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

Lens underdogs
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:12 pm    Post subject: Lens underdogs Reply with quote

which lenses in your collection, are the most under-rated?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:54 pm    Post subject: Re: Lens underdogs Reply with quote

Jvg wrote:
which lenses in your collection, are the most under-rated?


Many , almost all Konica, Minolta, Russian , East German made lenses are underrated.
Old Nikkors, lenses with little blemishes, pre-war items etc .
Most underrated , hard to say based on above long list.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:03 pm    Post subject: Re: Lens underdogs Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Jvg wrote:
which lenses in your collection, are the most under-rated?


Many , almost all Konica, Minolta, Russian , East German made lenses are underrated.
Old Nikkors, lenses with little blemishes, pre-war items etc .
Most underrated , hard to say based on above long list.


under-rated in terms of price and popularity vs their abilities.

from my personal collection, i think mayer optik domiplan 2.8/50 is certainly under-rated (it's ranked below both of my isco's westanar and iscotar but in fact is much sharper),

and industar 50-2 is definitely under-rated... these can be bought for peanuts, unlike many other russian lenses which sometimes yield prices higher than CZ.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, they are one of them , except Domiplan, some copy is fine , I had excellent copy, but most people report it to awful, so not underrated, rather well rated.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
Yes, they are one of them , except Domiplan, some copy is fine , I had excellent copy, but most people report it to awful, so not underrated, rather well rated.


guess i got lucky then, my domiplan is very good, much better than iscos. of course cant' compare to either industar.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jvg wrote:
Attila wrote:
Yes, they are one of them , except Domiplan, some copy is fine , I had excellent copy, but most people report it to awful, so not underrated, rather well rated.


guess i got lucky then, my domiplan is very good, much better than iscos. of course cant' compare to either industar.


Iscos usually provide fine quality, not stunning , but more than just okay and made by Western standards, so low or no copy variation issue, my guess is your lens wrongly assembled or you just simple expect more from a German lens.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Re: Lens underdogs Reply with quote

Jvg wrote:
which lenses in your collection, are the most under-rated?


Way too large range to give an exhaustive answer, let's say that by replying "soviet lenses" one does most of the times hit the nail on the head.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of course there are better lenses for higher prices, but the two lenses in my bunch I would pick out for their performance against price are:

Vivitar Auto Wide-Angle 2.8/28

Industar-50 3.5/50


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got loads of lenses that perform above higher than their reputation would suggest, many of them are Soviet. I'd find it much easier to list the lenses I have tried that were over-rated (cough Vivitar Series 1 cough)...

Domiplan definitely isn't under-rated, most of them are shockingly bad, they often fall apart, as did two copies I had, I would call it the nadir of German lens production, but I haven't experienced much of the cheapest end of the German production, certainly I doubt Meyer ever made anything else with the same absence of quality, the earlier Trioplan triplet is a lot better.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If this is a value for money question, then many of us have bargains that would certainly fall into that category (I recently got a Topcon 58/1.8 with minor cosmetic damage for $13). I suspect you mean that slightly vague "as generally recognised" measurement. This is also a movable feast - Attila's long list of sometimes generic classes is pretty accurate, but many russian lenses are now reaching over-priced status (Helios 40 85/1.5 for example).

Lenses I own that performed better than I expected include Nikon 100/2.8 E series, industar 50/3.5 (amazing little gem), any decent enlarging lens, taika doryt 135/3.5 (totally unknown to me) and so on...



patrickh


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got a few old Soligors, 5 of them. 4 punch way above their weight, the other is a paper weight. The Russians have already been mentioned, I will never part with my Helios lenses. People ( the internet ) rave about Tomioka lenses, let's not forget Kiron, Sun and possibly the most under rated; Cimko?


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cimko made the nice 2.8/24 and 2.8/28 lenses that are well known as being good. They also made the last series of lenses for Topcon, so obviously CAN make good lenses. BUT, some of their output is terrible, I have tried some Cimko zooms that were terrible, one was labelled Cimko MT and was an 80-200, a couple of them were labelled Super Paragon PMC, I think the small one was 28-100, it had really bad build quality and wobbled as you zoomed it back and forth, this meant uneven sharpness across the frame.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:15 pm    Post subject: Super Ozeck Reply with quote

I have a cracking little 135mm f3.5 Super Ozeck PK very sharp and nice bokeh and another underated lens 24mm Tokina f2.8 get some lovely results but needs good lighting and a hood


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Tokina 24 is a very good lens, I liked mine a lot, only sold it because I picked up a Konica 24mm for peanuts.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 16, 2012 11:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Both my excellent Cimko's are Super Paragon's. Which shows it's down to the individual lens rather than the whole range from a particular manufacturer. Cimko, and the other small manufacturers just had a lower success rate than Leica.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say my Pentax smcK 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 lenses are both underrated. They are both superb performers but hardly
anyone knows anything about them and they are not very expensive either although they are not common to find.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
I would say my Pentax smcK 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 lenses are both underrated. They are both superb performers but hardly
anyone knows anything about them and they are not very expensive either although they are not common to find.

You shouldn't go telling everyone, I still don't have those yet. I just have the M series f2.8 variants. People need to quit talking about the A 35-105 f3.5 zoom too.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
Both my excellent Cimko's are Super Paragon's. Which shows it's down to the individual lens rather than the whole range from a particular manufacturer. Cimko, and the other small manufacturers just had a lower success rate than Leica.


Aah yes, condition makes a huge difference. I still have the Cimko Mt 80-200 somewhere, it was in great nick, if I find it you are welcome to have it to play with, you might get more from it than I did.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My Sankor 100/2.5 is excellent. I must spend some time with it on full frame.

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=18595


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Attila wrote:
my guess is your lens wrongly assembled or you just simple expect more from a German lens.


you're right, i certainly expected German lens to be better than Russian.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Russian has mixed quality some of them awesome some of them average, try some RF lens at F8 , you will be shocked.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Most Russians are no underdogs anymore

My favorite underdog is the Minolta MD 50/2
my copy has a really is alrady sharp wide open and really great colors&contrast. It's as good as modern 50/1.8 AF lenses


Last edited by ForenSeil on Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:22 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

elliott wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
I would say my Pentax smcK 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 lenses are both underrated. They are both superb performers but hardly
anyone knows anything about them and they are not very expensive either although they are not common to find.

You shouldn't go telling everyone, I still don't have those yet. I just have the M series f2.8 variants. People need to quit talking about the A 35-105 f3.5 zoom too.

I have one of those 35-105 SMCA zooms and its one of the very few zooms that rivals primes on resolution, saturation, and contrast. Highly recommended...That one and the SMCA 70-210 is also exceptional....


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hifisapi wrote:
elliott wrote:
hifisapi wrote:
I would say my Pentax smcK 28/3.5 and 35/3.5 lenses are both underrated. They are both superb performers but hardly
anyone knows anything about them and they are not very expensive either although they are not common to find.

You shouldn't go telling everyone, I still don't have those yet. I just have the M series f2.8 variants. People need to quit talking about the A 35-105 f3.5 zoom too.

I have one of those 35-105 SMCA zooms and its one of the very few zooms that rivals primes on resolution, saturation, and contrast. Highly recommended...That one and the SMCA 70-210 is also exceptional....

I've wondered how the A 70-210 would compare to my Komine made Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f2.8-4, the Vivitar is very sharp, but isn't good in the purple fringing department. From what I can tell, they're both heavy and they are both good, I'm not sure if it is worth going for the Pentax lens when I have the Vivitar.

How is your copy on zoom creep? I was given a Takumar Bayonet 70-200 f4, which I know is in no way related, but zoom creep is an understatement, there is no dampening at all.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 17, 2012 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I've got a few old Soligors, 5 of them. 4 punch way above their weight, the other is a paper weight.
A 135mm f:2.8 Soligor I have is naught but a paperweight after I took it apart to clean it, sadly, but the Tokina-made 75-260 zoom and 400mm f:6.3 that I own seem to be real winners. Not to mention the Soligor 500mm f/8 C/D mirror that I just grabbed with a matched 2X TC, which appears nearly new, but I don't have any samples from that one, yet. Crying or Very sad