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

most overrated lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
Anu wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. Wink


IMHO not reallly, unless you mean the Japanese CZJ Prakticars Smile


Well, those for sure.

But I also mean some CZJ lenses (made in GDR).
I don't say that they are "bad", because that was not the question, but I think that they usually go for too high prices, esp. because the quality variation is extreme.

The 2.4/35 was mentioned here. I have used three copies, two were absolutely (sorry) "crap", the third one was surely one of the best 35mm lenses I have ever shot with.

If you now pay €150,- for such a great lens, that might be acceptable, but if you get one of those lemons for this money, I would call this highly overrated.


Where do you buy your lemons from? Wink My experience with CZJ lenses is that only one of the numerous one I've bought had anything odd (a 300/4 - black multicoated, I guess that those also are among the cost-cut-lenses where less than perfect elements were accpted. Not sure though if this imperfection hampered the IQ).

Quote:

I also think that the Sonnar 3.5/135 is overrated. It is (can be) a very nice lens but it goes for prices you could get two similarly good 135mm lenses for.

Now this is something that I strongly disagee. It is among the very best lenses of the focal lenght. Seriously. On both FF and crop, corner to corner and wide open. Add the 1m minimum focus distance, build in lens hood, small size and good feel, and the only negative is the relatively slow speed.

In my opinion the 135/3,5 is one of the very best back/buck lenses, so what a fantastic contrast of opinions! Smile

If you can find lenses comparable for 40 euros, I sure want to buy some Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
the only copy of a Sonnar 3.5/135 I was allowed to use was a really good lens, yes, but nothing spectacular that would justify those prices that are regularly paid. That's why I mentioned it.


So what flaws or what rather average qualities it has for a 80 euro (+-20 depending on how skilled ebayer one is) lens? I mean, if it is "nothing spectacular". Considering it's widely accepted strenghts, like sharpness and bokeh quality, close MFD, low aberrations and purple fringing, there must be something (besides the relatively small aperture) which make it worth less than 80 euros...

Also, if it is nothin spectacular, then I am sure you can quickly name several lenses that easily defeat it? Ok, many lenses are faster, but other than that, I can't figure any in the price range that is humanely achievablle Wink

How much do you use this focal length btw - maybe there could be the answer on why we disagree so much on the value of this lens. (Actually I don't use this FL that much myself nowdays, but since the lens is so small it's often with me and it always delivers if needed.)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I was blown away with the Sonnar 135/3.5 as it was my first mf lens.
Sure it's price is going higher and higher these days, but that doesn't mean it's overrated. The problem is that many people are used to seeing it at a much lower price so the prices it fetches on bay lately makes people say it's overrated. I think it's worth that money. Wink


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The most over-rated lens is the one that you buy and do not use.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
1) I did not buy these lemons, I just had the chance to shoot with them.
2) The last time a mint CZJ 3.5/135 was offered to me, the seller wanted to have €140,-. And that is overpriced!
3) I only have used one copy of that Sonnar. And on this experience I base my judgement. As I said, it might have been that copy.
4) A CZJ Sonnar 4/135 is as good as the 3.5/135 and much cheaper. At least the copies I could compare.
5) A Jupiter-37 is also as good and much cheaper.
6) A Tair-11 is also as good and still cheaper (not much, though).

Everything IMHO.

Once again, I have never said that these lenses are bad, but I think they mostly are too expensive. Perhaps "overpaid" would fit better than "overrated". That's true.


(It is funny that as soon as someone dares to downrate CZJ lenses, a fanboy-attack will automatically follow. Sorry about the "fanboy" word but such an insistent and emphatic argumentation looks a bit like fanboy-posts. Wink)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

So what flaws or what rather average qualities it has for a 80 euro (+-20 depending on how skilled ebayer one is) lens? I mean, if it is "nothing spectacular".


It has the flaw of being priced above other lenses of similar type, speed (whether f/3.5 or 4), and length that all perform quite the same.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 11:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:

I also think that the Sonnar 3.5/135 is overrated. It is (can be) a very nice lens but it goes for prices you could get two similarly good 135mm lenses for.


The real point is that just about any 3.5/135 you can find will be a Sonnar copy...


Not really, Savo.

A lot of 135's designs are ernostar type.

I have a mamiya/sekor 2,8/135 lens, wqith an ernostar design. I sold my sonnars CZJ copies, because:

1. the mamiya has a bit colder colors (like old leica style).
2- The resolution power, are the same.
3- Contrast? The sonnar is more contrast lens, but by a bit.

They are very similar, the difference is in the color rendering, no more. And I prefer the mamiya (tokina's lens). As it has a bit less contrast, the details in the pic are seen better and the color more subtle.

And about the 135 of CZJ, the first version (zebra) is more realistic colors, more resolution power and better building.

I had both and when you take the lenses in your hands, the differences are noted inmediately. And you can recognice the pic taken with one or the other version too.

The zebra not overpriced, the MC, something.

Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
Anu wrote:
For me it gets the job done, and if I had to limit myself to one lens only for the rest of my life, it'd probably be this one.


Same here (btw I'm a lurker but I love the squirrels).

Of the lenses I tried, the one I often thought of as overrated is the SMC Takumar 55/1.8: it's not bad at all, but many people praise it for its sharpness while I often find it disappointing.

Like poilu said once, you notice sharp lenses in the viewfinder when focusing without even having to take pictures, and my Takumars 55 (I have two) are harder to focus than most of my other lenses. But then, for the 30€ or so they usually fetch, they are a great buy.


Well I thought I was the only one here who thought the Tak 55/1.8 (mine's auto/super tak) wasn't very sharp...and I don't think much of the super Tak 135/f3.5 either, but the 35/3.5 is very good.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:12 pm    Post subject: Re: most overrated lens Reply with quote
bogolisk wrote:
In your experience/opinion what is/are the most overrated lens?

For me, on m4/3, among the (budget) lens I have, it's the Hexanon 1.7/50 and the 40 1.8/40.

The Hexanon 50 is contrasty but I don't think it's any sharper than the other budget 50s such as the OM 1.8/50 or the Yashica ML 1.7/50. So much for the "sharpest 50mm lens ever built".

The Hexanon 40 is so soft wide-open (on the e-p1) that it's a pain to focus. maybe it's the way I mf on the e-p1: wide-open -> focus -> stop down -> meter -> capture. Maybe I have to do stop-down -> focus.


Those two are excellent lenses IMHO, but how sharp is sharp you'd have to blow up a neg to a large size to see how e.g. a planar is better.
This guy was impressed with the 40mm lens that you can buy cheap:-
http://www.northcoastphotos.com/Lympa_2007_09_29.htm


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

A lot of 135's designs are ernostar type.


Technically right. But the relationship between them is close. Even Zeiss (who own both trade marks) branded all their later Ernostar types Sonnar. The technical difference between basic Sonnar and Ernostar types could be considered the cemented rather than air-spaced centre group - but "Sonnar" is closer to being used as a brand rather than a technical term.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:
estudleon wrote:

A lot of 135's designs are ernostar type.


Technically right. But the relationship between them is close. Even Zeiss (who own both trade marks) branded all their later Ernostar types Sonnar. The technical difference between basic Sonnar and Ernostar types could be considered the cemented rather than air-spaced centre group - but "Sonnar" is closer to being used as a brand rather than a technical term.


I agree respect to the later ernostar, but the oldest ones, are three front elements not cemented and one or two rear elements (cemented or not), and that design it's far from sonnar with second thick front element. They aren´t the same lens. But I recognice that these 135 sonnars designs are more close to the ernostar than the 6 or 7 elements sonnar from 1931/2.

Anyways, almost all the 135 lenses are good enought and with similar rendering.

Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
"Sonnar" actually is a term that is used for several different lens designs.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
The most over-rated lens is the one that you buy and do not use.


Well said!

(I must admit, that this definition means I have about 3-4 pieces of junk Wink .)


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
"Sonnar" actually is a term that is used for several different lens designs.


In general, we should always take with care the designation of lens types as based only on the optical scheme.
For example, the Contax Planar 2/135, with it's cemented double element and the quite obvious asymmetrical scheme, would be hardly classified as a planar lens (double gauss):



and yet, when asked on this subject, a Zeiss technician who worked in Zeiss at the time this lens was made said that he asked this very same question to the engineers, and they replied that the Planar designation was given to the lens due to the optical quality of the light transmission of the glass employed.
So, there is more to a lens designation than the scheme. Evidently, in Zeiss mind the Planar lenses require a certain type of optical "response" from the glass employed, and when it happens, that is what they need to call the lens a Planar, more than the actual order and placement of the elements.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:
Orio wrote:
The most over-rated lens is the one that you buy and do not use.


Well said!

(I must admit, that this definition means I have about 3-4 pieces of junk Wink .)


Not necessarily: it just means that by buying it, you over-rated it, since you paid more than what it's actually worth for you.

So, this can apply also to very fine lenses: if you bought them, and don't use them, you over-rated them, because you paid more for them than what they give back to you. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
"Sonnar" actually is a term that is used for several different lens designs.


In general, we should always take with care the designation of lens types as based only on the optical scheme.
For example, the Contax Planar 2/135, with it's cemented double element and the quite obvious asymmetrical scheme, would be hardly classified as a planar lens (double gauss):



and yet, when asked on this subject, a Zeiss technician who worked in Zeiss at the time this lens was made said that he asked this very same question to the engineers, and they replied that the Planar designation was given to the lens due to the optical quality of the light transmission of the glass employed.
So, there is more to a lens designation than the scheme. Evidently, in Zeiss mind the Planar lenses require a certain type of optical "response" from the glass employed, and when it happens, that is what they need to call the lens a Planar, more than the actual order and placement of the elements.


Perhaps a marketing reasons too. The planar has a name that means (in photography) great IQ. You say "Planar" and almost all the people take off their hat (What antiquated!!! Laughing Laughing ).

Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
1) I did not buy these lemons, I just had the chance to shoot with them.
2) The last time a mint CZJ 3.5/135 was offered to me, the seller wanted to have €140,-. And that is overpriced!
3) I only have used one copy of that Sonnar. And on this experience I base my judgement. As I said, it might have been that copy.
4) A CZJ Sonnar 4/135 is as good as the 3.5/135 and much cheaper. At least the copies I could compare.
5) A Jupiter-37 is also as good and much cheaper.
6) A Tair-11 is also as good and still cheaper (not much, though).

Everything IMHO.

1. You should try lemonds - tasty, though strong.
2. If the lens is in a (proper) mint condition, 140 € is not extraordinary for a collector. However, why use that price? Regular very nice copies are avalable at half that price on eBay.
3. I've never met a bad 135/3.5. I am sure one exists though Wink
4. 4/135 is not as good. It is slower, and lacking MC. Does it have a lens hood built in? Anyhow, if 4/135 is a super bang for buck, that does not mean that 3.5/135 is lousy value.
5. J37 is not as good - worse coatings, more variable built quality, supposedly somewhatt inferior bokeh quality, minimum focus 1.2m vs. 1m of CZJ, larger filter thread 58 vs 49.
6. Tair, MFD either 1.5 or 1.2m, faster at f/2.8, AFAIK inferior image quality. It's lens diagram is rather interesting - I don't like the last element one bit.

Quote:

Once again, I have never said that these lenses are bad, but I think they mostly are too expensive. Perhaps "overpaid" would fit better than "overrated". That's true.


I am beginning to think that from your point of view all lenses are over rated or over valued or over priced. Am I right? In a sense I do agree with that (grr, send me money, I need more lenses! Wink , but it is not really objective pov.

Quote:

(It is funny that as soon as someone dares to downrate CZJ lenses, a fanboy-attack will automatically follow. Sorry about the "fanboy" word but such an insistent and emphatic argumentation looks a bit like fanboy-posts. Wink)


Or could it be that your opinions are rather radical vis-a-vis the opinions of the vast majority?

I'd like to know what lenses, in your opinion, are not over priced. Please limit yourself only to lenses above about 100 € level. Just name a couple, please Smile

That fanboy comment was a bit distasteful btw.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sevo wrote:
Anu wrote:

So what flaws or what rather average qualities it has for a 80 euro (+-20 depending on how skilled ebayer one is) lens? I mean, if it is "nothing spectacular".


It has the flaw of being priced above other lenses of similar type, speed (whether f/3.5 or 4), and length that all perform quite the same.


Well, a car that is a bit better in most way may cost a bit more, but all the other ones also are good for every day use. CZJ 135 gets a little bit better results than it's lower priced competition (well, most of the higher priced competition falls before it too), but if one is satisfied with less, then sure, for that person it is an over priced lens. However, that is very subjective point of view and should be noted as such.

And yes, most 135's perform quite well, even the 5 euro no-name lenses. But once you stress them, differences apperar. Purple fringing is one of those issues that can ruin an image and it is not really fixable in PP, same with bokeh quality. But if sharpness is all, then a 5 euro lens may well be enough - this is not the most difficult focal length to design and build if one keeps the aperture size modest.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Anu wrote:
Orio wrote:
The most over-rated lens is the one that you buy and do not use.


Well said!

(I must admit, that this definition means I have about 3-4 pieces of junk Wink .)


Not necessarily: it just means that by buying it, you over-rated it, since you paid more than what it's actually worth for you.

So, this can apply also to very fine lenses: if you bought them, and don't use them, you over-rated them, because you paid more for them than what they give back to you. Smile


Well, I did say that in jest as the smiley indicated Smile And for me they are junk as I never use them. I really should get rid of them, but I am a bit lazy salesperson...Smile


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Anu wrote:

1. ...
2. ...
3....

We are talking about personal experiences and personal references. For me those Russian lenses are as good, for you they are not. OK. Why should we discuss any further? There is hardly any proven evidence apart from filter size which is not really a valid category for me.

Quote:

I am beginning to think that from your point of view all lenses are over rated or over valued or over priced. Am I right?

No, definitely not. But some are.

Quote:

I'd like to know what lenses, in your opinion, are not over priced. Please limit yourself only to lenses above about 100 € level. Just name a couple, please Smile

I bought a Nikkor-S.C 1.2/55 for about €140,- = not overpriced! For €300,- it would be.
I bought a Zuiko 1.4/50 for about €50,- = not overpriced! For €100,- it is.
I bought a Tokina 4/28-85 for about € 40,- = not overpriced, either.

I bought a Tokina 4/80-200 for about €80,- = highly overpriced, for €30,- it wouldn't have been. But back then, I didn't know. Wink

Quote:
That fanboy comment was a bit distasteful btw.

You're right. I apologize for that.

Quote:
Or could it be that your opinions are rather radical vis-a-vis the opinions of the vast majority?

Perhaps, you never know. Wink

Peace! Very Happy


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 4:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

Perhaps a marketing reasons too. The planar has a name that means (in photography) great IQ. You say "Planar" and almost all the people take off their hat (What antiquated!!! Laughing Laughing ).
Rino.


Well, everything is possible, but I don't think so. I have received this confidence from a person that is 100% trustable, and the technician has proved to be totally reliable in many other occasions. Also, Zeiss state openly on their lens brochure:

http://www.zeiss.com/C12567A8003B8B6F/EmbedTitelIntern/Planar2_135mm_e.pdf/$File/Planar2_135mm_e.pdf

that the lens is "Gauss type", and they surely would not have printed that if that was not true.
So evidently it is true what the technician stated: the Planar denomination is appliable when the optical transmission qualities of the lens meet certain criteria that are related with the double Gauss performance. Evidently, how this performance is obtained is considered less important than the performance itself.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
"Sonnar" actually is a term that is used for several different lens designs.


Yes, you're right.

But in 135 lenses, the named sonnar seems to me that means a classic design of the contarex cam, or older ones, with three front elements (the second a thick one) and the rear one (F/3,5 or 4) or two elements (F/2,Cool.


Rino.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Planars (double-gauss lenses) aren't always symetrical (despite the first Planar was). Looking at this diagram, it looks like 5-element Planar to me. Planars get the more asymetrical, the longer the focal length is. It can be seen already on the 85/1.4, that the rear group is more subtle than the front group:


Planar T 85/1.4 C/Y

Another tele Planar is Biometar 120/2.8. It has cemented 2nd and 3rd element, but the rest is quite similar to the 135/2.0:



The rear group of Planar 135/2.0 and Biometar 120/2.8 is very typical gaussian lens (figure 3 here )

From the 135/2.0 lens diagram it is not possible to distinguish lens type by the front group. This one can by used for both Planar and Ernostar type. But the rear group is typical gaussian lens and together with the front group it forms a nice double-gauss.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The best lens is the lens that you use.

The worst lens is the lens that you don't use.

The most overrated lens is any that I can't afford.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 29, 2010 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
RioRico wrote:
The most overrated lens is any that I can't afford.


Is that an attempt to extinguish your burning desire to buy great lenses that are too expensive for you? Razz
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5