned Mir 1 is agood example:
It's so cheap and common that is easily overlooked, but a fine lens.
I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.


Which version?

MC Rokkor PF

MD Rokkor-X, filter 55mm

MD Rokkor-X, filter 49 mm

MD 50, filter 49 mm

Are all the same?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Latest MD 50/1.7 is the best of the 50/1.7 "Rokkors" as far as I know. It's known to be very good - it has comparable strong vignetting though (compared to other 50/1.7 - 50/2 lenses - not really bad).
I heard Sony SAL50F18 is based on it's design with slight optimisations for digital sensor - they rated it for APS-C only, even if it's vignetting not much worse than original Minolta 50/1.7.


I was also very impressed by the Minolta MD 50/2 (49mm filter screw), almost pancake size and good IQ (great CA control, high acutance, sharpness, clarity...). Build is mostly plastic but haptics are vey smooth.
http://forum.mflenses.com/a-little-comparision-between-some-cheap-50mm-lenses-t45319,highlight,%2Bcomparision.html
It can be generally had for 2-20€ - I would call it underrated as it was the optically best but also the cheapest lens in the linked comparision.

Last edited by ForenSeil on Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:03 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ForenSeil wrote:
Latest MD Rokkor 50/1.7 is the best of the 50/1.7 Rokkors as far as I know. It's known to be very good - it has comparable strong vignetting though (compared to other 50/1.7 - 50/2 lenses).


Well how do you tell if you have the latest Rokkor ?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 9:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DR.JUAN wrote:
Aanything wrote:
The already mentioned Mir 1 is agood example:
It's so cheap and common that is easily overlooked, but a fine lens.
I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.


Which version?

MC Rokkor PF

MD Rokkor-X, filter 55mm

MD Rokkor-X, filter 49 mm

MD 50, filter 49 mm

Are all the same?


I was referring to the MD 50 with 49mm filter. I wrote rokkor by mistake.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 29, 2013 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote:
Aanything wrote:
The already mentioned Mir 1 is agood example:
It's so cheap and common that is easily overlooked, but a fine lens.
I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.


Which version?

MC Rokkor PF

MD Rokkor-X, filter 55mm

MD Rokkor-X, filter 49 mm

MD 50, filter 49 mm

Are all the same?


I was referring to the MD 50 with 49mm filter. I wrote rokkor by mistake.


Ah..got the MD 50mm...49mm and it's a very good lens on a film camera.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Aanything wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote:
Aanything wrote:
The already mentioned Mir 1 is agood example:
It's so cheap and common that is easily overlooked, but a fine lens.
I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.


Which version?

MC Rokkor PF

MD Rokkor-X, filter 55mm

MD Rokkor-X, filter 49 mm

MD 50, filter 49 mm

Are all the same?



I was referring to the MD 50 with 49mm filter. I wrote rokkor by mistake.


Ah..got the MD 50mm...49mm and it's a very good lens on a film camera.


The MD 50 is the best 1,7 for me too.

But the better normal minolta for me is the 58/1,2 and, in second place the MC PG 50/1,4.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:

I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.

The konica AR 50/1.7 Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
DR.JUAN wrote:

The MD 50 is the best 1,7 for me too.
But the better normal minolta for me is the 58/1,2 and, in second place the MC PG 50/1,4.


Completely agree on the MC PG 1.4, sadly I've never tried the 58/1.2.
But these have a decent reputation (at least here), so not exactly underrated.

Dogtag wrote:
Aanything wrote:

I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.

The konica AR 50/1.7 Smile


Never tried that either, I read wonders about it, but I think I won't be adding another 50 to my collection soon.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
The short and silly answer is most lenses are underrated.
Most SLR lenses that were sold for consumer use are not only usable but can produce excellent pictures with just a little care.

And for most normal purposes most such lenses perform so closely to each other that distinguishing between the results of a poor lens and a great one may not be easy for a casual viewer.

If I shoot at f/5.6 - f/8 in bright light with proper exposure there are an enormous number of excellent lenses. Some may have more distortion, or worse corners, or less contrast, but this sort of problem will rarely be apparent to someone who doesn't know what to look for.

Some have "character", usually only seen wide-open - called defects by the unkind - that likewise can be put to creative use. That takes more thought though.


I would agree in general, compared to the new lenses and public opinion most lenses are underrated.
But here on MF lenses forum most people do appreciate the MF lenses or they would not be here.
So I don't agree with your answer on this forum because most people like and appreciate the summicrons and konica's or Jupiters, but loath the pentacons, panagors etc, but even from those brands some might be special.
The mir and jupiters are not underrated because they've very sought after. Prices are no longer around the 5-10€ mark, but more 50 to 100€. (jupiter 9 and 3 cost around 130 to 200 €)


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote:

The MD 50 is the best 1,7 for me too.
But the better normal minolta for me is the 58/1,2 and, in second place the MC PG 50/1,4.


Completely agree on the MC PG 1.4, sadly I've never tried the 58/1.2.
But these have a decent reputation (at least here), so not exactly underrated.

Dogtag wrote:
Aanything wrote:

I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.

The konica AR 50/1.7 Smile


Never tried that either, I read wonders about it, but I think I won't be adding another 50 to my collection soon.


I had and still have several Konica 50mm lenses - all slightly glowy wide open and very sharp stopped down. All have very heavy builds. I prefer the Minoltas but the Konicas are optically about on the same levels.

Another nice and cheap 50mm is the Zenitar M2s 50/2 MC - it's visibly better than Helios 44-2 but often fetches lower prices. It has a slightly crappy plastic build though

Rodenstock Trinar lenses are underrated aswell - they can deliver crispy sharp images for very little money. I had the Trinar 75/4.5 and it was pretty good. The big brother Rodagon 105/5.6 is imho still the best of the Rodenstock non-Apos though Wink

Another lens which had absolutely impressive IQ but often goes very cheap is Noritsu 50.7/9.5 for macro. It's rare though.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 30, 2013 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aanything wrote:
DR.JUAN wrote:

The MD 50 is the best 1,7 for me too.
But the better normal minolta for me is the 58/1,2 and, in second place the MC PG 50/1,4.


Completely agree on the MC PG 1.4, sadly I've never tried the 58/1.2.
But these have a decent reputation (at least here), so not exactly underrated.

Dogtag wrote:
Aanything wrote:

I'd say all cheap fifties are underrated, but having to choose one I'd say the rokkor 1.7/50: I still have to find one that is sharper.

The konica AR 50/1.7 Smile


Never tried that either, I read wonders about it, but I think I won't be adding another 50 to my collection soon.

That 50 is very cheap and widely available you really need to try it Smile
Click here to see on Ebay.de
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5