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 9:41 am    Post subject: Underrated lenses :) Reply with quote
Hi guys, I'm giving the next lens some love: It's the Pentacon auto 50mm f1.8, cost nothing but has nice warm colours, good center sharpness at 1.8, not so good corners and edges. But what do you expect for 8€ Smile



PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Have had several of the old Meyer Orestons pass through my collection. Never a disappointing lens.


May not be sharpest in the corners, but it's at least as sharp as the contemporary Takumars in the center.

One of my favorites is the Yashinon 2/50, generally ignored for faster lenses this one is sharp wide open and renders beautifully:


I like the way it goes with close up and macro work.





It's become my favorite 50 over the past year.

Last edited by Mos6502 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:13 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The low cost of the lens not cos they are bad ones, but there are a lot on everywhere. Was the cheapest lens of the cheap praktica camera.

The same should be with another good lens like the industar 3,5/50.

Anyways, the oreston/pentacon/practicar 1,8/50 is a good lens, but not planar nor pancolar.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, Love alone doesn't do it although it is essential to have Wink
Certainly not bad lenses, especially in the hands of a good photographer Very Happy
The last two shots are pretty good (despite some visible CA)!


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
any konica AR and most rollei lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 15 blade Galaxy 135mm f3.5 is underrated if you get it for £1 Laughing No kidding on a 400D and film camera it gives good results, but doubt whether it's as good as my other well known lenses...but now I'm playing with the 400D (and the sun comes out) will do a comparison for my interest at least.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some minolta SR lenses, like the 2,8/35, 2,8/135, 4/200, 1,7/50, 1,4/50, 1,9/55. Ut some good ones are expensive like the 1,2/58, 2/100/ 1,8/35, 1.7/85, 2,8/85 varisoft, 2/28, etc.

Some smc m42 takumar and canon fd.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
50mm f2.8 Domiplan has proved surprisingly ok, stopped down. Got one for nothing a few years ago, had briefly tried it on digital* and thought it was scrap.
It was, however, at full aperture it was abysmal.... hadn't rigged it to stop down, or fitted a lens hood.
But a recent thread on here showed a Domiplan lens doing quite well. So eventually I hunted it out and tried again, but this time stopped down and under-exposing (as far as the camera's metering was concerned) by 2 stops. The results -- colour, detail and sharpness -- were better than just acceptable....
Cool So now I reckon the Domiplan qualifies for "under-rated".

* a Sony A57 so there's a crop factor of 1.5x

Last edited by norland on Mon Oct 28, 2013 2:17 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
The 15 blade Galaxy 135mm f3.5 is underrated if you get it for £1 Laughing No kidding on a 400D and film camera it gives good results, but doubt whether it's as good as my other well known lenses...but now I'm playing with the 400D (and the sun comes out) will do a comparison for my interest at least.


That might be the lens I had as an Optomax, I think it was 16 blades though. Can you post a pic of it so we can identify it, I'll dig out the pic of my Optomax. I have since seen a 200mm version clearly by the same maker and that was branded Galaxy. I nearly bought it out of curiosity. I think they are made by Ittoh Higon and the 135mm was very nice indeed, a little lower in contrast but sharp and great bokeh.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 6:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Rikenon XR 50mm f/2.0.
Very sharp lens, can be found almost for free.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'll vote for the lens which started the controversial "overrated" thread

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=117519

For RF glass, one might mention:
Canon 100/3.5
Canon 135/3.5
M-rokkor 40/2
numerous russian lenses
etc.

But these lenses are relatively inexpensive, while a quick search will tell you in fact they are highly regarded. So how can we call them "underrated"? They are under priced, relative to comparable alternatives, but they are hardly under-rated.

and I'd add, at this site, all *L* glass is underrated by the powerful L-phobic faction, who can't get past the red dot tax, to even pursue the possibility one or the other *L*s is a truly great lens.

the current 50 summilux asph might be a case in point.
another: 24 super-elmar.

Last edited by uhoh7 on Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:29 pm; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 7:42 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.


I have to more or less agree. A lot of lenses don't get any attention because they're too common to warrant any special interest - more or less taken for granted. There are also some lenses which would get plenty of love if they just had the right brand name engraved on them.

But, we already know that a good photographer can take good photos with even a box camera if they want to - so while "good enough" is generally good enough in practice, it doesn't make for a very entertaining discussion.

I'll throw the Meritar into the list of underrated lenses. Not because it is anywhere close to being the best 50, but amongst the triplets it is very good, and I find the rendering to be more pleasing than that from the Domiplan.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
The 15 blade Galaxy 135mm f3.5 is underrated if you get it for £1 Laughing No kidding on a 400D and film camera it gives good results, but doubt whether it's as good as my other well known lenses...but now I'm playing with the 400D (and the sun comes out) will do a comparison for my interest at least.


That might be the lens I had as an Optomax, I think it was 16 blades though. Can you post a pic of it so we can identify it, I'll dig out the pic of my Optomax. I have since seen a 200mm version clearly by the same maker and that was branded Galaxy. I nearly bought it out of curiosity. I think they are made by Ittoh Higon and the 135mm was very nice indeed, a little lower in contrast but sharp and great bokeh.


The first and 3rd photo in this link with the aluminum ring...mines M42. http://allphotolenses.com/lenses/item/c_1513.html
Works great on film, but did notice with a shot with the 400d it had CA on chrome parts of a bicycle, but the CA might be because:- with the 400D I can focus better close up than distance and the bike was a bit OOF Sad . But if anyone sees this lens in a junk shop for about £3 buy it, and if you don't like it throw it away.

On film (full frame) WO ferrania FG plus 200


Galaxy 135mm WO, Reala film, at min focus of 6ft


CZJ Sonnar 135mm WO, Reala film, at min focus of 3.3 ft


Last edited by Excalibur on Tue Oct 29, 2013 8:08 am; edited 4 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Oct 28, 2013 10:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Two lenses that I think are underrated:

- Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm F1.4
- Canon FD 50mm F1.4 SSC


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.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5