Good, bad lenses

[Roger Hicks]

Which are your favourite good, bad lenses? The ones where there are plenty of "better" (sharper, contrastier, more distortion-free) lenses available, but where you prefer the results of your "inferior" lens?

Some of them are very expensive: the last pre-aspheric Summilux is a good example. Some are only fairly expensive, such as the 50/1.2 Canon I used for this series or the 58/1.4 Nikkor, but that's another lens which, like the Summilux, has gone up a lot in price. Others, though, can still be found silly-cheap if you're lucky, especially in less popular mounts: 58/2 Helios in M42 mount, or its ancestor the 58/2 Biotar which alas I have only in Exacta mount. Then there's the 135/1.8 Porst which I have in M42, having idiotically sold its Nikon-fit cousin which came with a different label.

I sometimes think of buying a camera which would let me use more of them: possibly Pentax, ideally Leica (I already have a Nikon/Leica adapter and M42/Leica adapters aren't expensive) or even (holds nose) full-frame mirrorless. Then I could try some of the Praktica PB-mount lenses I have...

So: favourite "good, bad" lenses, and how to use them. Suggestions?

EDIT: I'm not talking about lenses that are good in the conventional sense but cheap. I'm talking about lenses that objectively are detectably flawed, but still have a certain "magic" to them. The Takumars are a bad example. Yes, I think the 85/1.9 does have "magic" but it's not really detectably bad in any way.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Ccoppola82]

In m42 I would have to say I get consistently good results with the 85mm 1.8 Takumar. I mount it to full frame canon or spotmatic F and I like it better for BW portraits than the 135L. I try to convince myself to like the canon better, but I'm drawn to the takumar. Another good m42 is the Fuji 100 2.8. Possibly my favorite lens for color and its tiny.

M-mount, I have a nokton 50 1.5 and rigid cron, but I tend to grab the collapsible cron most and use it as a general 50 on BW film.

 

[capitalK]

I had a Helios-44 but didn't get along with it and sold it a few years back. Recently I found another (minty) copy at a antique fair and am giving it another shot.

 

[Roger Hicks]

In m42 I would have to say I get consistently good results with the 85mm 1.8 Takumar. I mount it to full frame canon or spotmatic F and I like it better for BW portraits than the 135L. I try to convince myself to like the canon better, but I'm drawn to the takumar. Another good m42 is the Fuji 100 2.8. Possibly my favorite lens for color and its tiny.

M-mount, I have a nokton 50 1.5 and rigid cron, but I tend to grab the collapsible cron most and use it as a general 50 on BW film.

Ah, yes. I have the 85/1.9 Super Takumar and that's very good too. Another great cheapie is the 85/2 Jupiter but I gave mine away.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Gregm61]

I need to pick up a Zeiss Contax RF to M adapter to use my Carl Zeiss Contax RF 50mm f2, 85mm f2 and 135mm f4 Sonnars on my digital M bodies just for fun.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I was really asking about lenses that AREN'T all that good, but where their shortcomings give a "look" that means you put up with poor resolution (Canon 50/1.2, Porst 135/1.8), low contrast (Canon 50/1.2), field curvature (Nikkor 58/1.4), coma (Summilux) etc.

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Rob-F]

I think the 50/2 Summar fits this category. By no means a very good lens, but it does have a "look."

 

[Roger Hicks]

I think the 50/2 Summar fits this category. By no means a very good lens, but it does have a "look."

Dear Rob,

And likewise, not an especially cheap lens; which is exactly what I meant. It's about a great "look" from a lens that has been replaced by the manufacturers by by something "newer and better" -- but which isn't as good for the pictures YOU want to take.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Steve M.]

My recently purchased Makinon MC Macro 135 2.8 35m MF lens fits that category......sorta. Wide open it doesn't have a lot of contrast, or even when stopped down. It's pretty soft at 2.8. But those qualities and others make it one of the better portrait lenses I've ever used, so I'm happy. It delivers exactly what I was looking for.

You should get your Summar cleaned Rob. Mine took softish, flarey photos until I sent it out to be cleaned. It came back sharp as a tack even wide open, and was my favorite Leica lens after that. A clean Sumar is a wonderful lens. Much sharper at f2 than a 50 Summicron.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Anyone else use the Canon 50/1.2? That's what gave me the idea for the question. Years ago I reviewed it for Shutterbug and I found it interesting to compare what I said then with how I feel now, 13 years later.

Cheers,

R.

 

[zuiko85]

We all have budgets for, in my case, a hobby. Sometimes you like your ‘inferior ‘ lenses because you cannot justify the expense of the ‘better’ lens. I like the results of my 52mm f2.8 FSU lens because, at $12 I’m just not going to be too critical. The first batch of negs looked fine to me, at least under a loop. Haven’t enlarged any yet.

PS: yes I know, not really the question you are asking. Sorry about that.

 

[johannielscom]

I was really asking about lenses that AREN'T all that good, but where their shortcomings give a "look" that means you put up with poor resolution (Canon 50/1.2, Porst 135/1.8), low contrast (Canon 50/1.2), field curvature (Nikkor 58/1.4), coma (Summilux) etc.

Sorry I didn't make myself clearer.

Cheers,

R.

Ah,

all clear now!

 

[Roger Hicks]

We all have budgets for, in my case, a hobby. Sometimes you like your ‘inferior ‘ lenses because you cannot justify the expense of the ‘better’ lens. I like the results of my 52mm f2.8 FSU lens because, at $12 I’m just not going to be too critical. The first batch of negs looked fine to me, at least under a loop. Haven’t enlarged any yet.

Fair enough, but this stands outside budget to some extent. The 35 pre-aspheric Summilux, for example, is silly-expensive but has a unique look. The Porst, on the other hand, is silly-cheap but has a unique look. I'm talking about lenses that are objectively inferior but which we like not despite their faults, but because of them.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pioneer]

I have been shooting my Meyer-Optic Domiplan 50/2.8 lens in M42 lately. This lens is renowned for being a very inexpensive, East German kit lens with a horrible reputation. A large part of the reputation comes from the inconsistent quality control and the remaining part is probably the result of the poor build quality that has not held up well over the years.

It is a triplet (which is the main reason I own it) and a good copy of this lens has all the foibles of its design melded seamlessly with its price point. In other words it is certainly no Cooke Series XVa.

However, I did happen to find a decent copy for about $20 and if used within its limitations (do not try to shoot wide open!) it does give you some good images, occasionally very good ones.

Like many triplets it can actually be quite sharp in the center but it definitely loses it in the corners. Fortunately it has very good out of focus performance so you can effectively erase unimportant backgrounds with judicious use of the aperture and sufficient separation from your main subject.

But it probably isn't the best landscape lens in the world, and you certainly want to be careful to lock in a good focus or everything seems to fall apart. I have also noted it is much better on film but a digital sensor is not nearly as forgiving.

It is actually a pretty good portrait lens and I suspect will turn out to be a decent macro performer with a good set of extension tubes.

 

[zuiko85]

Fair enough, but this stands outside budget to some extent. The 35 pre-aspheric Summilux, for example, is silly-expensive but has a unique look. The Porst, on the other hand, is silly-cheap but has a unique look. I'm talking about lenses that are objectively inferior but which we like not despite their faults, but because of them.

Cheers,

R.

Yes, realized too late my comment didn’t really address your question. A good question to. Years ago had a ‘better’ multicoated 35mm f2 OM mount Zuiko that I got for a c-note and was pristine. Turned out I preferred my beat up old 35 f2.8 Zuiko, there is just something about that lens, as pedestrian as it is.

 

[kshapero]

The old single coated non Ai Nikkor 50 mm/f.14 does not compete with today's optics but it has a look I favor on my Nikon F. I dare say they were meant for each other, but also looks unique on a Nikon D610. Can be had for a song although John White converted mine for more body options.

 

[Emile de Leon]

I like some of the old Cine lenses on m4/3...old uncoated Cooke and Zeiss from the war years come to mind here..

 

[rhl-oregon]

I wonder if a CZ Jena 35/2.8 Flektogon qualifies for your rubric. In any case, for not much coin, mine (acquired in Exakta mount for a Varex IIA or B, I forget which) gave me a delightful way to poke my eye far closer to some subjects than I usually did:

Shot on Portra 400. I sold the Varex with its fast 105mm during one of those bonfire of the vanities periods (regrettable), but have kept the Flekto mounted on some sort of digi-adapter—Panasonic, Fuji? I don’t even use those digital bodies now. Probably I should try to locate another Varex.

 

[Roger Hicks]

I have been shooting my Meyer-Optic Domiplan 50/2.8 lens in M42 lately. This lens is renowned for being a very inexpensive, East German kit lens with a horrible reputation. A large part of the reputation comes from the inconsistent quality control and the remaining part is probably the result of the poor build quality that has not held up well over the years.

It is a triplet (which is the main reason I own it) and a good copy of this lens has all the foibles of its design melded seamlessly with its price point. In other words it is certainly no Cooke Series XVa.

However, I did happen to find a decent copy for about $20 and if used within its limitations (do not try to shoot wide open!) it does give you some good images, occasionally very good ones.

Like many triplets it can actually be quite sharp in the center but it definitely loses it in the corners. Fortunately it has very good out of focus performance so you can effectively erase unimportant backgrounds with judicious use of the aperture and sufficient separation from your main subject.

But it probably isn't the best landscape lens in the world, and you certainly want to be careful to lock in a good focus or everything seems to fall apart. I have also noted it is much better on film but a digital sensor is not nearly as forgiving.

It is actually a pretty good portrait lens and I suspect will turn out to be a decent macro performer with a good set of extension tubes.

This is indeed very important: using a lens within its limitations. A lens which is truly awful for one application may be magical in another.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dogman]

I had a couple of pre-AI Nikkors that I liked a lot. The cheap silver barreled 35/2.8 was a favorite despite lacking sharpness just about everywhere. I think I bought it new for $75 and I gave it away to a friend who was glad to get it despite it being pretty worn out. Also the 50/1.4, also with a silver barrel. It had terrible barrel distortion and it wasn't very contrasty but I kind of liked the flat look, especially with Kodachrome. I got it used with an FTn body, both of which were stolen a few years later.

In the digital era, I used a Canon 17-40L as my normal lens on several APS-C bodies. It was a lens that got no respect from internet forums and I admit the edges, especially the corners, were always soft at all focal lengths. But it had a nice look to the Raw files, both for color and black and white. I sort of wish I hadn't sold but I had pretty much stopped using Canons so it had to go.