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

suggest a decent, fast, short telephoto zoom?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 6:45 am    Post subject: suggest a decent, fast, short telephoto zoom? Reply with quote
My recent dive into manual focus lenses is due in part to a desire to attempt some urban star trails/Milky way shots. I want to use some astronomical filters, but pricing them for my EOS wide angle or telephoto lenses to use with the camera I usually use would be incredibly expensive, and mirror box filters are problematic and would probably also be very expensive, although I've found someone who would custom build one for me.
I think most of you are in Europe? Here's one for you then, anyone recognize the location? This one was done under a full moon! Had no control over location or timing, had to just set up on my free time during a field trip.



So, I want insert an astronomical filter into a mirrorless adapter and use my m43 camera, that way I can use the filter with any lens, and maybe one day there will be a full frame mirrorless that I can use to get larger images.

I've acquired a couple of wide angle lenses to try with, but for one of my attempts, I want to shoot with about 180-200mm 35mm equivalent, I'm looking at a few 85mm primes.

Somewhat un-intuitively, apparently zoom lens optics are less degraded by behind the lens filters, compared to prime lenses.
But, it also seems to be harder to get manual focus zoom lenses with good image quality for digital sensors, especially the dense pixels of micro four thirds cameras.

I've been looking at specs for Olympus lenses and Canon lenses, since I have Olympus and Canon film bodies- but apparently Olympus didn't excel at zoom lens optics, and Canon's maybe ok, and I keep coming across the praises of Vivitar Series 1 versions for Olympus. Of course, the original mount doesn't really matter.

Could anyone recommended a good fast zoom lens from another maker that covers the range of about 80 to 100mm? Cost is an issue, some of my 'projects' may require hiding a camera in the brush overnight and leaving it, since I want to shoot from a couple of parks that are closed overnight.

Thanks


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know how the Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5 will work with your application, but it has always been an excellent lens on my film cameras and does a great job in Nikon mount with my EOS DSLR.

Other possibilities: Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5, first constant aperture version. An excellent lens.
Nikon Series E 75-150mm f/3.5, a real sleeper. Great lens.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 4:23 pm    Post subject: Re: suggest a decent, fast, short telephoto zoom? Reply with quote
JC wrote:

Could anyone recommended a good fast zoom lens from another maker that covers the range of about 80 to 100mm?


If you are looking for an 80 to 100 zoom why not get a faster, fixed lens instead?

You will have far more affordable options with manual glass when switching to a Sony NEX by the way.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Kiron 28-85mm f2.8-3.8 is a very good zoom lens. Beware sticky aperture blades though. This lens may be related to the Vivitar 28-90mm Michael mentioned.

The Olympus 35-105mm f 3.5-4.5 is also excellent, but may not be fast enough for you.

JC wrote:

Somewhat un-intuitively, apparently zoom lens optics are less degraded by behind the lens filters, compared to prime lenses.
But, it also seems to be harder to get manual focus zoom lenses with good image quality for digital sensors, especially the dense pixels of micro four thirds cameras.


I'm not sure why this should be so. The only reason that springs to mind is that zooms tend to be slower. I can't see why a prime stopped down to f4 would not be as good as a zoom at f4

Bille wrote:

You will have far more affordable options with manual glass when switching to a Sony NEX by the way.


Why does NEX offer more possibilities than micro 4/3??


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
SXR_Mark wrote:
Why does NEX offer more possibilities than micro 4/3??


Compared to EOS, sorry for the confusion. I see the OP uses m4/3 already.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't quite understand why partucuraly zoom lenses are problematic with filters? Astronomical filters are interference filters and these are sensitive to the angle the light falls on them. Optimal should be 90 degrees. The range of angles on which the light rays fall on the focal plane is related to F ratio, the lower is the ratio, more light rays are falling on ths filter at less then 90 degree angle. Filters should have specified what is the lowest f ratio they can be used after the lens, otherwise they should be put in front.

I don't know how good are the recommended zooms, but I assume they are soft on corners, which means the star trails wont look nice. I would recommend a prime lens instead.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tamron SP 35-80mm f2.8-3.8

http://adaptall-2.com/lenses/01A.html
Olympus OM 35-70mm f3.6
Konica 35-100 constant 2.8


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 10:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I don't know how the Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5 will work with your application, but it has always been an excellent lens on my film cameras and does a great job in Nikon mount with my EOS DSLR.
Other possibilities: Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5, first constant aperture version. An excellent lens.
Nikon Series E 75-150mm f/3.5, a real sleeper. Great lens.


Thanks, I'll look for those. On a tangent, is there anythings such as a non-telescoping zoom, or sealed zoom, in the older manual focus lens? Or did those innovations come later? I bought a canon FTb from a local guy, and it came with an FD 70-210 f/4- when I looked at the lens more closely at home, it was absolutely full of little crescent shaped spots. I first thought it was fungus, because it was so homogeneous, and I thought why would dust be homogeneous? But then I went to clean out the cylindrical hard case the lens came in, and realized the foam was completely shot to hell. then I realized that the dust I was seeing looked like bubble wall shards I see in thin sections of volcanic rocks, and realized that the lens was full of the decayed foam from it's protective case. talk about irony.

Bille wrote:

If you are looking for an 80 to 100 zoom why not get a faster, fixed lens instead?
You will have far more affordable options with manual glass when switching to a Sony NEX by the way....sorry for the confusion. I see the OP uses m4/3 already.


Hmmm, if I could find an OM 100 f/2 for a good price, or a Canon FD 85 1.8 I'd give them a try (or an equivalent). - One of the engineers at Mosaic Engineering, whom I was talking to about incorporating a light pollution filter into a mirror box filter assembly, told me that their experiments show zoom lenses having less off-axis resolution loss than prime lenses. The filter I want to use is an interferometric filter, so differences in ray path length will lead to differences in the magnitude of the effect, in addition to any resolution loss. I'd love to find ray path diagrams for lenses, to see which lenses have more parallel versus converging light rays exiting the rear element, but I suspect the center cropping of the m4/3 will help with this, and it would be more of an issue with a larger sensor.
The Olympus OM-D was the first mirrorless camera to meet my particular specifications: wired or in-built intervalometer (not IR, that rules out the NEX), RAW, and the ability to turn off noise reduction (ruled out the Leica- not that the Leica was ever in my budget). The pixel density of the OM-D isn't optimum for star trails, but it'll work for this, for now. Maybe later there will be an APS-C or FF mirrorless that would work as well.

SXR_Mark wrote:
The Kiron 28-85mm f2.8-3.8 is a very good zoom lens. Beware sticky aperture blades though. This lens may be related to the Vivitar 28-90mm Michael mentioned.

The Olympus 35-105mm f 3.5-4.5 is also excellent, but may not be fast enough for you.
(about zoom versus prime)
I'm not sure why this should be so. The only reason that springs to mind is that zooms tend to be slower. I can't see why a prime stopped down to f4 would not be as good as a zoom at f4


Yeah, 4.5 at the longer end is probably too dark, also, I thought I'd heard that Olympus didn't quite excell at zooms, relative to the performance of their primes?
Mosaic Engineering compared prime versus zooms at the same f-stop I believe- and the zooms were better performers.


PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2013 11:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JC wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
I don't know how the Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5 will work with your application, but it has always been an excellent lens on my film cameras and does a great job in Nikon mount with my EOS DSLR.
Other possibilities: Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5, first constant aperture version. An excellent lens.
Nikon Series E 75-150mm f/3.5, a real sleeper. Great lens.


Thanks, I'll look for those. On a tangent, is there anythings such as a non-telescoping zoom, or sealed zoom, in the older manual focus lens? Or did those innovations come later? I bought a canon FTb from a local guy, and it came with an FD 70-210 f/4- when I looked at the lens more closely at home, it was absolutely full of little crescent shaped spots. I first thought it was fungus, because it was so homogeneous, and I thought why would dust be homogeneous? But then I went to clean out the cylindrical hard case the lens came in, and realized the foam was completely shot to hell. then I realized that the dust I was seeing looked like bubble wall shards I see in thin sections of volcanic rocks, and realized that the lens was full of the decayed foam from it's protective case. talk about irony.


Heh. I recall running into a similar situation back in my early days as a camera dealer. I started stowing the lenses I had for sale in socks to pad them, then noticed one day shortly after beginning this practice that a couple of the lenses had a lot of dust inside. I was able to determine pretty quickly that the socks were the culprits; the dust was very small lint particles.

By a non-telescoping zoom, I'm assuming you mean a two-ring zoom. Well, at least a two-ring zoom won't extend-retract nearly as much as a push-pull zoom will. I've even heard of the push-pull zooms being referred to as "air pumps." Back when I first got into photography, "one-touch" or push-pull zooms were all the rage. 2-ring zooms began making a comeback with the advent of autofocus. Nowadays, it appears that most folks view push-pull zooms as awkward and strange. I find that attitude odd, to be honest.

But anyway, if you're concerned about the expansion/contraction of the optic causing it to be more susceptible to picking up dust, then the Canon FD 35-105 f/3.5 that I mentioned above is a two-ring zoom. The Tamron SP 28-80 and 35-80 are also two-ring zooms. But you know, I've been using push-pull zooms for 30 years and I've never had a problem with them picking up dust. Just make sure that you don't store them in anything that is dust prone or keep them in a dust prone environment, and you should be fine.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 12:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
Just make sure that you don't store them in anything that is dust prone or keep them in a dust prone environment, and you should be fine.


I suppose that this would be contra-indicated then?



PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I second the vote for the Vivitar S1 28-90. It's an outstanding performer.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
edited

Last edited by bernhardas on Mon Apr 18, 2016 5:56 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 2:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="bernhardas"]Another lens that could be considered is the Nikon E 75 - 150 3,5.

It has a very good price performance ratio.


+1 on the 75-150
..and don't forget the Vivitar S1 70 - 210 f/3.5

If you go the prime route, don't count out the Canon EOS 85 f/1.8 and 100 f/2.0. They are superb lenses and can mount/manual focus on a mirrorless body. They are also relatively reasonable in price (about $300 USD used) If you want to shoot at anything other than wide open, you will have to purchase one of the adapters with a built in, behind-the-lens diaphragm, however.

As far as the ray traces are concerned, check out this site:

http://www.willbell.com/

They might have something that could help.

Good luck,

Paul


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 3:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
there are tons of high performance primes in that range but not many fast zooms. I can recommend the tokina at-x
60-120 F2.8 lens. Its an outstanding performer. As this one is a push pull one ring zoom, make sure to get one without
zoom creep which could be an issue if youre pointing the camera up.


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 7:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta 35-70 F3.5 Macro takes some beating for the price, especially as you could pay 10 times as much for one with Leica on it, you can usually pick one up on a camera for under £30 via ebay.

I've actually got a series one 28-90 f2.8-3.5 Macro VMC in mintish condition (Komine version) that I haven't got round to trying yet, mainly because it's the FD mount, out of curiosity anyone know what they currently fetch


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 6:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tervueren wrote:

I've actually got a series one 28-90 f2.8-3.5 Macro VMC in mintish condition (Komine version) that I haven't got round to trying yet, mainly because it's the FD mount, out of curiosity anyone know what they currently fetch


Prices vary by quite a bit. Canon FD mount ones usually sell for substantially less than Nikon or Pentax K. I just checked eBay's "sold listings" setting to see what people are willing to pay for this lens these days, because as it so happens, I would like to pick one up in Canon FD mount. Sold prices for this lens on eBay are in the $20-30 range. Now, that is a helluva deal. The 28-90 is one of the sharpest, most contrasty zooms that Vivitar ever made. I used one for years with my Canon FD outfit and I have many great slides I've shot with that lens. Only reason why I sold it was because I switched to Nikon. But nowadays I shoot with both systems, so I plan to buy another for my Canon FD cameras . . . again.

But then some folks obviously haven't got a clue. There's always gotta be one in every bunch.

Click here to see on Ebay


PostPosted: Sat Jul 06, 2013 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JC.... Take Attila's advise,as well as mine, Tamron Adaptall 35-80mm model 01A you won't be disappointed.


PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is useful the oldest tamron 35-70- f/3,5 BBAR?


PostPosted: Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
JC wrote:
On a tangent, is there anythings such as a non-telescoping zoom, or sealed zoom, in the older manual focus lens? Or did those innovations come later? I bought a canon FTb from a local guy, and it came with an FD 70-210 f/4- when I looked at the lens more closely at home, it was absolutely full of little crescent shaped spots. I first thought it was fungus, because it was so homogeneous, and I thought why would dust be homogeneous? But then I went to clean out the cylindrical hard case the lens came in, and realized the foam was completely shot to hell. then I realized that the dust I was seeing looked like bubble wall shards I see in thin sections of volcanic rocks, and realized that the lens was full of the decayed foam from it's protective case. talk about irony.


No(t many) non-telescoping zoom lenses per se, however, many early zooms have less range -- there is less telescoping overall -- and zoom rings -- for less vigorous pumping than a one-touch focus/zoom ring.

These early zooms were considered quite good and were popular when they were manufactured: Three Suns. The Sun 1:3.5/24-40 and 1:3.5/38-90. The constant aperture is nice. The conservative zoom range doesn't stretch design limitations -- IQ may be very high for zoom lens! If my ebay auctions don't sell I am again inspired to try them again, this time starfield. Maybe I can demonstrate IQ & sell for higher price. Just kidding, maybe I can demonstrate the prices I ask are not too high. Laughing

This seller seems to think they are worth a lot! Click here to see on Ebay

PentaxForums Lens Reviews 8 of 10 rating...


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry if derailing the subject, but how would you compare the Vivitar 28-90 to Minolta MD 25-70/3.5 Macro, both in terms of optical performance and weight / size ?

I have the Minolta and I really like it, however with Vivitar being both wider, longer and faster (at the wide end at least) I would be really interested in getting it as long as there's no IQ sacrifice and it's not that much heavier.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 35-70/3,5 minolta zoom is a first class one.


PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Perhaps the Olympus PEN 50-90/3.5 zoom. A wonderful lens that is very underpriced still. Will only work on mirrorless though.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1