What is the magic beyond 70-80-90-100mm lenses?

[CuriousOne]

People are paying huge money for some obscure 70-80-90-100mm lenses, when say 58mm or 135mm ones are dirt cheap. What's so special with these focal distances, so you willing to pay often 50x more cost than 135mm ones?

[luisalegria]

There are some quite cheap and decent 105mm lenses. The famous Nikkor 105/2.5 can be found, with luck, for under $100. I will be selling a slightly defective one soon for about $70.
As for why, as a real functional reason, I guess one reason is personal preference for your shooting style. For the same framing one would step closer with a 50mm and further with a 135. Some types of shots with a 50 will show perspective distortions, such as with close portraits. A 135 won't have distortions but maybe can't be used as easily in a restricted space, etc.
80-100 lenses also were often (though not always) made with more complex optical formulas than 135s, giving larger apertures (sometimes) or better performance wide open. Some have a reputation for unique bokeh. 135s tend not to have unusual bokeh.

[CuriousOne]

Thanks.

It is really interesting, are there any famous (worldwide recognizable) photos with all these fancy bokeh? All I see is just pointless examples of "swirly-twirly" and so on bokeh shots, like "my dog laying clay in the backyard - look at flowers behind him".

[luisalegria]

Ah, well one has to be accustomed to the aesthetic of bokeh.
A matter of taste in some respects.
You can search for examples, they are all over.

[CuriousOne]

It's not to my taste, I just like to know, if there's any awarded photo with swirly bokeh or shoot with 85mm/F1.6 or other, specific lens.

[kds315*]

Hmm, a good question: that 70-100mm range has gotten some pretty interesting glass in it but many makers especially very fast ones too.
It is the classic portrait range and hence lens makers have tried and offer good and fast glass for that, still always pricey and with lower production
volumes, that even drives the prices up today.

Admittedly it is also the range I like most for my flower photography, as it gives a decent working distance, less distortion but at the same
time a very pleasant angle and 3-dimensionality.

[luisalegria]

No idea about awards of any sort, just photo gear.
Just like the saying about artists -
Art critics talk about art, painters talk about paint.

[kds315*]

Well ... yes

[Igor]

"Art critics talk about art, painters talk about paint." ... well said !

[ZoneV]

[cyrano]

WOW !!! Some lens that is.

[berw]

[vanylapep]

[ZoneV]

I think haze could be a problem. But I suppose ypu need dew drops, or other small water drops to get maximum soap bubble effect.
Without such small light points you get "only" enhanced background structure - which is also a very good effect of this lens and its over-corrected spherical aberration.

[Bille]

[Attila]

Stunning shoot, well deserve to won!

Well if a lens dirt cheap you can try it out and decide it enough to you or not, every focal length is important. 50mm and 135mm most common certainly price is less. Some people do head shoot with 50mm and they can't see it how face is big, distorted, even worst when they start to calculate crop factor as focal length and use 35mm for head shoots so best advice really take cheap ones and if you not see differences that is enough to you. To try and enjoy lenses a long term process, best to start with affordable ones , get experience , learn and upgrade later , without proper knowledge best lenses( most expensive ones), not perform much better than cheapest ones.

[luisalegria]

The distinction between the bokeh-aesthetic and the "regular" one seems very much like the situation in the early days of photography between the "pictorialists"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism
This was the original artistic idea of making photographs look like paintings - big on fog, fuzziness and what we would now call "bokeh".

and the "f/64 club"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_f/64
Who wanted sharp pictures.

Since the 1930's the "f/64 club" has been the normal style of photography because of the huge influence of people like Ansel Adams.

[CuriousOne]

OK, so for "special effects" - this is personal preference of certain group of people, and no standard required by industry or whatsoever, right?

and regarding the focal distance, modern zoom lenses often provide much better quality in same focal range as these 70-100mm prices, and still cost much less, so why to go crazy for an old junk lens?

[calvin83]

[vanylapep]

or this

[luisalegria]

Modern zooms with the aperture of most of these old lenses are very expensive.
Cheap modern zooms work very well at small apertures and are perfectly fine for most purposes.
However even "industry standard" photography like advertising, portraits and product photography often requires shallow DOF that can come only from large apertures. Which is why people sell lots of expensive large aperture zooms to ptofessionals.
And as for special effects, we are in the world of art. One man's special effect is another man's artistic style. All in the eyes of the viewer, de gustibus, etc.

As for prices, they are a function of supply and demand. With antique lenses the supply is very limited. Some of these things have only a few hundred examples. Even a few thousand existing units will not supply even a niche demand in a world of 7 billion with increasing disposable income. And there is the collectors market besides.

Which is why outfits like Samyang have a great business model in pursuing this niche.

Btw, if you want one of these 80-100 lenses for use, there are cheaper alternatives. Like I mentioned earlier, some of these aren't so rare and can be had for reasonable prices, or even quite cheaply. See the recent post here on the Vivitar 105.

[CuriousOne]

No offence, I just trying to understand, whenever the high demand for these lenses has some practical requirement background, or these are just "toys for overgrown boys" as vintage cars, or other chic collectibles.

I don't have any personal intention to buy any of them, as I personally prefer 135-150mm for portrait shots - I found them much pleasing for my eye, than say 70 or 80mm ones. An example is here:



150mm Caleinar 3B @ Sony A57. Not sure about aperture (forgot), but not slower than F5.6.

And since I don't do any commercial activity, I have no unsatisfied customers

[Lightshow]

Personal preference can push one towards one focal length or another, there is no right answer, 85's typically have the cutting edge optical design just because its a well loved focal length for portraits, which causes them to have an elevated new price which causes them to be somewhat rare in the used market and their prices are then elevated there too, 50's and 135's are generally a mass market product and therefore much cheaper(exceptions do of course exist).
Myself, I like the 85mm FL on FF, so I have no problem paying good money for a great lens in that FL... Or any FL for that matter, I generally don't use longer than 100mm unless I'm on a nature walk.

[enzodm]

[CuriousOne]

Well, some of us might be using these lens as tools - to make some money.