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: Sun Oct 31, 2010 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 is overrated. Although I love the mechanical quality of this lens, I never got great results from it: contrast is pretty bad and the lens is very prone to flare.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Aren't there a bunch of overrated nikkors?

recently i was in the hunt for a 24 f/2 and found a nikkor in GB. I made a quick survey and found a bunch of positive user reviews, so I started bidding. I was leading for a long time, I think my max was 285 or something.

Then I started drilling down, and discovered the nikkor 24 f/2 was not really that great--or at least some sober people thought so.

OMG will I win the thing? No in the end somebody saved me and paid a little over 3hun.

In the end I found an FD 24 f/2 in austria and paid 250 + 20 for shipping. Supposedly it's mint and includes a hood. Somewhere over the atlantic right now.

But the old nikkors really bring a premium that's for sure--no matter what they are.

I switched my focus to classic Canons (55 and shorter) and so far I'm happy. I have a fd 35 ssc concave radioactive that has not yellowed and really seems to shoot well and then I found a fl 55 1.2 bgn at keh for 160 that has stunned me.

I found a 20mm fd 2.8 on the bay and could not resist that either--it's also coming.

Playing with all these on the nex-5 and it's really fun.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
I think the Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 is overrated. Although I love the mechanical quality of this lens, I never got great results from it: contrast is pretty bad and the lens is very prone to flare.


Agree. Got burned by this too Smile I like the build, but it's soft wide open, not sharp as described - although it does sharpen fast when stopped down. A hood is absolutely necessary - I couldn't take a single shot before I got one.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My biggest dissapointment as far as lenses go was the 50mm f1.7 Planar T*...Extremely overrated I snapped one up as soon as I could yet it turned out to be no better than a cheapo East German Pentacon 50mm f1.8.
The most underated lens I have is the very same Pentacon 50mm f1.8...So underated, by so many, that I picked mine up for just £3, including the postage!!! Very Happy
The pentacon was good enough that I used it for a wedding shoot and made it pay for itself umpteen times over. Wink
However, the "normal" I reach for today is another highly underated lens...The wonderfull Canon FL 55mm f1.2, which also sells cheap for what it offers.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 4:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
However, the "normal" I reach for today is another highly underated lens...The wonderfull Canon FL 55mm f1.2, which also sells cheap for what it offers.


I think that the lens can be underated if we can modificate or use an adaptor to put the lens in our diary cam. Not be necessary to have a cam only to use the lens.

Are there any adaptor to use this marvelous canon lens in M42 body?


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Aren't there a bunch of overrated nikkors?

recently i was in the hunt for a 24 f/2 and found a nikkor in GB
[ . . . ]

Then I started drilling down, and discovered the nikkor 24 f/2 was not really that great--or at least some sober people thought so.

In the end I found an FD 24 f/2 in austria and paid 250 + 20 for shipping.
[ . . . ]

But the old nikkors really bring a premium that's for sure--no matter what they are.

I switched my focus to classic Canons (55 and shorter) and so far I'm happy. I have a fd 35 ssc concave radioactive that has not yellowed and really seems to shoot well and then I found a fl 55 1.2 bgn at keh for 160 that has stunned me.

I found a 20mm fd 2.8 on the bay and could not resist that either--it's also coming.

Playing with all these on the nex-5 and it's really fun.


So, have you posted any photos yet from your NEX-5 and FD lenses? I think many of us would love to see some. The NEX is a very interesting development, especially for those of us who have a sizable inventory of Canon FD lenses. I personally would also be very interested in a review of the NEX 5, if you'd care to do one for us. I'm especially curious about its performance out in the bright sunlight where you have only the screen to view for taking images.

Sounds like you've built up a nice collection of FD glass. I've found that the premium FD lenses sell for quite a bit also -- comparable to Nikon. But I've also found that some of the old pre-AI Nikkors can be picked up for fairly reasonable prices -- like the 35mm f/2 OC, for example. Recently they've sold on eBay for between $70 and $100 US. I own one and am very happy with it. It would be interesting to do a comparison between the Nikkor and the concave element FD 35/2.

I too own the old FL 55mm f/1.2 and have found it to be a very nice lens. I have an adapter for EOS, and with the element removed (so it becomes a macro lens), I've taken some great shots with mine. Some chromatic aberrations wide open, but not too bad.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:

So, have you posted any photos yet from your NEX-5 and FD lenses? I think many of us would love to see some. The NEX is a very interesting development, especially for those of us who have a sizable inventory of Canon FD lenses. I personally would also be very interested in a review of the NEX 5, if you'd care to do one for us. I'm especially curious about its performance out in the bright sunlight where you have only the screen to view for taking images.

Sounds like you've built up a nice collection of FD glass. I've found that the premium FD lenses sell for quite a bit also -- comparable to Nikon. But I've also found that some of the old pre-AI Nikkors can be picked up for fairly reasonable prices -- like the 35mm f/2 OC, for example. Recently they've sold on eBay for between $70 and $100 US. I own one and am very happy with it. It would be interesting to do a comparison between the Nikkor and the concave element FD 35/2.

I too own the old FL 55mm f/1.2 and have found it to be a very nice lens. I have an adapter for EOS, and with the element removed (so it becomes a macro lens), I've taken some great shots with mine. Some chromatic aberrations wide open, but not too bad.


TY for reply.

Back in the day i bought an FTb brand new, but in the 80s and 90s I wasn't shooting.

Around 2001 I began filiming events with sony PDs and VXs alongside pros with dslrs.

I also got back into motorcycles--we have many many backcountry trails near my home. Started shooting again, first with a P&S then a lumix super zoom.

I'm having touble posting links here but let me try again:

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=524859&highlight=idaho+extreme

This shows the kind of shooting I've been doing for the most part (alot of bad "story" shots and few decent ones), though my straight landscape work is not in there. We've had nearly 30,000 views on the thread though.

Here are a few landscapes, nothing great, but you can see the potential

http://picasaweb.google.com/sawtoothwhitebark/SawtoothWhitebarks#

A full-on DSLR is to big for me to carry, so I have made do with the lumix, though often aghast at the noise.

Recently I was wondering what to upgrade to--something small but with IQ. I'd never heard of the nex.

Long story short I bought a Nex-5 and a VG10 with all three e-mounts.

I'm over the moon with the thing. As you know it will shoot with about any lens ever made at this point. MF is spectacular and manual control is very easy--in fact there are several "auto" modes than can be used with MF lenses to let the camera deal with shutter and/or ISO if you choose.

It also shoots very good video, as you also prolly know.

In the winter I teach skiing, so I will find out shortly about the lcd in bright light.

I afraid I really only have test shots at this stage, nothing really nice yet. Here is the Soligar 135mm f/2 testing (handheld no PP, too dark, but)
http://picasaweb.google.com/csvp07/Soligar?authkey=Gv1sRgCOzs0Z_vsKOjYw#

And a few others with FD 35 and FL 55
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7747541140/invite/F8107154DE414AFC92F21D2C596D3BB6

But here is a whole thread of Nex FD pics

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1042&thread=36734023
Great tip about the nikon Os, cheers

PS my lens binge has ended with one final splurge: Sigma 8-16mm for alpha mount and sony LAEA-1 alpha adapter.

I've suspected the adapter will allow aperture control (it does for a bunch of alpha mounts), but sigma says "we do not currently support nex". However I found a pro in Scotland who has everything and he says the aperture control works perfectly. He says AF struggles and gives the cannot find the point warning, but it seems to find focus anyway, which is more than I expected. I was planning to use MF.


PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2010 10:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would like to add to Uhoh7's story with a remark about the screen in bright sunlight.

I've used the Nex this summer in Hong Kong and Taiwan, even in bright sunlight. The screen is highly reflective, but it also has a lightsensor in the lower-left corner. So if necessary it will increase the brightness of the screen. I rarely had any trouble seeing the screen, also because it can easily be tilted, which solves the problem too.
I am using the cam with a GGS hard protection screen, which covers the sensor, and thus it doesn't react to light anymore. But for most of my shooting (low-light) that is hardly a problem.


PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2010 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nice pics uhoh7, you get good time in great places!


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 12:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
nice pics uhoh7, you get good time in great places!

TY next season I hope to get much better images with the little nex and some classic glass.

Great forum


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
Aren't there a bunch of overrated nikkors?

recently i was in the hunt for a 24 f/2 and found a nikkor in GB. I made a quick survey and found a bunch of positive user reviews, so I started bidding. I was leading for a long time, I think my max was 285 or something.

Then I started drilling down, and discovered the nikkor 24 f/2 was not really that great--or at least some sober people thought so.
......... But the old nikkors really bring a premium that's for sure--no matter what they are.



Not so much overrated as retaining exceedingly high differential value when they're fast. The Nikkor 105/2.5, universally lauded as an extraordinary lens, perhaps some of the best AI or AIS lenses ever, fetches ~US$200-250 whereas the 1.8 version, as good as the 2.5, demands over double that price. The 200/4, a wonderful optic goes for no more than $150, a far cry from the $2,000 for the 200/2 AIS. Speed alone at times appears to drive the prices of some old Nikkors more than absolute quality; the 24/2 (a mediocre lens by any measure) is a prime example of this but the far superior 28/2 & 85/1.4 fetch a goodly premium over their somewhat slower but outstanding cousins (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 85/1.8 ). The nadir of these MF lens prices came in the years after the first Nikon DSLRs but since the introduction of the D200 and especially with the arrival of the FF bodies, prices have shot up. The curse of Nikon's full backward compatibility.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
DSG wrote:
However, the "normal" I reach for today is another highly underated lens...The wonderfull Canon FL 55mm f1.2, which also sells cheap for what it offers.


I think that the lens can be underated if we can modificate or use an adaptor to put the lens in our diary cam. Not be necessary to have a cam only to use the lens.

Are there any adaptor to use this marvelous canon lens in M42 body?


Unfortunately not. The registration distance of the FL/FD mount is 42mm but M42 mount has a registration distance of 45.46. This means that even if an adapter to mount FL/FD lenses on an M42 mount body was possible, you would only be able to use an FL/FD lens for macros.
An optical adapter that will allow infinity focus is possible but the optics in the adapter would have to be first rate or you would easily notice a loss in image quality.


PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2010 11:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DSG wrote:
estudleon wrote:
DSG wrote:
However, the "normal" I reach for today is another highly underated lens...The wonderfull Canon FL 55mm f1.2, which also sells cheap for what it offers.


I think that the lens can be underated if we can modificate or use an adaptor to put the lens in our diary cam. Not be necessary to have a cam only to use the lens.

Are there any adaptor to use this marvelous canon lens in M42 body?


Unfortunately not. The registration distance of the FL/FD mount is 42mm but M42 mount has a registration distance of 45.46. This means that even if an adapter to mount FL/FD lenses on an M42 mount body was possible, you would only be able to use an FL/FD lens for macros.
An optical adapter that will allow infinity focus is possible but the optics in the adapter would have to be first rate or you would easily notice a loss in image quality.


Thanks DSG.

Not optical, the loss is a shame. So to use the FL 1,2/55 in film, the way is having a canon cam. Well, I shall continued with my SMC 1,4.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:
uhoh7 wrote:
Aren't there a bunch of overrated nikkors?

recently i was in the hunt for a 24 f/2 and found a nikkor in GB. I made a quick survey and found a bunch of positive user reviews, so I started bidding. I was leading for a long time, I think my max was 285 or something.

Then I started drilling down, and discovered the nikkor 24 f/2 was not really that great--or at least some sober people thought so.
......... But the old nikkors really bring a premium that's for sure--no matter what they are.



Not so much overrated as retaining exceedingly high differential value when they're fast. The Nikkor 105/2.5, universally lauded as an extraordinary lens, perhaps some of the best AI or AIS lenses ever, fetches ~US$200-250 whereas the 1.8 version, as good as the 2.5, demands over double that price. The 200/4, a wonderful optic goes for no more than $150, a far cry from the $2,000 for the 200/2 AIS. Speed alone at times appears to drive the prices of some old Nikkors more than absolute quality; the 24/2 (a mediocre lens by any measure) is a prime example of this but the far superior 28/2 & 85/1.4 fetch a goodly premium over their somewhat slower but outstanding cousins (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 85/1.8 ). The nadir of these MF lens prices came in the years after the first Nikon DSLRs but since the introduction of the D200 and especially with the arrival of the FF bodies, prices have shot up. The curse of Nikon's full backward compatibility.


Good points especially about the speed and consistent mount.

I hate the FD mount, and of course all the modern Canon users are out of the market.

That said, it does seem there are a number of nikkors, like the 24 f/2, which are just not fantastic--others as you point out really are, and if you can go slower there are some good deals.

Nikon has the mystic, much like the M leitz lenses--though the latter have few rivals for 4/3 or nex use. The contax are great but focus a real pain if adapted.


PostPosted: Sat Nov 27, 2010 5:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's all about supply and demand. The 24/2 Nikkor Ai-S is a mediocre lens, with large prints looking good only at f/5.6 to f/8. The 0.3m near focusing limit however makes for lots of creative use, just as long as your compositions remain center-specific (center detail is great at wider apertures).


PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
It's all about supply and demand. The 24/2 Nikkor Ai-S is a mediocre lens, with large prints looking good only at f/5.6 to f/8. The 0.3m near focusing limit however makes for lots of creative use, just as long as your compositions remain center-specific (center detail is great at wider apertures).


it just goes to show how careful you have to be with user reviews that can be so star-eyed--even more so with the nikon glass.

not that its a terrible lens, as you point out.

I have high hopes for the nFD 24 f/2 in the mail now. I really drilled down on the research before I commited--the thing is supposed to be fantastic--much better than the 1.4 from f2 on, we'll see. I could not afford the 1.4 anyway.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
From all my lenses I was mostly dissapointed by my S-M-C Tak 2.8/105. So much hype for nothing. It even seem that the older preset 105 is better than the SMC one... Evil or Very Mad

Last edited by Keysersoze27 on Thu Dec 02, 2010 1:09 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keysersoze27 wrote:
From all my lenses I was mostly dissapointed by my S-M-C Tak 2.8/100. So much hype for nothing. It even seem that the older preset 105 is better than the SMC one... Evil or Very Mad


I have to agree. It's hard to make a bad 100mm lens, yet Pentax somehow scored in this regard.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:17 am    Post subject: Re: most overrated lens Reply with quote
Esox lucius wrote:
Come on, just because you have light leaks, low contrast, no detail and 2 f-stops of vignetting doesn't make it art. No no no, regardless of how artsy you think it is.


That is begging to be used as a signature.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
james wrote:

Not so much overrated as retaining exceedingly high differential value when they're fast. The Nikkor 105/2.5, universally lauded as an extraordinary lens, perhaps some of the best AI or AIS lenses ever, fetches ~US$200-250


I agree about speed being priced higher than quality, and valued more. I have an AI 50 f/1.4 (I chose AI because the focus throw was reduced in the AIS) and its an OK lens, but if I feel the need to shoot at 50mm or so I am much likely to pick my Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 which to my eyes gives superior results at all apertures (apart from f/1.4 and f/2 of course).

I have two copies of the 105/2.5, one the single coated and one the multicoated. Bought in 2008 and 2009 respectively, they cost me 51 euro each.

james wrote:
whereas the 1.8 version, as good as the 2.5, demands over double that price. The 200/4, a wonderful optic goes for no more than $150, a far cry from the $2,000 for the 200/2 AIS.


I think production volume and size/wow factor are also playing a part there.

james wrote:
Speed alone at times appears to drive the prices of some old Nikkors more than absolute quality; the 24/2 (a mediocre lens by any measure) is a prime example of this but the far superior 28/2 & 85/1.4 fetch a goodly premium over their somewhat slower but outstanding cousins (24/2.8, 28/2.8, 85/1.8 ). The nadir of these MF lens prices came in the years after the first Nikon DSLRs but since the introduction of the D200 and especially with the arrival of the FF bodies, prices have shot up. The curse of Nikon's full backward compatibility.


I'm hoping that the recently released AF-S Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 drives down second hand prices of not only the AF-D 85/1.4 but also the AIS 85/1.4.

I agree that D200 (and onwards) AI compatibility had an effect on the lens market. On the other hand I am glad to see that Nikon retain AI compatibility on their higher end cameras and also that (contrary to my pessimistic prediction, I admit) they extended AI compatibility to the midrange with the D7000.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 3:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Keysersoze27 wrote:
From all my lenses I was mostly dissapointed by my S-M-C Tak 2.8/100. So much hype for nothing. It even seem that the older preset 105 is better than the SMC one... Evil or Very Mad


I have to agree. It's hard to make a bad 100mm lens, yet Pentax somehow scored in this regard.


I have this lens. It's a portrait lens.

In the takumars serie, there are some lenses to use like all around one.

The 85s and the 135s were the tele lenses to use in that sense. Sharp, constrast, accept these destiny.

And should ask why pentax did an unsharp lens (105 one) while did some very good.

Did they forget to do it like?

It turns out to be to my me more reasonable to think that they were doing

something specifically, with a certain end. And under this parameter it

must be qualified

Like a portrait lens, the SMC 105 has the sharpness enough to be good for it.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Leicas too expensive? I don't get it. Laughing

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=160514666815&rvr_id=179600324601&mfe=sidebar


PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:

P6 Flektogon 50/4 is grossly overrated. Mamiya M645 55/2.8 is a lot sharper at 2.8 than the Flek at f/4. Stop the two lenses down, and the difference increases. The price? The Mamiya lens sells for about half the price of a Flektogon.


Don't know how the Flektogon acts, but if you want 6x6 the Mamiya is useless. (Btw., I don't know how the Mamiya acts either, they are too expensive for me to buy one.)

At least in Europe the Flektogon sells a lot cheaper than the Mamiya.
Also I think the Flektogon goes down pricewise, seems that only the 180 mm lens can keep its price in the P6 lens group.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 05, 2010 11:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are objective considerations and subjective considerations when it comes to lenses.
There are some performance parameters that are objective and not subject to opinions. But there are also other features that escape a purely numerical evaluation.
For instance, there is no doubt that the Pentacon 2.8/100 and the Trioplan 2.8/100 do not perform as well (numerically wise) as other lenses such as Leica or Nikon or Contax lenses. Yet, there are people who prefers them over better performing lenses, because of their imaging qualities, that are peculiar to them and more appealing to some people than the exactness of more performing lenses.
So, it is much the realm of personal preferences... I prefer to use the Distagon 1.4/35 although there are lenses that are sharper. That is another example. By looking at numbers one might say that the 1.4/35 Distagon is over-rated compared to the sharper Vario-Sonnar 35-70... but it's not over-rated for me, for other reasons not all of which can be contained in numbers.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


I suppose you refer to the MC version. The single coated one usually goes for cheap. I got mine for free from the father of an east german friend. Unfortunately used it too little to can say if I like it more or not than the Pentacon.
I also thought about buying the MC version, but they are too expensive for me.

Which two similarly good 135 mm could you recommend? (Hopefully beside the Takumars.) It would interesting to know. M42 I mean.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 3 of 5