| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
bogolisk
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 448
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
 Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:33 pm Post subject: most overrated lens |
 |
|
bogolisk wrote:
In your experience/opinion what is/are the most overrated lens?
For me, on m4/3, among the (budget) lens I have, it's the Hexanon 1.7/50 and the 40 1.8/40.
The Hexanon 50 is contrasty but I don't think it's any sharper than the other budget 50s such as the OM 1.8/50 or the Yashica ML 1.7/50. So much for the "sharpest 50mm lens ever built".
The Hexanon 40 is so soft wide-open (on the e-p1) that it's a pain to focus. maybe it's the way I mf on the e-p1: wide-open -> focus -> stop down -> meter -> capture. Maybe I have to do stop-down -> focus.
_________________
When I try to be a photographer I manage to add an f to art. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. 
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator 
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| LucisPictor wrote: |
| I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. |
IMHO not reallly, unless you mean the Japanese CZJ Prakticars  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bogolisk
Joined: 20 Dec 2009
Posts: 448
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
bogolisk wrote:
| LucisPictor wrote: |
| I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. |
Well not as much as Vivitar Distagon I've seen on the bay in the past!
_________________
When I try to be a photographer I manage to add an f to art. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:13 pm Post subject: Re: most overrated lens |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| bogolisk wrote: |
In your experience/opinion what is/are the most overrated lens?
For me, on m4/3, among the (budget) lens I have, it's the Hexanon 1.7/50 and the 40 1.8/40.
The Hexanon 50 is contrasty but I don't think it's any sharper than the other budget 50s such as the OM 1.8/50 or the Yashica ML 1.7/50. So much for the "sharpest 50mm lens ever built".
The Hexanon 40 is so soft wide-open (on the e-p1) that it's a pain to focus. maybe it's the way I mf on the e-p1: wide-open -> focus -> stop down -> meter -> capture. Maybe I have to do stop-down -> focus. |
About the 50 mm lens. Which version are you talking about?
The first is excelent, one of the better 50 mm that I had (leica summicrons M and R, summiluxes M, Kern macro switar, nikkor, pancolars, takumars, septons, skopars, tessars, xenars, rokkors, etc, among the best).
The second not so good, but average.
The 40 mm is a very good lens, but wide open few lenses are good, and don't forget that the lens is almost a pancake where the compromise is the rule.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
estudleon
Joined: 15 May 2008
Posts: 3754
Location: Argentina
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
estudleon wrote:
| LucisPictor wrote: |
| I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. |
I agree parcially.
Flektogon 2,4/35.
I used before that lens, the 35 summicrons M (some versions) and the 35 summiluxes M (first version and the first aspheric version).
When I try the CZJ the lens not be so good than I hoped. So-so corners. But very good colors and good contrast too.
Rino.
_________________
Konica 2,8/100
CZJ: 4/20, 2,4/35, 1,8/50 aus jena, 3,5/135MC, Pentacon 1,8/50
Pentax S-M-C-1,4/50
Helios 44-3
Mamiya 2,8/135
Misc. : jupiter 9
Stuff used:
A) SRL
Alpa 10 D - kern macro Switar 1,9/50 -black, Kilffit apochromat 2/100.
Asahi pentax spotmatic super takumar 1,4/50
Contaflex super B tessar 2,8/50 Pro-tessar 115
Leica R3 electronic summicron 2/50 elmarit 2,8/35
Konica Autoreflex 3 (2 black and chrome one), TC, T4. 2,8/24, 3,5/28 not MC and MC, 1,8/40, 1,4/50, 1,7/50 MC and not MC, 1,8/85, 3,2/135, 3,5/135, 4/200
Minolta XG9 2,8/35, 2/45, 3,5/135
Nikkormat FTn 1,4/50, 2,8/135
Fujica ST 801, 605, 705n. 3,5/19, 1,4/50, 1,8/55, 4/85, 3,5/135.
Praktica MTL 5 and a lot of M42 lenses.
Voigtlander. Bessamatic m, bessamatix de luxe, bessamatic cs, ultramatic and ultramatic cs.
Skoparex 3,5/35, skopagon 2/40, skopar 2,8/50, skopar X 2,8/50, super lanthar (out of catalogue) 2,8/50, dinarex 3,4/90, dinarex 4,8/100, super dinarex 4/135, super dinarex 4/200, zoomar 2,8/36-83, portrait lens 0, 1 and 2. Curtagon 4/28 and 2,8/35
Canon AV1, 1,8/50
Rolleiflex SL35 and SL35 E. 2,8/35 angulon, 2,8/35 distagon, 1,4/55 rolleinar, 1,8/50 planar, 4/135 tessar, 2,8/135 rolleinar, x2 rollei, M42 to rollei adap.
Etc.
RF
Yashica Minister III
Voightlander Vito, vitomatic I, Vito C, etc.
Leica M. M2, M3 (d.s.) and M4. Schenider 3,4/21, 2/35 summaron 2,8/35 (with eyes). Summicron 2/35 (8 elements with eyes), 2/35 chrome, 2/35 black, 1,4/35 pre asph and aspheric - old -, 2/40 summicron, 2,8/50 elmar, 2/50 7 elements, 2/50 DR, 2/50 - minolta version, 1,4/50 summilux 1966 version, 1,4/75 summilux, 2/90 large version, 2/90 reduced version of 1987, 2,8/90 elmarit large version, 4/135 elmar. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esox lucius
Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Posts: 2441
Location: Helsinki, Finland
Expire: 2011-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: most overrated lens |
|
|
Esox lucius wrote:
One man's junk is another man's gold?
| bogolisk wrote: |
| "sharpest 50mm lens ever built" |
In the fast 50mm prime category there are many such overrated lenses - lower price simply comes with lower expectations --> hence the hype.
If I were loaded with cash I wouldn't care less, but as I have to buy rationally I would never, ever churn out 13,500€ for an M9 + 50/0.95 Noctilux. Based on a weekend of using the combo I don't know if it is more overpriced than it is overrated. Sure, the lens gives a special look and you can shoot in near darkness, but try getting an objective reply from someone who owns it (should you be as bold as to dare ask about the technical image quality).
The Flektogon 20/4 and 20/2.8 are overrated. Not long ago I had two and in the process of selling them I talked to plenty of Canon system users who were interested in buying. More than one of them said there exists an aftermarket niche for the Flek 20mm only thanks to certain overpriced and underperforming Canon wide-angles. Overpriced and overrated, it sells for more than it sold new outside East Germany (GDR).
Lomo is overrated. You can't speak of quality, and the oh-so-lovely artsy look of it is overrused, cheesy and down right boring. Come on, just because you have light leaks, low contrast, no detail and 2 f-stops of vignetting doesn't make it art. No no no, regardless of how artsy you think it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cooltouch
Joined: 15 Jan 2009
Posts: 9097
Location: Houston, Texas
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anu
Joined: 14 Apr 2009
Posts: 879
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Anu wrote:
| estudleon wrote: |
| LucisPictor wrote: |
| I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. |
I agree parcially.
Flektogon 2,4/35.
I used before that lens, the 35 summicrons M (some versions) and the 35 summiluxes M (first version and the first aspheric version).
When I try the CZJ the lens not be so good than I hoped. So-so corners. But very good colors and good contrast too.
Rino. |
Flek 35/2,,4 is likely the best 35mm lens you can buy for less than 150 euros, IHMO, so hardly overrated. Though, it all depends what one expects. For me it gets the job done, and if I had to limit myself to one lens only for the rest of my life, it'd probably be this one. Weird how differnt people's experiences and opinions can be.
Without this lens there'd be many less squirrel pictures around |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ludoo
Joined: 18 Sep 2009
Posts: 1397
Location: Milan, Italy
Expire: 2011-12-05
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ludoo wrote:
| Anu wrote: |
| For me it gets the job done, and if I had to limit myself to one lens only for the rest of my life, it'd probably be this one. |
Same here (btw I'm a lurker but I love the squirrels).
Of the lenses I tried, the one I often thought of as overrated is the SMC Takumar 55/1.8: it's not bad at all, but many people praise it for its sharpness while I often find it disappointing.
Like poilu said once, you notice sharp lenses in the viewfinder when focusing without even having to take pictures, and my Takumars 55 (I have two) are harder to focus than most of my other lenses. But then, for the 30€ or so they usually fetch, they are a great buy.
_________________
My galleries
Digital: Samsung EX-1
Past Digital: Samsung NX10, Sigma SD9, Sigma SD10, SD14, DP2, Pentax *istD, Kx, Fuji S2 Pro, Canon 5D
Analog: packfilm Polaroids, 6x9 Kodak folders, Pentacon Taxona half-frame, Fujica ST605n, Walz Envoy, Olympus 35 S-II, Olympus Wide S
Past Analog: Polaroid 600se, Polaroid 110B, Canon IIF, various fixed-lens and Russian rangefinders, ...
Past Lenses: Nikkor 24/2.8, Nikkor SC 50/1.4, Nikkor 50/2, Nikkor H 85/1.8, Nikkor P 105/2.5, Nikkor Q 135/3.5, Fujinon 100/2.8, Fujinon EBC 100/2.8, Fujinon EBC 135/3.5, Fujinon EBC 200/4.5, Mamiya SX 135/2.8, CZJ Flektogon 35/2.4, CZJ Pancolar 50/1.8 zebra, CZJ Sonnar 135/3.5, ...
altroformato
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 1389
Location: Berlin, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
| Anu wrote: |
| LucisPictor wrote: |
| I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. |
IMHO not reallly, unless you mean the Japanese CZJ Prakticars |
P6 Flektogon 50/4 is grossly overrated. Mamiya M645 55/2.8 is a lot sharper at 2.8 than the Flek at f/4. Stop the two lenses down, and the difference increases. The price? The Mamiya lens sells for about half the price of a Flektogon.
_________________
List of lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 1389
Location: Berlin, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
| ludoo wrote: |
Of the lenses I tried, the one I often thought of as overrated is the SMC Takumar 55/1.8: it's not bad at all, but many people praise it for its sharpness while I often find it disappointing.
Like poilu said once, you notice sharp lenses in the viewfinder when focusing without even having to take pictures, and my Takumars 55 (I have two) are harder to focus than most of my other lenses. But then, for the 30€ or so they usually fetch, they are a great buy. |
For the $10 I paid for mine, it's a superb lens Really, it's not a Zeiss, but I like it better than, say, Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS that sells for around $60.
_________________
List of lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
| Anu wrote: |
| LucisPictor wrote: |
| I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. |
IMHO not reallly, unless you mean the Japanese CZJ Prakticars |
Well, those for sure.
But I also mean some CZJ lenses (made in GDR).
I don't say that they are "bad", because that was not the question, but I think that they usually go for too high prices, esp. because the quality variation is extreme.
The 2.4/35 was mentioned here. I have used three copies, two were absolutely (sorry) "crap", the third one was surely one of the best 35mm lenses I have ever shot with.
If you now pay €150,- for such a great lens, that might be acceptable, but if you get one of those lemons for this money, I would call this highly overrated.
I also think that the Sonnar 3.5/135 is overrated. It is (can be) a very nice lens but it goes for prices you could get two similarly good 135mm lenses for.
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jjphoto
Joined: 17 Mar 2009
Posts: 406
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jjphoto wrote:
I think the biggest issue with subjective lens evaluations is that their cost becomes such a factor that it clouds real/rational judgments about a lens. Their perfomance should not be related to their cost but it almost always is.
Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sevo
Joined: 22 Aug 2008
Posts: 1189
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Expire: 2012-12-03
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sevo wrote:
| LucisPictor wrote: |
I also think that the Sonnar 3.5/135 is overrated. It is (can be) a very nice lens but it goes for prices you could get two similarly good 135mm lenses for. |
The real point is that just about any 3.5/135 you can find will be a Sonnar copy...
_________________
Sevo |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
The problem of 35/2.4 is construction. I described already here. If the bad performance isn't caused by lame servicing, it's likely to be a loosy element. It can be easily fixed without any special equipment.
Anyway, 135mm Sonnar is excellent lens. Low CA, great bokeh and high sharpness. I remember a comparision with Canon 135/2 L, which resulted similarly in terms of sharpness.
Jupiter-37 is nice alternative, but it's way more expensive than it was year or two ago... and many Jupiters-37 have the glossy inner blackening, which affects contrast (can be fixed e.g. by self-adhesive black velvet)...
If I compare the Sonnar to other M42 lenses:
Meyer/Pentacon 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Triotar 135/4 - slower, less contrasty, slightly less sharp
Tair 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Jupiter 135/3.5 - less contrasty, a bit more copy variable
Takumar 135/3.5 - slightly less sharp, slightly more CA (axial), less smooth bokeh
Takumar 135/2.5 V2 - more CA (lateral), sharpness is close
Lanthar 125/2.5 - 15-times more expensive 
It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aoleg
Joined: 22 Feb 2008
Posts: 1389
Location: Berlin, DE
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aoleg wrote:
| no-X wrote: |
| It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar |
Nikkor 135/3.5 Q.C, "K" and (different optical formula) Ai / AIS?
Contax Sonnar 135/2.8?
_________________
List of lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 57849
Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
Overrated lenses only what I can't afford to buy Leica all Leica-M etc
_________________
-------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fatdeeman
Joined: 13 Jun 2009
Posts: 780
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
fatdeeman wrote:
Most of my lenses are hardly rated at all let alone overrated!
Whilst slightly OT being an AF lens I did try the Canon 50mm f/1.4 once and found it wasn't as good as I expected, whilst having smoother bokeh and a better build than the cheapo 50mm F/1.8 I found the sharpness and colour, contrast etc to be comparable, not a bad lens, just not as good as the hype about it being sooooo much better than the 1.8 had led me to believe!
_________________
- Dave
www.lensporn.net
www.flickr.com/photos/fatdeeman/
DSLR: Canon EOS 60D, Samsung GX-1S (Pentax *ist DS2)
Mirrorless: Panasonic DMC-G1, Sony NEX-5N
Compact: Canon PowerShot G3
Lenses:
Wide: Tokina RMC 28mm F/2.8, Tamron Adaptall 2 28mm F/2.5, Sun Optical 28mm F/2.5, Super paragon 28mm F/2.8, Sigma filtermatic 24mm F/2.8, Fujinon 35mm F/2.8, Sun Optical 35mm F/2.8
Standard: Industar 50-2, Helios 44-2, Helios 44M, Helios 44M-3, Pentax-M 50mm F/1.4, Pentax-M 50mm F/1.7, Pentax-M 50mm F/2, Ricoh 50mm F/1.7, Chinon 50mm F/1.7
Tele: Pentacon 135mm F/2.8, Pentacon 200mm F/3.5, Optomax 200mm f/3.5, Sun Optical 135mm F/3.5, Soligor 350mm F/5.6
Zoom: Tokina 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 SZ-X270 SD, Sigma Zoom Pi 35-200mm F4-5.6, Sun Optical 28-80mm F/3.5-4.5, Sunagor 80-205mm F/3.8, Tokina RMC 80-200mm F/4, Vivitar 70-150mm F/3.8, Tamron 95-205mm F/6.3, Tamron Adaptall 28-200mm F/3.8-5.6 LD Aspherical, Tokina RMC 70-210mm F/3.5
Mirror: Falcon (Samyang) 800mm F/8, MTO-11CA 1000mm F/10, Tamron Adaptall 2 500mm F/8
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IAZA
Joined: 16 Apr 2010
Posts: 2587
Location: Indonesia
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
IAZA wrote:
| jjphoto wrote: |
I think the biggest issue with subjective lens evaluations is that their cost becomes such a factor that it clouds real/rational judgments about a lens. Their perfomance should not be related to their cost but it almost always is.
A $15 Yashica 50/2 ML costs about 1/30th of the price of a Leica R 50/2 yet it is not 1/30th the quality, but neither is it a 'Cron'. Some will say this is an amazing lens for the price, which may be so as it's an 'OK' lens, but this has nothing to do with it's real performance which never gets near that of the Cron.
Take the cost out of the equation and I suspect that more than half the 'gems' that are constantly raved about would no longer even rate a mention.
JJ |
I definetely agree, as I have both 50/2 of yashica ML and Cron. If you look for sharpness like me, yashica is the choice. The cron wins in detail and color, the rest is subjective. I guess.
_________________
nex5, Olympus EPM1, yashica half 14, Canon eos 650 want to see samples of mine? please click My lenses
and My gallery
~Suat~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WallyJr74
Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Posts: 146
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
WallyJr74 wrote:
Sorry to say that but most Leica lenses are wwaaayyy overrated and overpriced too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
poilu
Joined: 26 Aug 2007
Posts: 10471
Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
| Attila wrote: |
| Overrated lenses only what I can't afford to buy Leica all Leica-M etc |
me2
_________________
T* |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LucisPictor
Joined: 26 Feb 2007
Posts: 17633
Location: Oberhessen, Germany / Maidstone ('95-'96)
Expire: 2013-12-03
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
LucisPictor wrote:
| no-X wrote: |
The problem of 35/2.4 is construction. I described already here. If the bad performance isn't caused by lame servicing, it's likely to be a loosy element. It can be easily fixed without any special equipment.
Anyway, 135mm Sonnar is excellent lens. Low CA, great bokeh and high sharpness. I remember a comparision with Canon 135/2 L, which resulted similarly in terms of sharpness.
Jupiter-37 is nice alternative, but it's way more expensive than it was year or two ago... and many Jupiters-37 have the glossy inner blackening, which affects contrast (can be fixed e.g. by self-adhesive black velvet)...
If I compare the Sonnar to other M42 lenses:
Meyer/Pentacon 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Triotar 135/4 - slower, less contrasty, slightly less sharp
Tair 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Jupiter 135/3.5 - less contrasty, a bit more copy variable
Takumar 135/3.5 - slightly less sharp, slightly more CA (axial), less smooth bokeh
Takumar 135/2.5 V2 - more CA (lateral), sharpness is close
Lanthar 125/2.5 - 15-times more expensive
It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar |
I respect and trust your judgement. I just can write about my own experiences. And the only copy of a Sonnar 3.5/135 I was allowed to use was a really good lens, yes, but nothing spectacular that would justify those prices that are regularly paid. That's why I mentioned it.
And yes, even if I love Leica lenses, they are definitely overpriced! 
_________________
Personal forum activity on pause every now and again (due to job obligations)!
Carsten, former Moderator
Things ON SALE
Carsten = "KAPCTEH" = "Karusutenu" | T-shirt?.........................My photos from Emilia: http://www.schouler.net/emilia/emilia2011.html
My gear: http://retrocameracs.wordpress.com/ausrustung/
Old list: http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=65 (Not up-to-date, sorry!) | http://www.lucispictor.de | http://www.alensaweek.wordpress.com |
http://www.retrocamera.de |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
martinsmith99
Joined: 31 Aug 2008
Posts: 6943
Location: S Glos, UK
Expire: 2013-11-18
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
martinsmith99 wrote:
| WallyJr74 wrote: |
| Sorry to say that but most Leica lenses are wwaaayyy overrated and overpriced too. |
I agree with the 2nd part of this statement, but because of this I cannot comment on the 1st part!
_________________
Casual attendance these days |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
no-X
Joined: 19 Jul 2008
Posts: 2495
Location: Budejky, Czech Republic
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
no-X wrote:
| aoleg wrote: |
| no-X wrote: |
| It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar |
Nikkor 135/3.5 Q.C, "K" and (different optical formula) Ai / AIS?
Contax Sonnar 135/2.8? |
That's hard to compare. M42 lenses can be used virtualy on any DSLR without any modification. Nikon and Contax lenses can't be used on any system. And that affect their price a bit. I remember a comparision of Contax 135/2.8 and CZJ 135/3.5 which showed, that Contax has a bit more axial CA (which I don't like). Anyway, everybody has different priorities.
According to SLRlensreview test the 135/3.5 has sharper edges than the 135/2.8.
I think its price has reasons: very good optical performance, M42 (compatibility) and close-focusing capability (compared to non-macro 135mm lenses). Btw. I checked ebay and 135/3.5 MC is cheaper than 135/2.8 T*...
_________________
(almost) complete list of Helios lenses |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
