Those f/2.8 Zooms of the 1970s and 1980s...

[Dante_Stella]

I'd like to start a discussion on a well-maligned category of lenses. What are your favorites?

For some reason, I have been accumulating f/2.8 SLR zooms from ye olden days. Can't say it's cheap or easy when Konica AR is your mount of choice, but some of these were motivated by buying a half-frame FT-1. I have found that for focusing, there is a ton of difference between f/2.8 and even 3.5. I also question how people ever focused f/3.5-4.5 (or slower) zooms using anything but specialized focusing screens. Microprisms don't clear and split image screens require ultra-precise eye positioning. None of this is a problem with an f/2.8 zoom, though.

My guess is that the bad rep of most 70s and 80s zooms came from two things: objective tests that measured them as resolving less (which no one would actually see in real life) and then difficulties in focusing or keeping steady at the customary small apertures. You start plugging SLR lenses into a Leica digital M, which can shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO without breaking a sweat, and you find yourself surprised.

Some quick takes based on some testing using a Leica M240 and TTL focusing at magnification:

Tokina AT-X 24-40mm f/2.8 - a very short-lived lens in manual focus mounts, it is sharp as hell but exhibits some visible barrel distortion when you get too close. Given the way that this bells out at the filter mount, and given the close relationship between Tokina and Konica (one of its biggest shareholders), it only makes me wonder whether it is a cousin of the 21-35mm M-Hexanon Dual. I'm going to cover this on my site, but the AT-X 28-85 was supposed to have been a Zoom-Hexanon....

Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 - this super-weird (and very maligned lens) is a varifocal lens whose barrel rotates when it zooms but not when it focuses. I am not sure where people get that this lens is "soft," unless it's bad focusing or its propensity (serious) for sidelight flare. It seems quite sharp, especially in the central zone, wide-open. Maybe its issue was a field shape that just didn't work with film.

Konica Varifocal Hexanon AR 35-105mm f/2.8 - not really maligned except for its massive size and heft, clean examples of this don't seem to exist anymore. All-internal zoom and simple extension, non-rotating focusing, it is probably the oldest zoom (or varifocal) lens that is any good. Quite sharp, assuming you can focus it adequately quickly with your subject.

Tokina AT-X 60-120mm f/2.8 - unusually expensive in any mount, this cult lens is about the size of a 135/3.5 SLR lens, with a 55mm thread. One-touch zoom, push back for telephoto, pull forward for normal-ish. The reputation for good bokeh is well deserved, and this lens has quite a bit of pop to it. Close focus seems really far these days, almost 4 feet.

 

[raid]

The Tamron 35-80/2.8 is a very sharp lens that challenged prime lenses for overall quality. The Canon 28-50/2.8-3.5 was a sleeper lens of very high quality too. I used the Canon lens extensively for over twenty years. Both zooms had macro settings.

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Nikon's Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 zoom. Kinda big and heavy, excellent IQ. And, bonus, it has a useful and usable Macro.

 

[dtcls100]

I own a couple of these zooms.

1. Olympus Zuiko 35-80 f2.8 -- extremely sharp but heavy. Quality as good as many primes.

2. Tamron SP 35-80 f2.8 -- very sharp too.

3. Vivitar Series 1 28-90 f2.8 varifocal -- sharp with nice zoom range for lens of that era.

4. Tamron SP 70-150 f2.8 soft focus -- pretty rare and unusual lens. Very sharp but with adjustable soft focus. Soft focus images have sharp core with soft surrounding halo of spherical aberration as opposed to just being blurred like when one uses a soft focus filter or vaseline. Only drawback is that this lens is quite long. Adaptall mount.

5. Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 -- built like a tank but cutting edge sharp. Really easy to focus. Heavy, but image quality on film at least holds up quite well to many modern zooms. Uses ED element to minimize chromatic aberrations. Adaptall mount. Really solid matched bayonet mounting lens shade.

 

[Pioneer]

I have a real weakness for Vivitar constant aperture zooms. Not all were f2.8 but they were all very good for their day. Hell, they are still really good if you have the time (and the strength) to work with them.

Of course the favorite is the 70-200/2.8 and I love this lens. Actually the best copy I have is in M42 mount, the other two (Minolta and Pentax K) have a haze build up that reduces the contrast quite a bit and makes them subject to serious flare even when equipped with their lens hoods.

The second is my 28-90/2.8 for the Pentax K-Mount. It took some time before I really appreciated this lens, mostly because my favorite primes are right in this range. But this is really a very amazing lens with outstanding center sharpness right from the wide open aperture. This lens was a favorite on my LX but has now taken up residence on my 2nd K1000. This has become my favorite lens for taking pictures at the softball games because the 28-90 focal range is perfect for the distances involved.

Although not an f2.8 zoom, my cone shaped 24-48/3.8 Vivitar zoom is an amazing lens. I absolutely love it at the 24mm end, but it is no slouch at the other end either. Most of my recent favorites from the SRT-101 have been captured with this lens. It is short, wide and shaped like a cone and it is surprisingly heavy for its size. But this is actually true of most of the Vivitar Series One zooms. Though the maximum aperture is closer to f/4 then f/2.8 it is actually quite easy to focus, or maybe the wider lens objective makes it a bit more forgiving if you are not dead on the money. Either way it is a surprisingly easy lens to work with if you are not put off by the weight.

At one point in the 60s and 70s Vivitar was really serious about building some top quality lenses that matched or topped the manufacturer's own glass. Sadly though, that time is gone and now we get the name but not the wonderful, quirky glass.

 

[Dante_Stella]

dtcls100, who made the 28-90 varifocal for Vivitar? Sounds cool. Is it huge?

D

 

[oftheherd]

I'd like to start a discussion on a well-maligned category of lenses. What are your favorites?

For some reason, I have been accumulating f/2.8 SLR zooms from ye olden days. Can't say it's cheap or easy when Konica AR is your mount of choice, but some of these were motivated by buying a half-frame FT-1. I have found that for focusing, there is a ton of difference between f/2.8 and even 3.5. I also question how people ever focused f/3.5-4.5 (or slower) zooms using anything but specialized focusing screens. Microprisms don't clear and split image screens require ultra-precise eye positioning. None of this is a problem with an f/2.8 zoom, though.

My guess is that the bad rep of most 70s and 80s zooms came from two things: objective tests that measured them as resolving less (which no one would actually see in real life) and then difficulties in focusing or keeping steady at the customary small apertures. You start plugging SLR lenses into a Leica digital M, which can shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO without breaking a sweat, and you find yourself surprised.

Some quick takes based on some testing using a Leica M240 and TTL focusing at magnification:

Tokina AT-X 24-40mm f/2.8 - a very short-lived lens in manual focus mounts, it is sharp as hell but exhibits some visible barrel distortion when you get too close. Given the way that this bells out at the filter mount, and given the close relationship between Tokina and Konica (one of its biggest shareholders), it only makes me wonder whether it is a cousin of the 21-35mm M-Hexanon Dual. I'm going to cover this on my site, but the AT-X 28-85 was supposed to have been a Zoom-Hexanon....

Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 - this super-weird (and very maligned lens) is a varifocal lens whose barrel rotates when it zooms but not when it focuses. I am not sure where people get that this lens is "soft," unless it's bad focusing or its propensity (serious) for sidelight flare. It seems quite sharp, especially in the central zone, wide-open. Maybe its issue was a field shape that just didn't work with film.

Konica Varifocal Hexanon AR 35-105mm f/2.8 - not really maligned except for its massive size and heft, clean examples of this don't seem to exist anymore. All-internal zoom and simple extension, non-rotating focusing, it is probably the oldest zoom (or varifocal) lens that is any good. Quite sharp, assuming you can focus it adequately quickly with your subject.

Tokina AT-X 60-120mm f/2.8 - unusually expensive in any mount, this cult lens is about the size of a 135/3.5 SLR lens, with a 55mm thread. One-touch zoom, push back for telephoto, pull forward for normal-ish. The reputation for good bokeh is well deserved, and this lens has quite a bit of pop to it. Close focus seems really far these days, almost 4 feet.

Definitely agree on the Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm zoom. It got good reviews when it came out. I suspect it was not a useful zoom length for most people, for its weight and size. And some were no doubt turned off by the fact it was vari-focal. I have one and very seldom use it. But it is a nice lens if your shooting is going to be mostly within those focal lengths.

 

[dtcls100]

dtcls100, who made the 28-90 varifocal for Vivitar? Sounds cool. Is it huge?

D

I believe it was Komine, who also manufactured the fantastic Series 1 90 macro and version 3 of the Series 1 70-210 zoom, which many regard as the best of those Series 1 zooms. I do own versions 1 and 3 of the 70-210 and prefer version 3 even though it has a variable 2.8 - 4.0 aperture. Version 3 is smaller, lighter, much smoother mechanically, sharper and easier to focus and hold steady than version 1. However, the Tamron SP 80-200 f2.8 clearly is sharper, although considerably larger and heavier and with a longer minimum focus distance.

The 28-90 is good sized, but not huge, using a 67mm filter. Not too heavy either. While I have not experienced this problem, I have heard that this lens is prone to oily aperture blades if you leave it in a hot car. I never have done this and never had this problem. The 28-90 is far superior to the successor Series 1 28-105 f2.8 (which I also own).

 

[raid]

The Canon 28-50 had a rotating front when focusing, which was a pain to have when using a Polarizer filter, I recall.

 

[Steve M.]

Another vote for the Nikon zooms. My 35 70 2.8 was the old style push-pull lens, and it made fantastic images. The 28 105 was a wonderful walk about lens, and the first version of the 28 200 G ED lens is selling for more now than it did many years ago when it was new. That thing was a great lens!

Nothing beat the 80 200 ED lens though. Wonderful for portraits wide open w/ great bokeh, and amazingly sharp at all focal lengths when stopped down just a smidgen. The downside is it was as big as a bazooka and nearly as heavy. I used to shoot one on an F4 for my daily shooter (must have been out of my mind....now anything much bigger than a smart phone is too much to tote).

The old Tamron 28 200 got a lot of flack for being a cheap zoom, but my eBay $22 beater could be coaxed into making some very nice images.

All of these were auto focus lenses. You probably want to avoid anything that says Promaster, Spiratone, Quantaray, etc :[

 

[Sarcophilus Harrisii]

I'd like to start a discussion on a well-maligned category of lenses. What are your favorites?

For some reason, I have been accumulating f/2.8 SLR zooms from ye olden days. Can't say it's cheap or easy when Konica AR is your mount of choice, but some of these were motivated by buying a half-frame FT-1. I have found that for focusing, there is a ton of difference between f/2.8 and even 3.5. I also question how people ever focused f/3.5-4.5 (or slower) zooms using anything but specialized focusing screens. Microprisms don't clear and split image screens require ultra-precise eye positioning. None of this is a problem with an f/2.8 zoom, though.

My guess is that the bad rep of most 70s and 80s zooms came from two things: objective tests that measured them as resolving less (which no one would actually see in real life) and then difficulties in focusing or keeping steady at the customary small apertures. You start plugging SLR lenses into a Leica digital M, which can shoot at 1600 or 3200 ISO without breaking a sweat, and you find yourself surprised.

Some quick takes based on some testing using a Leica M240 and TTL focusing at magnification:

Tokina AT-X 24-40mm f/2.8 - a very short-lived lens in manual focus mounts, it is sharp as hell but exhibits some visible barrel distortion when you get too close. Given the way that this bells out at the filter mount, and given the close relationship between Tokina and Konica (one of its biggest shareholders), it only makes me wonder whether it is a cousin of the 21-35mm M-Hexanon Dual. I'm going to cover this on my site, but the AT-X 28-85 was supposed to have been a Zoom-Hexanon....

Vivitar Series 1 35-85mm f/2.8 - this super-weird (and very maligned lens) is a varifocal lens whose barrel rotates when it zooms but not when it focuses. I am not sure where people get that this lens is "soft," unless it's bad focusing or its propensity (serious) for sidelight flare. It seems quite sharp, especially in the central zone, wide-open. Maybe its issue was a field shape that just didn't work with film.

Konica Varifocal Hexanon AR 35-105mm f/2.8 - not really maligned except for its massive size and heft, clean examples of this don't seem to exist anymore. All-internal zoom and simple extension, non-rotating focusing, it is probably the oldest zoom (or varifocal) lens that is any good. Quite sharp, assuming you can focus it adequately quickly with your subject.

Tokina AT-X 60-120mm f/2.8 - unusually expensive in any mount, this cult lens is about the size of a 135/3.5 SLR lens, with a 55mm thread. One-touch zoom, push back for telephoto, pull forward for normal-ish. The reputation for good bokeh is well deserved, and this lens has quite a bit of pop to it. Close focus seems really far these days, almost 4 feet.

Dante, I have read some good things about the Schneider 45mm-100mm Variogon f/2.8. Although it's a lens that may take some finding. It was very expensive when new compared to most alternatives. Not strictly within your criteria of 1970s to 1980s, but it only predated 1970 by three years or so I think?

I haven't used it, personally, but I do have the larger zoom Schneider made concurrently with the Variogon, the 80mm-240mm f/4 Tele-Variogon (in ALPA SLR bayonet mount). Initial shots I've made with it impressed me enough to decide to buy it, which is quite unusual for me, as I own few zoom lenses and hardly ever use those. The Schneider, though, is a nicely made, solid, lens. It was said by Pignons to deliver better than usual performance for a zoom lens, and both the Schneiders were endorsed by Pignons, and sold by them, as part of their ALPA reflex system.

You can read a bit of information about the shorter Variogon, see some test images, and also find many other images and comments about various other zooms and fixed focal length lenses in this reproduction of an article from the August 1967 issue of Modern Photography by the one and only Herbert Keppler, here.
Cheers,
Brett

 

[RichC]

Another vote for the Tamron SP 35-80mm f/2.8-3.8 CF Macro from the 1980s. I use this as my general-purpose lens when I don't want to carry or need my large Nikon 35-70mm modern zoom. It's used on my Nikon D00E, and survives pixel peeping at 36 MP resolution!

Not as good as modern lenses - not surprisingly - but comparably sharp stopped down to f/4.

This review from japancamerahunter.com summarises it well. Definitely a keeper if you want a small, versatile manual zoom with good performance. The Adaptall mount means it can be used on pretty much any mainstream make of camera - film or digital.

"The kind of unassuming lens you might find neglected in a bargain bin, it’s the one of the very best manual focus zooms ever made by a generic lensmaker. Minimum focal distance is 1m, but between about 60mm to 80mm, it can focus as close as 0.27m. With good macro performance corner to corner, it focuses to 27cm from the film plane. Racked out at 80mm, it’s a beautiful portrait lens; at 35mm, there’s just a little barrell distortion. Fairly flare resistant. ... T2 mount means it can be adapted onto most cameras."​

 

[lxmike]

Nikon's Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 zoom. Kinda big and heavy, excellent IQ. And, bonus, it has a useful and usable Macro.

great lens, my dad stilll uses one🙂

 

[peterm1]

Nikon's Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 zoom. Kinda big and heavy, excellent IQ. And, bonus, it has a useful and usable Macro.

I presume Col Moran is speaking of the MF version but early AF ones also fall into the late end of this date range. I had a Nikkor 35-70 f/2.8 AF zoom at the time when I bought a late Nikkor 24-70mm f2.8 thinking I would later sell the 35-70mm lens. But I kept the 35-70mm as well because it is much smaller and lighter than its replacement. I saw an image comparison between the two on the web somewhere and the later lens was only a hair's breadth better when pixel peeping -its main advantage being its much wider field of view at the wide end. In most situations the image outcomes would be identical. Its image quality and smaller size made the earlier lens better for travelling, which is why is still have it.

The other lens of this era I have kept is the 80-200mm f2.8 AF which I enjoy using but this is a huge lens too and in its case when I travel I am often inclined to substitute another Nikkor of that era - the 70-210mm f4.5 -5.6 which is more of a consumer spec lens but like all Nikkors of that era is pretty well all metal and glass with excellent optics.

I love that era of glass (mainly because they provide high quality inexpensively) which tend to get overlooked unnecessarily today both by those who prefer earlier MF Nikkor lenses and those who prefer to go full modern with the latest Nikkor glass. Truth is they are all very good in their own way.

 

[skucera]

I've got a few zoom lenses from the Seventies and Eighties, and the only one that is any good is my Vivitar Series 1 70-210 macro. It's huge and the focus spins backward, but the image quality is amazingly sharp, especially in macro mode. I have other Vivitar zooms, a Tamron zoom, a Nikon zoom, Canon EF zooms for my EOS cameras, and they're all just ho-hum. I've also got a Minolta auto-focus zoom that's not bad, but not as good as the Series 1 macro zoom.

If you want to read about that Series 1 zoom, here are some links:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/vivitar/70-210mm.htm
http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm

Mine is the Variant 1, made for the Konica AR mount.

Scott

 

[ReeRay]

Only recently sold "The magic drainpipe" - Canon 80-200 f2.8 L parfocal. Bought new back end of the 80s and after years of heavy use the AF motor died on me. Great lens.

 

[Kent]

The Tamron 35-80/2.8 is a very sharp lens that challenged prime lenses for overall quality...

Indeed an excellent lens, only that it is not a constant f/2.8. It goes to f/3.8 at 80mm.

From the list above, I like the Tokinas. Both the 24-40 and the 60-120 are good lenses with the 60-120 being even a bit better IMHO.

And if you accept an f/3.5 instead of an f/2.8, you can find more very good old zoom lenses for even nicer prices. 😉

 

[Kent]

I've got a few zoom lenses from the Seventies and Eighties, and the only one that is any good is my Vivitar Series 1 70-210 macro. ... I have other Vivitar zooms, a Tamron zoom, a Nikon zoom, Canon EF zooms for my EOS cameras, and they're all just ho-hum.

I dare to disagree, Scott.

There are several very good zoom lenses from that era. But when we talk about used lenses, we never know how they have been handled. It easily imaginable that an old zoom lens has an "issue" somewhere and loses its quality.

 

[peterm1]

Lets face it there were and still are quite a few good lenses of that era. Apart from the Nikkor 35-70mm f2.8 AF that I still use, another I still enjoy is the Nikkor 28 - 85mm f3.5-4.5 AF - definitely not an F2.8 but it still is a good user lens which provides excellent sharpness (but is prone to flare like the dickens if a hood is not used when shooting towards the sun). I sold mine then bought another a couple of years later for about $100. Not bad for a nice sharp and quite smallish zoom in a very useful range. Not sure how it works on something with a 24 megapixel sensor or bigger but on my D700 it is still worth using.

 

[mod2001]

Had the Nikkor 28 - 85mm f3.5-4.5 AF for some time, until I saw the same 10cm x 15cm prints shoot by a friend with his fixed focal lengths during some holidays, using the same settings, same film and labor. The difference was quite obvious, his photos looked much sharper and somehow had more depth to it, more defined, which surprised me at this time (was never a pixelpeeper). Needless to say it was the last time I used zooms, as practical as they are, but as I shoot only betwen 28 and 50mm, no really burdon.

Maybe I give them another try, especially the 28 - 50mm f/3.5 AIS looks like the perfect walk around lens for me if I don't need the speed.

Jürgen