The Most Overrated Lenses

[ChromaticAberration]

A very simple question I have became interested in lately:

Which are in your humble opinion the most overrated lenses?

I am expecting to read some pretty surprising contributions because I suspect that some lenses popularity does not show in tangible day-to-day photographic situations.

Thanksin advance for your contributions.

[Nordentro]

That's a difficult question because people may have different views of what is important.

- Sharpness
- Contrast
- Bokeh
- Build quality
- Collectors view (rare lenses)

My suggestion of the most overrated lens is the Trioplan 100mm f2.8. It has an interesting bokeh, but can it defend the facts that this lens usually goes for big bucks?!?

[LucisPictor]

"Overrated" as in "too expensive compared to other, similarly good lenses? (EDIT: That would rather be "overpriced", wouldn't it?)

In this case:

- CZJ Flektogon 2.8/20
- CZJ Flektogon 4/20*
- CZJ Flektogon 2.4/35
- Leica Summilux-R 1.4/50 (first version)
- (any) Pancolar 1.8/50
- Meyer Primoplan 1.9/58*
- CZJ Sonnar 3.5/135

Please, don't get me wrong! Those lenses are amazing performers, but they are just way too expensive at the moment.
(* I own those lenseed myself and have shot with all of them.)

But the champion over "overrated-ness" is the Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100.

Other overrated lens is the Canon EF 2.8/16-35 L - nice but much too expensive (as most "L"-lenses).


Or do you mean "overrated" as in "considered to be very good, but not that good in reality"?

That's much more difficult, because most lenses that have a good reputation, earn it. Perhaps the Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100 is a candidate again.

[ManualFocus-G]

Not sure I'd put the Sonnar 135/3.5 in that list. It's an incredible lens which is sharp from wide open and produces some nice 3D. I'd happily pay £60.00 or so for another

The Fleks are all way overpriced however, and I own the 35/2.4 MC M42, 20/2.8 MC M42, 35/2.4 MC Prakticar and 20/2.8 MC Prakticar. The Canon FD 20/2.8 stomps all over the CZJ, as does the Nikkor 20/4.

[Attila]

[Esox lucius]

Most Leica R-type glass. Who the **** authorized Minolta to manufacture sub-standard wides branded with Leica logo?

What comes for the rest of the range: Built and engineered for bw work, they're sure to paint a green hue that'll make sure black & white photos have nice contrast. Try to achieve true colors with a Leica? Fat chance. The fact that the factory doesn't provide a native colour profile or RAW to JPEG converter reveals enough already.

To all you Leicaphiles who will claim R-series is for poor people: Yes, I have used both M8 and M9 and corresponding M-series glass. I decided against them as I found the color management pure hell. Leica excels at bw but colour photography is something Leitz Wetzlar hasn't figured out in the digital age, likely because of their marriage to Kodak as well as commitment to creating lenses with low distortion.

Anyone who knows anything about lens design is aware of the tradeoff triangle - geometric distortion vs. sharpness vs. vignetting vs. aberrations

[anscochrome]

Re: 100mm F 2.8 Trioplan-I lived in the era (early 1970's) when this was a lens avoided at all costs at the (then large) camera swap/shows. It was a $19.99 cent special in the back pages of Modern and Popular Photography (places like Seymour's Exakta used to hawk that lens a lot). It was considered an absolute piece of junk, and that was shooting on relatively low res film.

How it has become a rareified gem some 40 years later is an absolute mystery. To be honest, back in the early 1970's, a "real" photographer would not be caught dead using anything with Pentacon or Carl Zeiss Jena written on it. The only lenses taken seriously for the Exakta mount were the ones produced by Steinheil (the macro Quinaron's, Quinons, and Quinars). I can fully appreciate why those command high prices. I wanted to shoot Steinheil back in the day, and was saving money from my part time job as a teenager to do so, but my photographic mentor at the time (a local newspaper photographer) did not want me using a "junk" Exakta body, so I ended up with a Nikkormat instead.

[Attila]

Welcome!

Real photographer was 'snobs' just like today , if you compare a Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar 80 or Biotar 75 or 200mm f2.8 .... with any Nikon , Leica, Contax , Canon . I am not sure at all best Jena lenses are worst than any $$$ lenses , pretty much true for many 10-20 USD Russian lenses too they are not good as Nikon or Leica perhaps , but difference is pretty little.

Just one example I had Leica-R 90mm f2.8 best (second ) version and Kaleinar 100mm f2.8 .. I did shoot same scene at same time in Zoo and I sold Leica immediatelly... Another one Carl Zeiss Jena 180mm zebra did perform better than Nikon 180 ED

I saw many pictures taken with $$$$ and few bucks gear here. Photographer talent , subject was lot more factor in good images than gear what he did use.



Crying about overrated, overpriced lenses quite nasty to me, most people who cry about expensive manual lenses hold full frame digital cameras, second other DSLR body their cost more than 2-3000 USD , say 200 USD much for a Flektogon 35 or other lenses hmm just not my style.

Old lenses has a big luck Japanese and Chines people who are respect them well unlike western people who accept every lenses from yard sale for 2$.

I still believe to save old lenses , cameras one way is possible to fetch that price level what is enough high to respect them and not throw out them.

[Attila]

[Arkku]

[cooltouch]

You know, I think I feel a lot like a Budweiser drinker who just walked into a wine connoisseur's symposium. Probably better than 90% of the lenses you guys are discussing are lenses I've never tried, and likely never will have the opportunity to try. So you guys go ahead and discuss the ins and outs of Trioplans and Flektogons and Pancolors and whatsiz, and I'll just poke along, futzing about with my Canons and Nikkors and Tamrons and even a Pentax M42 or K from time to time. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose . . .

[IAZA]

this old topic comes again.
recently I bought Vega 90/2,8
it performance not far to Leitz elmarit 90/2,8 but very different price.
Why I still keep elmarit ? main reason is Leica price never go down. investment, LoL
overrated or not, like or not that's the fact.

[luisalegria]

I'm a bit more upscale !
Anchor Steam is my drink.
la dee da

[cooltouch]

[james]

[martyn_bannister]

[LucisPictor]

Regarding overpriced Leica lenses: yes, they are too expensive, much too expensive!
And still we need to keep in mind that it is not only about performance but also about built quality. And Leica is about the best you can get in that field.

[LucisPictor]

[ManualFocus-G]

[ZoneV]

I think if a lens gets high prices at ebay or somewhere else (averaged) it is worth that money for collectors and users (as one group).
It may be that only collectors are buying that lens for that price, so it could be overpriced for users. Sometimes this could be seen on the big price difference between nearly unused collector lenses and the same lens with scratches on the mechanics for user.

Every one of us could declare a lens overrated, or only worth $10 or something like that - but that is his personal view.
If there are enough people buying a special lens, because of a "hype" it is "worth" that money - at that moment.

In my personal view most AF lenses are overrated.
I do not like to use AF, so they have only the EXIF data and the automatic iris as a pro (some IS), but bad manual focussing and often bad mechanics as negative. And most AF zoom lenses are absolutly overrated - I don´t like them
But as you see, this point of view is not very common. And because of that a Canon EF 70-200/2.8 USM IS gains much higher used prices than
the Meyer Trioplan 100 - which I love as a user.

[LucisPictor]

I think it is important to differ between "overrated" and "overpriced".

Leitz lenses are definitely overpriced, but not overrated.
That means they are too expensive, but they are really as good as they are considered to be (=rated).

A lens like the Zuiko 1.4/50 is neither overrated nor overpriced. Because it is not too expensive and a really good lens.

A Flektogon 4/20 is overpriced and perhaps a little overrated.

A Helios-40 or a Triploan 2.8/100 is IMHO overrated and overpriced, because they are rather expensive and there are many lenses of similar FL which are much better.
BUT (and now we come to personal preference) if somebody is looking for exactly that effect that such a lens can produce, he/she will readily pay those prices.

I think there are no lenses that are just overrated and not overpriced, because the dynamics of web 2.0 generate high prices for overrated lenses quickly and easily!

[martyn_bannister]

[Nordentro]

[martyn_bannister]

Which is exactly what I said, as long as you don't make the common mistake of believing that a salesman is a person

Apologies to the salesmen out there.......

[Big Dawg]