Unloved and therefore cheap, but surprisingly good lenses

Oldhand · Last edited by Oldhand on Fri Jan 08, 2016 5:38 am; edited 2 times in total

As the title says.
What lenses have you come across that meet the generally unloved, cheap but good criteria?
I'll start with a little zoom - Yashica ML 42-75 f3.5-4.5
OH

#1

#2

#3

More images here:
http://forum.mflenses.com/the-1-lens-yashica-ml-42-75-f3-5-4-5-t72557,highlight,%2B1+%2Blens.html

Paulius · Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 326 Location: Connecticut

Soligor 135mm f2,8 for $7.-
Yashica 75-150mm f4, $19.-
Vivitar Ser.1 70-210mm f3,5, $25.-
Fujinon 50mm f1,8 $5.-
Nikkor 50mm f1,8 $25.-
Nikkor 35-70mm f3,3-4,5 $16.-
Rolleinar 55mm f1,4 $50.-
Rollei CZ Planar HFT 50mm f1,8 $10.-

And so on...
All are harvested at flea markets and Goodwill stores. All lenses are superb.

Oldhand · Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 2:59 am Post subject:

Paulius · Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 326 Location: Connecticut

Well, perhaps Soligors 250mm and 135mm, Tele-Lentar 300mm f5,5, a few Kirons, Hexanons. All are excellent performers.

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland

Minolta MD III 50 f2. Probably the cheapest Minolta standard and with a better performance in some aspects than many of his Minolta more regarded brothers.

cgustav · Joined: 01 Jun 2014 Posts: 270 Location: Los Angeles

Well,

I've been kind of surprised by the Seikanon 28-70 3.5 macro, $15.

#1

#2

#3

#4

barryreid · Expire: 2015-11-04

Canon FD 70-210 f/4. Mine cost a tenner and, when tested on my A7r I found this Canon to be better than A Tamron #19AH 70-210/3.5 SP and only Beathen by the CY Zeiss 80-200/4 on CA.

Lightshow · Joined: 04 Nov 2011 Posts: 3666 Location: Calgary

Oldhand · Posted: Fri Jan 08, 2016 9:34 am Post subject:

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

a tenner for the Canon 70-210 f4!... and I thought I had a good deal with the rokkor 70-210 f 4 for 12.5Â£. Bummer... Without the shade moreover.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

Most probably the UV Topcors are falling into this category. Amazingly cheap and good performers.
I've already posted several examples here, so I don't do it in this thread. (e.g. http://forum.mflenses.com/uv-topcor-100mm-f4-on-aps-c-t72494.html)

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

There's a lot of Yashica lenses that could fall into this category, and barryreid has already mentioned the one I would nomintate - the Yashica ML 80-200 f4. Mine came in a huge bag of stuff from a charity shop, I just cleared all their camera stuff for £30, and I love it. As yet I haven't tried it back to back with a Vivitar Series 1 70-210, but I think it might just beat the Vivitar for sharpness, and it's smaller and lighter.

How about the M42 55 / 1.8 Mamiya Sekor ? It's possibly my best 50ish lens and it came on a dead Mamiya for £5.

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Lee|Ratters · Joined: 23 Sep 2014 Posts: 78 Location: Bristol | UK

I do have good experiences with Yashica stuff - My 50/2 I bought years ago on eBay for about Â£3.20 Smile

I also have a 75-200mm MC which I won on eBay for a similar price last year & I've yet to use it.......

I do mainly use my Voigtlander CV40 but I presently have my camera bag packed with my Yashica lenses to use on my next outing & I've just found that 75-200mm to pop in there with the rest Smile

I not own the ML28/2.8, ML50/1.7, ML50/1.9, ML50/2 & the 75-200mm zoom.

buerokratiehasser · Joined: 12 Jun 2011 Posts: 470

Lenses resold under house brand (Sigma -> Exakta/whatever, Tak? -> Revueflex55/1.8)

Label is meaningless you must look at the shape and hope it's the same glass

Sigma/whatever 28-70 3.5-4.5 UC(HSAF) very dinky mechanics though

Various teles 60-300, 75-200 "Small Pipe"

Minolta AF has some B- performers that no one loves: 35-70/3.5-4.5, 35-105/3.5-4.5 Plastic, 35-80 Plastic New

These aren't really gems but people don't want them (they want the 35-70/4 and 35-105Old) and often trade for $5 or less though I have not checked this. They are also pretty light and the 35-105 and 35-80 are pretty small for their range.

The Sigma 50/2.8 UC Macro is possibly one of the sharpest lenses ever, if a bit cool-ish in the color rendition. It's not unloved but used to trade for two digits unlike other macro lenses.

blende8 · Joined: 29 Sep 2007 Posts: 260 Location: Bremen, Germany

Takumar Bayonet lenses:
135/2.5
135/2.8
Not SMC, but otherwise nice lenses, basically identical to the A135/2.8.

vanylapep · Joined: 03 Jan 2014 Posts: 312

Fujian CCTV 35mm f/1.7 35$ Smile

VLR · Joined: 05 Mar 2015 Posts: 86

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

Agree with the above votes for Yashicas and the Minolta MD(III) 50-f/2.

The ones I have all are pleasant surprises on just how excellent they are optically. And so cheap due to being overlooked.
Some of the Taiwanese-made Pentax K-mouints as well. Since they don't have the quality of the vintage Takumars, they are still very good deals. The ones with the SMC coating especially.

Old Sigmas (Stigma) too. Most deserve the bad rep, but when they were good, they are real good.

In the USA, we also have store-branded rebadged gear under the Sears, JC Penney, Focal marketing name. Many are actually Ricoh, Mamiya, Chinon, Samyang, and Tokina lenses.

Two $0.99 finds turned out to be fantastic were a Tou/Five Star MC 28mm f/2.8, well-received on MFL....and an Aston DX 28mm f/2.8. (also marketed as a Soligor C/D, and Osawa). Both are excellent optically, and built satisfactorily.

From a Japanese-made, unknown manufacturer, JC Penney Multi-coated Optics 135mm-f/2.8 w/55mm filter dia.

cLOSE eNCOUNTERS oF tHE bIRD kIND by wNG 555, on Flickr

The Tou/Five Star:

cHROMATIC iNTOXICATION by wNG 555, on Flickr

fATAL aTTRACTION II by wNG 555, on Flickr

Aston DX 28mm:

fINAL aPPROACH by wNG 555, on Flickr

Minniesmum · Joined: 09 Jan 2016 Posts: 3

A Pentacon 30mm f3.5. Charity shop for Â£1.

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England

It would seem like the majority of us want critical sharpness and pixel peep to make sure we have it. To some that is the overriding decision whether to keep or buy a lens or not. I have been like that too.

But the photos you take with any lens is about the image, not the sharpness, the draw, the bokeh and so on. The samples above are super pictures - if only I were that good! Taken on cheap lenses that many here would turn their noses up at.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4006 Location: Switzerland

Just bought a Panagor 2.5/28mm (looks absolutely identical to the Vivitar 2.5/28mm, which is Kiron-manufactured). I played a bit with the lens using the 24MP FF Sony A7 II. Then I compared it with the Minolta MC 2.5/28mm - and found it to have much better performance than the Minolta, especially at f2.5!

I do own three Minolta MC 2.5/28mm lenses (an MC-I, MC-II, and MC-X), and all of them perform identically. Therefore the test result should be valid.

Quite a surprise, in fact. I have tested other lenses from Kino Precision (Kiron), such as the 2/28mm; all of them were nearly as sharp as their Minolta counterparts, but up to now none of them was clearly better. Until today ...

Stephan

WNG555 · Joined: 18 Dec 2014 Posts: 784 Location: Arrid-Zone-A, USA

[stevemark]

That's a really surprising result. One of the first 28mm I bought was a Vivitar (Kino) 28-f/2.5. And it was terrible. I suspect it could be variance or wear, since the reviews show a split for this model, and my copy falls alongside the bad reviews. And I shoot on APS-C as well, it still looked unacceptable.
Interesting that it bested the Minolta f/2.5! Because I picked up one, awaiting de-fungus-ing and a UV bath.

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

Let's not forget about the Pentacon 1.8/50!

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4006 Location: Switzerland