Are any manual focus zoom lenses good?

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

SMC Takumar-Zoom 45-125/4 is sharp from wide-open, has useful range both aps-c and ff.

Contax Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 35-70mm F3.4 has good reputation.

I don't use zooms much. That "Stack of Primes" lens and the NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5 and two above. None nearly as good as prime lenses imho, but I'm not sure if that's my inexperience and prejudice. Actually a stack of Primes can weigh less or not much more. Depends on use of course, choosing primes or zoomer. I tend to use mine for "surveys", to determine which lenses to take there next time.

Kind of like using AF lens, using zooms feel like cheating. LOL!

However, sometimes getting the photograph is more important than getting the best photograph possible -- zoom lens on camera is more "prepared" for anything.

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 345 Location: the Netherlands

Thank you all for the interesting answers.

Yes, longer focal length zooms do tend to become quite heavy, which is a factor for me. Due to health reasons I am somewhat weight limited. Compounding that I suppose is the fact that I prefer 2-ring / "2-touch" zooms which from my observation tend to be heavier than the 1-touch variety.

This next thing is a bit difficult for me to explain, so apologies. When I first started on this adventure in manual focus lenses I was under the impression that all 1-touch zooms have a mechanism that combines the zoom and focus functionality (example: Nikon E 75-150mm). Until I picked up an Olympus OM 100-200mm f/5.0. On that one the focus ring rotates around the zoom ring. So it is still "1-touch", but with that system focusing has lower chance of moving the zoom.

I will have to research the lenses mentioned here. Thanks for all the responses.

Regards, Christine

sergun · Posted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:56 pm Post subject:

I had a lot of different old zooms. 35-70 minolta, canon fd , tamron adaptall ,fujinon, olympus. 75-150 (70-140-150) minolta md, canon fd, tamron adaptall . 28-85 minolta md, nfd, fujinon. As well as intermediate variants of the minolta 50-135 type. As for the 35-70, the md3 really stands out a little from others with better characteristics, but I almost did not use these zooms because of the short scaling. It was easier for me to take a 50mm prime and pan somewhere or make a crop. A much more interesting result is from the body 70(75)-140(150). I liked the minolta 75-150, but I had three copies and all had factory defects or the rollers fell apart from time. I was also pleased with the nfd 70-150, which felt no worse than the minolta.
p/s
I reviewed my old photos from old lenses and realized that I miss them a little (or in the meantime) I still don't understand why no manufacturer has released a compact 70-150/4(4.5) for Sony FE?

gaeger · Expire: 2021-03-09

Eschewing any zoom with a greater than 3x range means you would miss out on some fantastic lenses.

On my list would be the Nikkor 50-300mm ED lenses.

And the Nikkor 35-200mm, which may be my all-time favorite Nikkor. It's often with me on backpacking trips.

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 345 Location: the Netherlands

On the subject of manual focus zoom lenses, I forgot to mention one of my favorites: the Olympus PEN-F (1960's) half-frame 50-90mm f/3.5.

All metal, smooth as silk to operate and sharp. I used it on a M43 camera. I understand that it does cover APS-C, but I suspect probably not full frame.

Regards, C.

lepre · Joined: 15 Jun 2023 Posts: 11

martinsmith99 · Expire: 2013-11-18

"Good" is very subjective. The image quality is a trade off for the convenience (even, but less so with modern lenses).

Nobody mentioned the Kiron 75-150.

Manichaean · Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 70

I can recommend Olympus OM 65-200mm f/4. At the long end it is at least as good as Olympus OM 200mm f/4 and not much bigger. So, having that there is no need for the prime.

On the other hand, I like Olympus OM 200mm f/5 prime. It is one of the smallest lenses in this focal length that I know and has an IQ on the same level as its f/4 sibling.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4087 Location: Switzerland

@gaeger:

Very, very nice images - please continue to publish, and to share your experiences!

Respectfully,

S

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 345 Location: the Netherlands

kathala · Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 142

I read Canon had a policy in its FD days (and very much as opposed to today) to only make the lenses they can make in really good quality, and only make the zooms that will rival their primes. so the lineup of FD zooms is moderate, but they are all really rather good. at least I've never seen REALLY bad pictures.
those I tested, in order of IQ:
70-210 EXCELLENT
80-200 L EXCELLENT but overpriced
50-300 EXCELLENT but overpriced
35-... all excellent to very decent (35-105 reportedly the best!)
28-85 very, very decent
100-300 very, very decent (L of course better)
20-35 very decent
28-55 less good than 28-85 but still good
75-200 less good than 70-210

Himself · Expire: 2013-05-30

I'm eyeballing that Canon FD 50-300 for a long while but it's horribly expensive.
I think I'll settle eventually with the Nikon same 50-300.

kathala · Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 142

Nikon is probably less great, but depending on use, a modern 50-300/400 would be just as sharp at a fraction of cost, or you go 50-135 + 100-300L

oh, whilst we're at it, I also have the 50-200 3.5-4.5 sigma apo, which, unlike most sigmas of its time, is really properly good (just a tad below FD 70-210, but well above 75-200) and zooms out to that sweet 50mm

Olivier · Expire: 2015-08-06

Nobody mentioned these 2 excellent zoom MF lenses :
- Angenieux "2x35" 2.5-3.3/35-70mm
- Angenieux "3x70" 3.5/70-210mm

Samples of the 35-70mm
https://forum.mflenses.com/tournai-in-belgium-5d-mkii-and-angenieux-35-70-mm-2-5-3-3-t31551,highlight,%2Bangenieux.html

of the 70-210mm
https://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-3-5-70-210-mm-t26648,highlight,%2Bangenieux.html
https://forum.mflenses.com/angenieux-3-5-70-210mm-t22807.html

Have a nice day.
Smile

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3225 Location: The Netherlands

I received my Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200mm f/4 a few days ago. Here are some images I made around the house, they are nothing special, but they may give a good impression of its characteristics. Double click for full size.

CZVarioSonnar80200469 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200468 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200466 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200465 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200464 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200463 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200462 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200461 by devoscasper, on Flickr

CZVarioSonnar80200459 by devoscasper, on Flickr

There's a lot to like about it IMO:
- it covers about the full telephoto range I use
- it has good bokeh
- perfectly usable at f/4
- a MFD of 1 meter at all focal lengths
- a nine bladed aperture
- quite exquisite mechanics which are a joy to use
- its not heavy
- good image quality (comparable to Minolta MD 75-150/4, which is a great alternative if you don't need the long end).

At most focal lengths it is sharp from corner to corner, except at around 115mm where it has softness in the far corners, and it suffers from some CA's like pretty much any vintage lens.

kathala · Joined: 13 May 2022 Posts: 142

it should also be mentioned that most leica r zooms have high reputation (and even higher prices, still today):
https://www.summilux.net/materiel/Objectifs-Leica-R

and since I praised canon fd above, it is worth noting that minolta made many manual lenses to rival them.
many tests are here https://minolta.su/minolta-md-28-85mm-f3-5-4-5-zoom/, even some direct comparison.

and since angenieux was mentioned (at least one of them having been made by tokina!), the third parties ARE worth a look (tokina, tamron adaptall, sigma), but the breadth is wider. I recently tested the last gen manual 28-200 tamron adaptall and was very surprised at the image quality. good enough for you? only you can know. other example: the tokina 28-85 was as good, and actually wider, at 28mm as the canon 28-85, but dismal at 85, where the canon is STILL good.

BrianSVP · Joined: 09 Jun 2023 Posts: 354 Location: Philadelphia

I've had a couple of copies of the Angenieux 70-210 you mention, and while it's a nice enough lens optically, there's nothing particularly special about it, besides the presence of a Leica mount. Certainly nothing that otherwise justifies the much higher prices it commands than the comparable Pentaxes and Vivitars mentioned above, which IMO are equal or better lenses. It's also disappointingly plasticky and doesn't handle all that great.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4087 Location: Switzerland

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3225 Location: The Netherlands

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 345 Location: the Netherlands

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3225 Location: The Netherlands

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 345 Location: the Netherlands

caspert79 · Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 3225 Location: The Netherlands

connloyalist · Joined: 22 Jul 2020 Posts: 345 Location: the Netherlands

Mike Deep · Joined: 25 Oct 2008 Posts: 323 Location: Upstate New York

Another vote for the humble Tamron 103A... Cheap, small, lightweight and plentiful. It was my go-to for remote camera engine shots at rocket launches. It tested favorably against a Nikkor 200/4 and Canon 70-210 USM, granted at the long end and stopped down.