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

Are any manual focus zoom lenses good?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 11:11 am    Post subject: Are any manual focus zoom lenses good? Reply with quote
It is my observation that film era, manual focus, zoom lenses are generally considered to be inferior. I own a few and they vary from "not very good" to "quite decent". Are there any zoom lenses that are actually considered to be good?

There is a chance that different versions of the same lens might be better or worse because of changes design, etc. For example, I own a high serial number Olympus OM 75-150mm f/4.0. I find it quite good, although these lenses are generally looked down upon.

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I can name only a few Zeiss 35-70, 80-200mm, Minolta 35-70 and 70-150mm , Mamiya 70-150mm (I have this one and I like it), but depends on what "good" means to you and what body are you planning to use them . I've tried Nikon af-D 80-200mm 2.8 and I liked the results but to heavy. Tamron 60-300mm is well praised also ,but I guess most of them are not comparable to high end glass from these days.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, there are. I don't use them a lot, but I have the Minolta MD 35-70 3.5 (3rd version, "macro") and I find it very good. Not just good, but very good.
And in this forum you can find examples of some (aprox) 70-200 zooms that are as good or better as the primes, at least for certain uses (@stevemark has uploaded quite few examples).


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zamo wrote:
YI have the Minolta MD 35-70 3.5 (3rd version, "macro") and I find it very good. Not just good, but very good.


Interesting you mention this lens. I have one and it is easily one of the worst lenses I own. Perhaps I have a bad example.

Regards, C.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hows about the Konica Hexanon zooms? At least some of those are pretty good, are they not?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The two Leica APO zoom in R mount.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
connloyalist wrote:
Zamo wrote:
YI have the Minolta MD 35-70 3.5 (3rd version, "macro") and I find it very good. Not just good, but very good.


Interesting you mention this lens. I have one and it is easily one of the worst lenses I own. Perhaps I have a bad example.

Regards, C.


Without a doubt there's something wrong with your lens. It easily outperforms many vintage primes, let alone zooms, at least from 40mm onward.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 1:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
I can name only a few Zeiss 35-70, 80-200mm, Minolta 35-70 and 70-150mm , Mamiya 70-150mm (I have this one and I like it), but depends on what "good" means to you and what body are you planning to use them . I've tried Nikon af-D 80-200mm 2.8 and I liked the results but to heavy. Tamron 60-300mm is well praised also ,but I guess most of them are not comparable to high end glass from these days.


I think it depends a lot on how they are used. Zooms have a tendency to be traded off or sold with me.

A few with high usable image counts in my experience:

Tamron 103-A. Very usable images, especially off the long end. That's a natural tendency for me in that focal range. A good prime 200 f4 still tops this one, but the margin is surprisingly thin. It gets a little sharper stopped down around f8 or so. I still have this one.

Nikkor 35-105 f3.5-4.5. Better at the longer focal lengths. The wide end shines a bit at minimum focus distance. For general scenics at 35mm, a reasonable prime will easily beat this one. From about 45 to 105mm, a decent performer. It bbl distorts a bit at the wide end. The original factory hood for this one will save a bit of headaches, especially at the wide end.

I have another nikkor zoom or 2 here. The old 80-200 f4.5 with the baffle over the rear element makes some good imagery as long as care is taken with focusing. Stopping down a little brings this one almost up to the level of the 103-A mentioned above.
There's a 28-85 3.5-4.5 nikkor here that I haven't worked much yet. This is the first Nikkor for me with a plastic aperture ring and I think the focus collar is plastic as well. Mostly clear and bright imagery with it so far. It vignettes a bit at full wide with just a L-37-C filter on it, so finding a proper hood for it may be slightly problematic. I have a bit of work to do with it yet. It leans a bit towards bbl distortion at the wide end as well. It seems to be quite reasonable at the 85mm end. The twin ring construction is a bit at odds with what I expect from such a design. Push/pulling on the focus collar will rotate the zoom ring. I'm not quite sure what nikon was trying to accomplish with such a design. The lens is a bit big and heavy for it's focal range, but nothing really un-manageable.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 2:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anybody have experience with the Olympus OM 35-80 2.8? I love Olympus lenses and have most of them but that zoom commands much higher prices than most MF zooms. The other gaps I have tend to be pretty rare collector items like the 21mm f2 and the 18mm 3.5. I also don't own the 100 f2 since I have the 90 f2 macro. Someday maybe.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many are good. They just got a bad rep because of the enormous number of bad budget zooms that were sold in the seventies and eighties. Most zooms by the major brands are very good. Also Tamron Adaptall-2 zooms, especially the SP ones. Vivitar Series 1 zooms. Everything made by Komine or Kiron or Tokina for Vivitar (serial starts with 28, 22 an 37 respectively). Or Tokina's self branded zooms.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolta MDIII 35-70/3.5 (Macro) and Minolta MDIII 75-150/4 are very good lenses. Distortion at the extremes is simple pincushion/barrel and easily corrected in PP.

The Minolta MDIII 24-35/3.5 is also quite good and in combination with the two above completes a compact "gapless" 24mm-150mm travel set.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 5:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Many are so so, especially the very old ones. But there are (very) good ones as well.

Two of my favorites (click for large format to truly get an impression of what these lenses can do):
- Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4, which is probably my ultimate favourite manual zoom lens (size, optical quality, ease of use).

MinoltaMD75150WassenaarDSC04425 by devoscasper, on Flickr

MinoltaMD75150WassenaarDSC04419 by devoscasper, on Flickr

- Mamiya-Sekor C 105-210mm f/4.5 ULD

Mamiya10521045J_4 by devoscasper, on Flickr

Mamiya10521045J_13 by devoscasper, on Flickr


Another zoom lens to consider is the Contax-Zeiss Sonnar 80-200mm f/4, although I have no experience with it myself.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Minolta MD 70-210mm f/4, whose optical formula was later used in the legendary AF-era "Beercan" lens is pretty great. In the same focal range, the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm v3 f/2.8-4 is an excellent lens, as is its 28-90mm sibling, provided you get an example with a clean aperture.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
You can have a browse of my tamron vs vivitar zoom test here:

http://www.groupoids.org.uk/photography/TamronVSvivitar/70-210mm.html

Includes lenses mentioned: vivitar series 1 70-210mm, tamron adaptall SP 60-300mm and others. I can remark:
- most lenses in the test showed pretty comparably when used middle of the range, middling f stops eg the flower pics. One can comment that most lenses are good (enough) at f8! The test pics that discriminated the most are the landscape shot of the castle, and the close up/macro shot.
- the lens that for me showed the most particular rendering and the best all round performance was the kiron 70-210mm f4 zoomlock.
- unless you are using full frame you are mostly limited to slightly wide angle (28mm = 42mm on apsc) to telephoto field of view with film era zooms. One exception is the tamron 24-48mm adaptall, which is also a lens I would specifically mention as of particular interest for its rendering and performance.

I have to admit I rarely use these lenses. Unless I am particularly focused on checking the lens out or looking for the specific rendering characteristics, it's just so much easier to grab the 18-125mm or other AF lens.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
On the subject of rendering, the Vivitar S1 Auto Variable Focusing 35-85mm deserves a mention, as it produces the kind of bubbly bokeh and character in closeup shots that a lot of vintage lens shooters chase.
Very sharp stopped down, too.


marcusBMG wrote:
You can have a browse of my tamron vs vivitar zoom test here:

http://www.groupoids.org.uk/photography/TamronVSvivitar/70-210mm.html

Includes lenses mentioned: vivitar series 1 70-210mm, tamron adaptall SP 60-300mm and others. I can remark:
- most lenses in the test showed pretty comparably when used middle of the range, middling f stops eg the flower pics. One can comment that most lenses are good (enough) at f8! The test pics that discriminated the most are the landscape shot of the castle, and the close up/macro shot.
- the lens that for me showed the most particular rendering and the best all round performance was the kiron 70-210mm f4 zoomlock.
- unless you are using full frame you are mostly limited to slightly wide angle (28mm = 42mm on apsc) to telephoto field of view with film era zooms. One exception is the tamron 24-48mm adaptall, which is also a lens I would specifically mention as of particular interest for its rendering and performance.

I have to admit I rarely use these lenses. Unless I am particularly focused on checking the lens out or looking for the specific rendering characteristics, it's just so much easier to grab the 18-125mm or other AF lens.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:55 pm    Post subject: Re: Are any manual focus zoom lenses good? Reply with quote
connloyalist wrote:
It is my observation that film era, manual focus, zoom lenses are generally considered to be inferior. I own a few and they vary from "not very good" to "quite decent". Are there any zoom lenses that are actually considered to be good?

Regards, C.


I don't know a single vintag MF zoom (pre 1985) that ove its entire range is better than the best corresponding vintage primes (and I have several hundred zooms as well as primes).

That said, there are quite a few vintage zooms from the 1975-1985 time frame which at a certain focal length are better than the corresponding primes. Typically the common f4 (f4.5) tele zooms are better at about f=135mm than the corresponding 2.8/135mm lenses from the same time and the same manufacturer. Even distortion may be better corrected!

Tele zooms such as the Zeiss CY 3.5/70-210mm and CY 4/80-200mm are really good around 120-140mm, but also the Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L is excellent at these focal lengths. Minolta MD 4.5/75-200mm as well as 4/70-210mm are good as well, and of course the Mamiya Sekor CS or E 3.8/80-200mm is a nice lens as well. There are some exquisite MF tele zooms from Leica, of course (2.8/70-180 and 4/80-200), but they are later and more comparable to the excellent early AF tele zooms such as the MinAF 2.8/80-200 APO.

The Minolta MD-III 3.5/35-70mm Macro as well as the MD-III 4/75-150mm are very good indeed. Also the Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm is a good choice, expecially if you need a distortion-free 35-70mm (distortion <1% over the entire range, compared to typically 2.5-4% with other normal zooms). I'm talking about the later version here with 62mm filter. Yashica 3.5/28-50mm is quite good as well - better than the other 28-50mm lenses I know - but still not as good as good primes. If you want a good and nice "normal zoom" I would recommend early AF lenses as well - e. g. the Minolta AF 2.8/28-70mm G which is beatifully built BTW.

Superwide zooms? Well, the Canon nFD 3.5/20-35mm certainly is acceptable and more or less comparable to the contemporary Canon nFD primes (at least at 20mm and 24mm) it can't compete with more modern designs. The Sigma 21-35mm II (don't know the exatc designation) MF lens isn't much worse than the Canon 20-35L but MUCH cheaper of course (mine was around CHF 25.--). Same goes for the Tamron SP 24-48mm which is quite good at 24 and 28mm, but suffers at 48mm.

I have tested most Konica AR zooms as well (apart from the crazy 58-400mm), usually checking 2-3 samples. Results were inconsistent, probably due to less stringent manufacturing tolerances compared to e. g. Minolta.

Do I use some vintage MF zooms? Rarely.
The (much bigger) professional f2.8 AF zooms ("superwide", "normal" and "tele") are too good ...

S


PostPosted: Tue Apr 02, 2024 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
guardian wrote:
Hows about the Konica Hexanon zooms? At least some of those are pretty good, are they not?

+1
Unfortunately most manual zoom lenses in longer focal length very heavy. I remember for Konica UC zoom lenses are equal with a good prime lens.

http://forum.mflenses.com/konica-uc-hexanon-45-100mm-f4-5-t74150,highlight,%2Bkonica+%2Buc.html


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 6:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I always considered my Tamron Adaptall-2 #171 28-200mm (not the earlier #71) to be very adequate on film and continued to use it when I "went digital".
I was rather disappointed to have to retire it a few years ago due to excessive fungus deep inside.
Having treated myself to a personal "film renaissance" over the last 15 months or so, I recently took the opportunity to acquire a Pentax FA 28-200mm, which is effectively a re-badged Tamron, and I haven't been disappointed Smile


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 9:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
marcusBMG wrote:
You can have a browse of my tamron vs vivitar zoom test here:

http://www.groupoids.org.uk/photography/TamronVSvivitar/70-210mm.html

Includes lenses mentioned: vivitar series 1 70-210mm, tamron adaptall SP 60-300mm and others. I can remark:
- most lenses in the test showed pretty comparably when used middle of the range, middling f stops eg the flower pics. One can comment that most lenses are good (enough) at f8! The test pics that discriminated the most are the landscape shot of the castle, and the close up/macro shot.
- the lens that for me showed the most particular rendering and the best all round performance was the kiron 70-210mm f4 zoomlock.
- unless you are using full frame you are mostly limited to slightly wide angle (28mm = 42mm on apsc) to telephoto field of view with film era zooms. One exception is the tamron 24-48mm adaptall, which is also a lens I would specifically mention as of particular interest for its rendering and performance.

I have to admit I rarely use these lenses. Unless I am particularly focused on checking the lens out or looking for the specific rendering characteristics, it's just so much easier to grab the 18-125mm or other AF lens.


Great work! Thanks


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
At first I thought this might be an April Fool's post, but it's a day later! There are MANY excellent zooms out there, along with some bad ones. Just a few manual focus lenses that fit the bill are Nikon's 80-200 f4, 35-200, 50-300 (photos below in order).







PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The general guidance was to avoid ones with a zoom ratio of more than 3 to 1.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another one I just thought of is the SMC Pentax-A 35-105mm f/3.5 "stack of primes," which is very highly-regarded in Pentax land and has a very versatile focal range, particular if you are shooting full frame.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It should be obvious from all the replies that there are quite a few well-regarded manual focus zoom lenses.

It is worth emphasising e6filmuser's comment that those with a zoom ratio of more than 3 to 1 are best avoided.

My personal experience is that the very best MF zoom lenses tend to have no more than a 2 to 1 zoom ratio.

Another thing to bear in mind is that many of the older tele-zooms are of a one-touch push/pull & focus construction, which may not be everyone's preference. The plus side is that many of those still feature a fairly accurate and usable set of hyperfocal distance markings throughout the full zoom range, something that unfortunately is missing from the vast majority of MF zoom lenses in the wide-angle and normal range.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I actually am a fan of the one touch design for manual focus, since it does substantially decrease the amount of fiddling necessary when composing, especially considering most aren't parfocal and have to have the focus adjusted constantly as one zooms.

You figure that people using AF zooms are typically accustomed to "one touch" operation, anyway, letting the AF mechanism do the focusing while keeping their hand on the zoom ring at all times, so switching back and forth between two rings as you adjust both the zoom and the focus rings ends up being quite a bit more extra hand movements than most are used to.

One other thing to add when using these lenses on digital is that since they don't report their focal length to a camera body, if you are shooting on a body with IBIS, it's not going to be effective across the entire range, only really near whatever specific focal length you tell the body to use manually.

RokkorDoctor wrote:
It should be obvious from all the replies that there are quite a few well-regarded manual focus zoom lenses.

It is worth emphasising e6filmuser's comment that those with a zoom ratio of more than 3 to 1 are best avoided.

My personal experience is that the very best MF zoom lenses tend to have no more than a 2 to 1 zoom ratio.

Another thing to bear in mind is that many of the older tele-zooms are of a one-touch push/pull & focus construction, which may not be everyone's preference. The plus side is that many of those still feature a fairly accurate and usable set of hyperfocal distance markings throughout the full zoom range, something that unfortunately is missing from the vast majority of MF zoom lenses in the wide-angle and normal range.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 03, 2024 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Vivitar Series 1 VMC 28-90mm f2.8 / 3.5
One of my firm favourite zooms, it’s plenty sharp and any ‘faults’ it has are very easily dealt with, making it a great walkabout lens.

Yashica ML 80-200mm f4
A bit of a sleeper? It’s actually rather good.

Minolta. MD.Zoom Macro 35-70mm f3.5
The best walkabout lens ever in my book, great performance, compact and versatile.

Minolta MD Zoom 70-210mm f4
Minolta AF Macro Zoom 70-210mm f4
Classic lens in AF or Manual. I like Minolta lenses a lot, they are my regular ‘go to’ lenses, but for a 70-210 I actually prefer the Vivitar below.

Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm f2.8 / 4
For me this the King of the 70-210’s ( and I have quite a few more that didn’t make it onto this list ) The Vivitar 70-210 / 3.5 seems to have the better reputation for all round performance, but it’s just to big and heavy and hasn’t got that MAXIMUM of 2.8.

Tokina AT-X SD 80-200mm f2.8
My copy of this classic from Tokina has suffered the terminal haze that is common to them. But while it was clear it was superb.


Vivitar Series 1. 24-48mm f3.8
This is Vivitar’s ‘love or hate’ wide zoom, and I love it. It’s a great lens that needs it’s dedicated hood to curb the flare, and distortion is certainly a trait of this lens. But it’s sharp and distortion can be dealt with.

SMC Pentax A 70-210mm f4
Possibly the sharpest of my 70-210’s? And it’s very good in all other respects. But…the Vivitar is just that bit better as a ‘go to’ lens.

Super Multi Coated Takumar Zoom 85-210mm f4.5
I don’t use this Takumar a lot, but when I do I like it. I always tell myself I should use it more….but it is tripod lens in reality, so my Vivitar wins again.

Chinon MC 35-100mm f3.5 / 4.3
This is a big old clunker, a heavy two ring lens that is probably a Cimko and also found as Topcor, Super Carenar, Auto Beroflex, Super Paragon, Revue, Soligor and maybe more. But I’ve had some great pictures out of it on my Pentax K10, and Sony A7II

As for my Tamrons, the SP BBAR 01A 35-80mm f2.8 / 3.8 is probably the best, but there are plenty of better than average zooms on my my shelf.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3