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: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:33 pm    Post subject: most overrated lens Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 5:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. Wink


Well not as much as Vivitar Distagon I've seen on the bay in the past!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:13 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.


About the 50 mm lens. Which version are you talking about?

The first is excelent, one of the better 50 mm that I had (leica summicrons M and R, summiluxes M, Kern macro switar, nikkor, pancolars, takumars, septons, skopars, tessars, xenars, rokkors, etc, among the best).
The second not so good, but average.

The 40 mm is a very good lens, but wide open few lenses are good, and don't forget that the lens is almost a pancake where the compromise is the rule.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LucisPictor wrote:
I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. Wink


I agree parcially.

Flektogon 2,4/35.

I used before that lens, the 35 summicrons M (some versions) and the 35 summiluxes M (first version and the first aspheric version).

When I try the CZJ the lens not be so good than I hoped. So-so corners. But very good colors and good contrast too.

Rino.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:25 pm    Post subject: Re: most overrated lens Reply with quote
One man's junk is another man's gold?

bogolisk wrote:
"sharpest 50mm lens ever built"


In the fast 50mm prime category there are many such overrated lenses - lower price simply comes with lower expectations --> hence the hype.

If I were loaded with cash I wouldn't care less, but as I have to buy rationally I would never, ever churn out 13,500€ for an M9 + 50/0.95 Noctilux. Based on a weekend of using the combo I don't know if it is more overpriced than it is overrated. Sure, the lens gives a special look and you can shoot in near darkness, but try getting an objective reply from someone who owns it (should you be as bold as to dare ask about the technical image quality).

The Flektogon 20/4 and 20/2.8 are overrated. Not long ago I had two and in the process of selling them I talked to plenty of Canon system users who were interested in buying. More than one of them said there exists an aftermarket niche for the Flek 20mm only thanks to certain overpriced and underperforming Canon wide-angles. Overpriced and overrated, it sells for more than it sold new outside East Germany (GDR).

Lomo is overrated. You can't speak of quality, and the oh-so-lovely artsy look of it is overrused, cheesy and down right boring. 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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 6:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Noctilux


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
estudleon wrote:
LucisPictor wrote:
I think some Carl Zeiss Jena lenses are overrated, mainly because of the "Zeiss" part in the name. Wink


I agree parcially.

Flektogon 2,4/35.

I used before that lens, the 35 summicrons M (some versions) and the 35 summiluxes M (first version and the first aspheric version).

When I try the CZJ the lens not be so good than I hoped. So-so corners. But very good colors and good contrast too.

Rino.


Flek 35/2,,4 is likely the best 35mm lens you can buy for less than 150 euros, IHMO, so hardly overrated. Though, it all depends what one expects. 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. Weird how differnt people's experiences and opinions can be.

Without this lens there'd be many less squirrel pictures around Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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


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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
ludoo wrote:
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.


For the $10 I paid for mine, it's a superb lens Smile Really, it's not a Zeiss, but I like it better than, say, Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS that sells for around $60.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
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.

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.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think the biggest issue with subjective lens evaluations is that their cost becomes such a factor that it clouds real/rational judgments about a lens. Their perfomance should not be related to their cost but it almost always is.

Last edited by jjphoto on Mon Mar 11, 2013 11:57 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:04 pm    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.


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


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The problem of 35/2.4 is construction. I described already here. If the bad performance isn't caused by lame servicing, it's likely to be a loosy element. It can be easily fixed without any special equipment.

Anyway, 135mm Sonnar is excellent lens. Low CA, great bokeh and high sharpness. I remember a comparision with Canon 135/2 L, which resulted similarly in terms of sharpness.

Jupiter-37 is nice alternative, but it's way more expensive than it was year or two ago... and many Jupiters-37 have the glossy inner blackening, which affects contrast (can be fixed e.g. by self-adhesive black velvet)...

If I compare the Sonnar to other M42 lenses:

Meyer/Pentacon 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Triotar 135/4 - slower, less contrasty, slightly less sharp
Tair 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Jupiter 135/3.5 - less contrasty, a bit more copy variable
Takumar 135/3.5 - slightly less sharp, slightly more CA (axial), less smooth bokeh
Takumar 135/2.5 V2 - more CA (lateral), sharpness is close
Lanthar 125/2.5 - 15-times more expensive Laughing

It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar Smile


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar Smile


Nikkor 135/3.5 Q.C, "K" and (different optical formula) Ai / AIS?
Contax Sonnar 135/2.8?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Overrated lenses only what I can't afford to buy Smile Leica all Leica-M etc Laughing


PostPosted: Wed Oct 27, 2010 10:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Most of my lenses are hardly rated at all let alone overrated!

Whilst slightly OT being an AF lens I did try the Canon 50mm f/1.4 once and found it wasn't as good as I expected, whilst having smoother bokeh and a better build than the cheapo 50mm F/1.8 I found the sharpness and colour, contrast etc to be comparable, not a bad lens, just not as good as the hype about it being sooooo much better than the 1.8 had led me to believe!


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
jjphoto wrote:
I think the biggest issue with subjective lens evaluations is that their cost becomes such a factor that it clouds real/rational judgments about a lens. Their perfomance should not be related to their cost but it almost always is.

A $15 Yashica 50/2 ML costs about 1/30th of the price of a Leica R 50/2 yet it is not 1/30th the quality, but neither is it a 'Cron'. Some will say this is an amazing lens for the price, which may be so as it's an 'OK' lens, but this has nothing to do with it's real performance which never gets near that of the Cron.

Take the cost out of the equation and I suspect that more than half the 'gems' that are constantly raved about would no longer even rate a mention.

JJ

I definetely agree, as I have both 50/2 of yashica ML and Cron. If you look for sharpness like me, yashica is the choice. The cron wins in detail and color, the rest is subjective. I guess.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Sorry to say that but most Leica lenses are wwaaayyy overrated and overpriced too.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
Overrated lenses only what I can't afford to buy Smile Leica all Leica-M etc Laughing

me2 Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
no-X wrote:
The problem of 35/2.4 is construction. I described already here. If the bad performance isn't caused by lame servicing, it's likely to be a loosy element. It can be easily fixed without any special equipment.

Anyway, 135mm Sonnar is excellent lens. Low CA, great bokeh and high sharpness. I remember a comparision with Canon 135/2 L, which resulted similarly in terms of sharpness.

Jupiter-37 is nice alternative, but it's way more expensive than it was year or two ago... and many Jupiters-37 have the glossy inner blackening, which affects contrast (can be fixed e.g. by self-adhesive black velvet)...

If I compare the Sonnar to other M42 lenses:

Meyer/Pentacon 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Triotar 135/4 - slower, less contrasty, slightly less sharp
Tair 135/2.8 - less sharp at f/3.5-f/5.6, more CA (axial)
Jupiter 135/3.5 - less contrasty, a bit more copy variable
Takumar 135/3.5 - slightly less sharp, slightly more CA (axial), less smooth bokeh
Takumar 135/2.5 V2 - more CA (lateral), sharpness is close
Lanthar 125/2.5 - 15-times more expensive Laughing

It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar Smile


I respect and trust your judgement. I just can write about my own experiences. And 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.

And yes, even if I love Leica lenses, they are definitely overpriced! Sad


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 6:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
WallyJr74 wrote:
Sorry to say that but most Leica lenses are wwaaayyy overrated and overpriced too.
I agree with the 2nd part of this statement, but because of this I cannot comment on the 1st part! Laughing


PostPosted: Thu Oct 28, 2010 8:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
no-X wrote:
It's nice, that I can buy two worse lenses for the price os one Sonnar MC 135/3.5, but even 5 worse lenses won't give me the image quality of the one Sonnar Smile


Nikkor 135/3.5 Q.C, "K" and (different optical formula) Ai / AIS?
Contax Sonnar 135/2.8?

That's hard to compare. M42 lenses can be used virtualy on any DSLR without any modification. Nikon and Contax lenses can't be used on any system. And that affect their price a bit. I remember a comparision of Contax 135/2.8 and CZJ 135/3.5 which showed, that Contax has a bit more axial CA (which I don't like). Anyway, everybody has different priorities.

According to SLRlensreview test the 135/3.5 has sharper edges than the 135/2.8.

I think its price has reasons: very good optical performance, M42 (compatibility) and close-focusing capability (compared to non-macro 135mm lenses). Btw. I checked ebay and 135/3.5 MC is cheaper than 135/2.8 T*... Smile
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5