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: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:

And you can recognice the pic taken with one or the other version too.


I would like to see pictures of the black MC and the singlecoated 3.5 zebra.
I have the zebra and thinking about buying the MC, but I am not shure if it is really worth the money difference. It is not only a little difference, it is a relatively great sum.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I assume that you are talking about the pics taken with the MC. In this forum, using the search, you will have a lot of pics taken with both lenses.

You can find them in the lenses gallery. It's vey nice to use and to identify the lenses

Anyways, buying the MC you are doing well too.

Regards, Rino


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
To my experience, the differences between slow 135mm lenses of Sonnar/Ernostar derivation are very, very, very small.
Mostly a matter of subtleties in the bokeh. The reason why I prefer the 4/135 Sonnar over the more recent 3.5/135 one.
But all those lenses (and the SMC Takumar, and the Jupiter-37AM, et c.) are very sharp, and the differences in sharpness between them are usually a matter of a good/bad copy more than a real difference between the lens models.
You can begin to appreciate some more substantial difference in image type if you compare the Sonnar/Ernostar types with the Tessar types, such as the Rollei Tele/Tessar 4/135. The Tessar type draws image quite differently (less "carved" more "rounded"). The triplet types (such as Trioplan or Triotar) are more on the Tessar side than on the Sonnar side.
All the "Tees" 135 (Teletessar, Triotar, Trioplan) have an "older" vintage look compared to the Sonnar/Ernostar types. Which has no real historical reason to be (Sonnar/Ernostar are very old schemes also), but with the films and the sensors of today, the character of Sonnar/Ernostar looks quite aggressive and more contemporary, while the Tees remain gentler.
_


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 8:39 am    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.

Do you mean the 105mm?
In what respect do you think it's bad?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
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.

Do you mean the 105mm?
In what respect do you think it's bad?


Right, it's 105mm. I think it's bad because, compared to other 100-105mm lenses, it is:

- very soft wide open, with very low contrast and micro-contrast;
- never sharp enough before f/5.6;
- has very harsh bokeh wide open (improves at f/4).

I tried three samples of this lens (two Super- and one S-M-C version), all rendered images exactly the same way. I compared it to Fujinon-T 100/2.8, Nikkor non-AI, AI, AIS 105/2.5, Nikon Series E 100/2.8, all of which are significantly better.

Some may argue that softness and low contrast wide open might have been designed to obtain portrait shots, but I believe this was not the intention of lens designers because of its very harsh bokeh wide open. Nikon did much better even with silver-nose, Sonnar-based 105/2.5.

BTW, an old pre-set Tokina (mine's branded Hanimex) 105/2.8 behaves similar to the Tak, only it has even lower contrast and sharpness.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:
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.

Do you mean the 105mm?
In what respect do you think it's bad?


Blende,

Check this quick test I did some time ago "Nikon 2.5/105 AiS vs S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105".
From many posts in the net I can see that the older 105 auto preset Takumar having better bokeh than the S-M-C & Super version of the same lens.
Sorry for the typo , I meant the 105 even if there is a tak 100mm...


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the info!
I have the K105/2.8, but never did any tests with it.
Will do some comparisons as soon as I find the time (and light).

EDIT:
Looking a bit more closely at your image of the rose, it is clear that the perspective of the two is different. Either you were closer to the background with the Tak or the focal lengths are different.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
blende8 wrote:


EDIT:
Looking a bit more closely at your image of the rose, it is clear that the perspective of the two is different. Either you were closer to the background with the Tak or the focal lengths are different.


I know!!! It was made handhelded Razz But the difference in bokeh & sharpness is striking Wink

(used liveview in both so focus was precise )


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most overrated lens...

Yeah, I largely I agree with Orio: If you don't use it, you overrated it.

I can think of a few lenses that disappointed me: an M42 Vivitar 135/2.8, a Zoom Nikkor 70-210 AF-D, Nikkors 28/2 (now out for CLA), 135/3.5, 300/4.5 H (early sample, not the one I have now).... Still, since I only used one example of each, I can't condemn those models. Many other people were very happy with them, so either our needs in a lens differ, or my samples were not functioning properly.

Speaking of which, the lens that disappointed me most (based on glowing accolades by knowledgeable users and on their descriptions of its attributes) was the Zoom Nikkor 25-50/4 Ai-S. Described as flat field, low distortion, sharp (not tack sharp, but good), excellent contrast and color saturation, and zero chromatic aberrations, I expected great images; good thing I tested it before taking it to Lake Tahoe a couple summers ago. The sample I purchased looked gorgeous, without any noticeable blemishes on glass or body. Sadly, the initial photos were dull, washed out, and fuzzy. I could see a great deal of dust, haze, and 'debris' on internal surfaces, so, rather than dump it, I sent it out for CLA.

The difference was night and day. Excellent contrast, wonderful color, and, possibly due to the lack of CA, images look sharper than they really are. Digital images look great, slides look even better. This has become one of my favorite lenses--unfortunately, my wife just discovered it. Not sure when I'll see it again.

I know I'll be careful when judging a lens in the future without careful evaluation of its optical condition.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
I assume that you are talking about the pics taken with the MC. In this forum, using the search, you will have a lot of pics taken with both lenses.

You can find them in the lenses gallery. It's vey nice to use and to identify the lenses

Anyways, buying the MC you are doing well too.

Regards, Rino


No, I am talking about pictures side by side (if possible same scene) taken with the zebra _and_ with the black version.

Shure, buying is nice when you have money like straw. Unfortunately most of us don't have that. So my question is if it is really worth buying the MC in the situation when one already has the zebra.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
estudleon wrote:
I assume that you are talking about the pics taken with the MC. In this forum, using the search, you will have a lot of pics taken with both lenses.

You can find them in the lenses gallery. It's vey nice to use and to identify the lenses

Anyways, buying the MC you are doing well too.

Regards, Rino


No, I am talking about pictures side by side (if possible same scene) taken with the zebra _and_ with the black version.

Shure, buying is nice when you have money like straw. Unfortunately most of us don't have that. So my question is if it is really worth buying the MC in the situation when one already has the zebra.


If you are restricted (like me too) in money camp, I guess that the question is: What about the zebra for you? You are happy with it, aren't you?

If you like the lens, and your money capacity is limited, perhaps it's better for you to buy another lens of different focal lenght,

I tell you what I apply to my own.

Rino


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Eugen Mezei wrote:
Shure, buying is nice when you have money like straw. Unfortunately most of us don't have that. So my question is if it is really worth buying the MC in the situation when one already has the zebra.

Nope, the only difference is in color cast of both lenses. CZJ zebra models tends to produce more warm images. Thats all.
See my review.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 10:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Keysersoze27 wrote:
blende8 wrote:
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.

Do you mean the 105mm?
In what respect do you think it's bad?


Blende,

Check this quick test I did some time ago "Nikon 2.5/105 AiS vs S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105".
From many posts in the net I can see that the older 105 auto preset Takumar having better bokeh than the S-M-C & Super version of the same lens.
Sorry for the typo , I meant the 105 even if there is a tak 100mm...


'Auto preset' - hm, I am not sure which model you are referring to.

there are two different designs of 105mm Takumars:
the 'Auto Takumar' and early chrome/black preset with 46mm filter thread simply called 'Takumar' have 4 elements in 4 groups,
the later all black preset with 49mm thread, again called 'Takumar', and the Super Tak and S-M-C Tak have 5 elements in 4 groups.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kuuan wrote:
Keysersoze27 wrote:
blende8 wrote:
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.

Do you mean the 105mm?
In what respect do you think it's bad?


Blende,

Check this quick test I did some time ago "Nikon 2.5/105 AiS vs S-M-C Takumar 2.8/105".
From many posts in the net I can see that the older 105 auto preset Takumar having better bokeh than the S-M-C & Super version of the same lens.
Sorry for the typo , I meant the 105 even if there is a tak 100mm...


'Auto preset' - hm, I am not sure which model you are referring to.

there are two different designs of 105mm Takumars:
the 'Auto Takumar' and early chrome/black preset with 46mm filter thread simply called 'Takumar' have 4 elements in 4 groups,
the later all black preset with 49mm thread, again called 'Takumar', and the Super Tak and S-M-C Tak have 5 elements in 4 groups.


Kuuan,

I was referring to the first Takumar(1958 - 1961) 2.8/105 4 elements in 4 groups ...



PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 1:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
thank you Keysersoze27
so it is the chrome/black with 46mm filter

the 'auto' had confused me, I think there is nothing 'auto' about this lens and that it usually isn't called so.

edit: I am slow: the 'auto makes sense, not for specifying this very lens, but because the auto and this preset version1 share the same optical formula

a presentation of this early 4/4 versions in a german forum
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?13204-Asahi-Takumar-und-Auto-Takumar-2.8-105-M42-x-1

you will know him, I can see Wink
and he knows lenses ( praktinafan..still a member here? hasn't been active for a while..) in the same german forum presented a test of 8 manual 100/105 lenses
including the f2.5/105 Nikkor and this early Tak version
http://www.digicamclub.de/showthread.php?13105-Das-gro%DFe-Treffen-der-100er-The-big-100s-shootout

in his test results ( post 18 on page 3 ) he concludes: 'quotes' translated

'best optical performance offers the Nikkor, very recommended, no weaknesses'
second came Tamron f2.5/105, less sharp wide open but convincing with harmonious overall appearance,
followed by a Kaleinar, and a Spiratone and there was a Pentacon, a Trioplan..
the Tak came mentioned last, with simple words:
'but my favorite is the Takumar. It is beautiful how fine it resolves, colors and bokeh are rendered'

Last edited by kuuan on Tue Dec 07, 2010 3:19 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2010 2:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
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.


the Tak is rated rated high enough so that it may be considered overrated when measured against the best which the Nikkor just might be.

I remember the very positive reaction of big people to some of the very first phots I had taken with 105mm Taks, specifically metioning portrait ( sorry Orio for an old quote ):
'The cat photos are incredible, this is really a lens for glamour portrait.'
yes, said to a photo of a cat taken with the S.T:
http://forum.mflenses.com/s-m-c-and-super-takumar-105mm-f2-8-t7774,highlight,super+takumar+105mm+cat.html
( photos further down the thread suck, these were my very first tries with MF lenses on my 'newly' bought *ist, without split screen, without vf magnifier, hit and miss Wink )

Rino I am very curious how you will like this lens,
would be so glad to see photos you took with it

regards,
Andreas


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
BRunner wrote:
Eugen Mezei wrote:
Shure, buying is nice when you have money like straw. Unfortunately most of us don't have that. So my question is if it is really worth buying the MC in the situation when one already has the zebra.

Nope, the only difference is in color cast of both lenses. CZJ zebra models tends to produce more warm images. Thats all.
See my review.


Excellent review, thank you for that.

I read somewhere (maybe on the Baier page? but it could be it was a book) that GDR lenses were made to render colors more bluish as ORWO films had the tendency to be more pink. but if I remember correctly this ennounce was made respective to the P6 lenses.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 09, 2010 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:


If you are restricted (like me too) in money camp, I guess that the question is: What about the zebra for you? You are happy with it, aren't you?

If you like the lens, and your money capacity is limited, perhaps it's better for you to buy another lens of different focal lenght,


Well... I have that lens, but to be honest I shot only one film with it and I still haven't scanned it.
My money problem isn't in the buying of a new lens, but in developing film becoming more and more expensive. If I still shot film (I do shot only film) than I want to do it with the best lenses.

Oh well.. in Leica format I have almost any focal lenght from 20 to 300 mm. Maybe some day I would buy a cheap 500 mm but that is all.
My dream is to borrow a full format digital camera for a week and make testshots of all my lenses and eliminate the ones not perfroming at top, at least from the dublettes. Let's say from the 50 mm I would keep only one of 4 pancolars, only one of half a ton of Pentacons, only the best of the Tessars and only one of 50 mm Cosinons and maybe only one of the 50 mm 1.4 lenses. Same with other focals too: sufficent only the best perfroming 35 mm Flektogon out of 5, one of the 35 mm Revuenons, only one auto and one preset 135 mm Pentacon, only one 200 mm Pentacon and only one 200mm of the 3 or 4 other brands.
But I want to find out which of the dublettes is tehnically the best, not to give away at will.

Still some of the lenses will never be sold, they deserved their place. Eg. my first Pentacon MC 135/2.8 gave me one of my best shots and even if the examples of this same lens I bought later will perform better, this one will stay (and maybe the best too). Same with my first P6, it is ugly and even mostly nonfunctional but it was my first MF camera and I learned a lot on it.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 3:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The most overrated, hyped lenses I have used are the Hexanon 40mm 1.8, the Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm 1.4 and the Summicron-M 35mm, Type IV.

In all of these, I found that "The Emperor has no clothes" , and their optical performance not nearly as stellar as their reputation.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 6:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Canon EF-S 18-55mm zoom, absolute junk, feels like a child's plastic toy and will just fall apart with regular use, had two and both fell apart, with both the AF stopped working first, the front element fell out of one! Took me a while to work otu why, then I realised, it ha been left in my car overnight in winter then brought inside the next day, the plastic obviously couldn't stand the change in temp from -2 to +24C and warped, hence the element fell out.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 7:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
krankykraut wrote:
The most overrated, hyped lenses I have used are the Hexanon 40mm 1.8,
In all of these, I found that "The Emperor has no clothes" , and their optical performance not nearly as stellar as their reputation.


erm you might have a bad copy, my two copies are very sharp..I paid about £8 each for mine, that's very good "bang for buck" sharpness (which has to be take in consideration when judging a lens surely eh). So OK maybe it would be overrated if they were £150 each.
http://northcoastphotos.com/ncphoto/old/Lympa_2007_09_29.htm


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sharpness is overrated imho, if a lens is 'sharp enough' then that's sufficient for me, I mean, how many lpm is needed on a 6.2MP APS-C EOS 10D?

Other characteristics are more important to me, as long as sharpness is acceptable, I look more at things like CA, bokeh, contrast, vividness of colours, depth of field wide open, those things that make up the overall character of the images the lens produces.

I really doubt any copy of the Hexanon 40 isn't sharp, if it isn't sharp, I would think it is damaged or has been taken apart and reassembed wrongly.

However, what I am prepared to believe is that the images from the Hexanon 40 are not to someone's taste, I have a dislike of some Pentax Takumars, just don't care for the character of the images they produce...


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd rather have VG sharpness, as if you have the wrong lens on your camera it doesn't look so bad when cropping the shot e.g.


Hexanon 40mm f1.8:-


crop


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sharpness is important to me when shooting indoors in low light, where I know I'll be shooting wide open. That's not about resolution, but about getting an acceptable image.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 06, 2011 11:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Canon EF-S 18-55mm zoom, absolute junk, feels like a child's plastic toy and will just fall apart with regular use, had two and both fell apart, with both the AF stopped working first, the front element fell out of one! Took me a while to work otu why, then I realised, it ha been left in my car overnight in winter then brought inside the next day, the plastic obviously couldn't stand the change in temp from -2 to +24C and warped, hence the element fell out.


So how is that lens overrated? It costs almost nothing, as far as AF lenses are concerned. The IS version has received good reviews, for IQ at least.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5