Your underrated lenses

[Archiver]

Everyone talks about their Summicrons, their Biogons or Sonnars, but what about the inexpensive or otherwise underrated lenses you own?

My first DSLR was the Canon 30D, which came with the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6. Within a few months, I got the expensive EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 for the wider aperture and didn't touch the 17-85 after that. But a couple of weeks ago, I picked up the 17-85 out of curiosity and had a look at it. Given Canon's 1.6x crop, it's like 27-136mm in full frame, which is a versatile zoom range. The photos I shot with it back then were sharp and clear, and the zoom range meant I could grab images from across the street. The long end is even better than the often used 24-105mm focal length on full frame, or 24-120 if you're a Nikonian. The 17-85 is quite compact due to its slow aperture range, but it's not a bad lens at all. Hypothetically, I could get a secondhand 90D and pair it with the 17-85 for a more modern experience.

What are your underrated lenses?

 

[rfaspen]

To be honest. The lens that " opened my eyes" to both lens quality and rangefinders was the lens in my Minolta Hi-Matic E. I'm still stunned at some of images that thing made. 40/1.7 Rokkor
That was a lifetime ago. Got more lenses now and tough to choose the hidden gems among them. Duds on the other hand........

 

[markjwyatt]

The Konica Big Mini with its Hexar 35mm f3.5 lens is a nice performer. I like the lens rendering on it.


beach by Mark Wyatt, on Flickr

 

[Erik van Straten]

I didn´t expect much of the new, small 40mm f2.8 LTM asph, but it is better than I thought.

gelatin silver print (heliar 40mm f2.8) leica lll

Utrecht, 2022. My brother at work.

 

[AlwaysOnAuto]

My Sony 28-70 is considered a 'kit' lens in the Sony world. It was one of the first native lenses I bought used when I got into using native glass on my NEX-7.
I've been pleasantly surprised at the quality of the shots I'm able to get with it. For the $100 I spent, I think I've gotten my money's worth from it.

 

[MarkWalberg]

Everyone talks about their Summicrons, their Biogons or Sonnars, but what about the inexpensive or otherwise underrated lenses you own?

My first DSLR was the Canon 30D, which came with the EF-S 17-85mm f4-5.6. Within a few months, I got the expensive EF-S 17-55mm f2.8 for the wider aperture and didn't touch the 17-85 after that. But a couple of weeks ago, I picked up the 17-85 out of curiosity and had a look at it. Given Canon's 1.6x crop, it's like 27-136mm in full frame, which is a versatile zoom range. The photos I shot with it back then were sharp and clear, and the zoom range meant I could grab images from across the street. The long end is even better than the often used 24-105mm focal length on full frame, or 24-120 if you're a Nikonian. The 17-85 is quite compact due to its slow aperture range, but it's not a bad lens at all. Hypothetically, I could get a secondhand 90D and pair it with the 17-85 for a more modern experience.

What are your underrated lenses?

I bought a Konica AR 50/1.7 after reading Sonnar Brian's praise for it. Very nice lens for very little money.

 

[santino]

I bought a Konica AR 50/1.7 after reading Sonnar Brian's praise for it. Very nice lens for very little money.

I don’t know that lens and now I want one 😉

 

[Zuiko-logist]

In the same vein as the above posters, the Konica C35 lens is outstanding and the Pentax Espio Mini 32mm lens really has something special, especially for daylight, indoor colour. Also enjoy the Canon LTM 50/1.8 and Nikon AF600 / Lite touch 35/3.5.

 

[Zuiko-logist]

I bought a Konica AR 50/1.7 after reading Sonnar Brian's praise for it. Very nice lens for very little money.

Forgot about this one - absolutely agree. A great bargain.

 

[Rayt]

Before sheet film got crazy expensive I shot with a 4x5 pinhole camera and the images were surprisingly outstanding. The angle of view was akin to shooting with a 43mm on a 6x7 or 21/24-ish on 135 format. I wish I could post some but none of my large format negatives are digitized. The dreamy diffused look of pinhole really matched certain kind of photography so I used it for Route 66 roadtrips. Everything has its purpose.

 

[agentlossing]

In the same vein as the above posters, the Konica C35 lens is outstanding and the Pentax Espio Mini 32mm lens really has something special, especially for daylight, indoor colour. Also enjoy the Canon LTM 50/1.8 and Nikon AF600 / Lite touch 35/3.5.

I had a functioning C35 more than a decade ago, and it produced some really great images. I have looked at them since, but the condition of the ones you find for sale is so spotty. Also, Ricoh based the lens for the new Pentax 17 off the Espio Mini lens.

I have always considered the two Panasonic pancake lenses for Micro 4/3, the 14mm f2.5 and 20mm f1.7, to be rather underrated. Many people love them, but they're rather overshadowed by the bigger, heavier and more corrected glass which has been released for that format more recently.

 

[Sanug]

There are even Leitz lenses that are underrated. I bought a 1951 Elmar 1:4/9cm LTM for an incredibly cheap price and was surprised about its quality on film after some cleaning.






Canon 7s
Leitz Elmar 4/9cm (coated)
Orwo NP100
Adox XT-3, 1+2, 12 Min.
Plustek Opticfilm 7300, Vuescan

It is also nice with color film.



Canon 7s
Leitz Elmar 4/9cm (coated)
Kodak Gold 200
Adox C-Tec C-41 Kit
Plustek Opticfilm 7300, Vuescan

 

[Peter_S]

VM Heliar f/3.5 50mm.

 

[p.giannakis]

If you had asked this question 15-20 years ago, when adapting vintage lenses to digital was not a thing, I would very easily answer that Takumars and Zuikos are sold at prices that was a criminal offence. Same also for Rokkors. Twenty years fast forward and everyone is aware of their merits.

If I had to name a few today I would say:

a) K-mount Ricoh lenses. I don't own any anymore but every single one I ever used was an excellent lens. From 28mm to 50mm, they were all brilliant.

b) for me, the M-line lenses from Pentax (K-mount) are outstanding. Very well built, excellent performance and compact. The most I paid was £50 for the 35f/2.8 (although this one is more expensive nowadays). The rest varied from £2 to £20 for the 50f/1.4. I also owned the 40f/2.8 but I was never impressed. Maybe a bad copy, maybe poor ergonomics or its just that the 35f/2.8 is a much better lens.

 

[Sanug]

Yes, the SMC Pentax-M lenses are still underrated, although some of the prices went up. I like the very small and lightweight 4/20mm.


Pentax MX
SMC Pentax-M 4/20mm
Kodak Gold 200
Adox C-Tec C-41 Kit
Plustek Opticfilm 7300, Vuescan

The SMC Pentax-M 2/85mm is also very nice. Same data like before, except the lens.


I like the small size and weight of the Pentax ME super, MX, and the M series lenses. Compared with a Praktica MTL 5 with Zeiss Jena Flektogon 4/20mm...

 

[Darinwc]

If you had asked this question 15-20 years ago, when adapting vintage lenses to digital was not a thing, I would very easily answer that Takumars and Zuikos are sold at prices that was a criminal offence. Same also for Rokkors. Twenty years fast forward and everyone is aware of their merits.

If I had to name a few today I would say:

a) K-mount Ricoh lenses. I don't own any anymore but every single one I ever used was an excellent lens. From 28mm to 50mm, they were all brilliant.

b) for me, the M-line lenses from Pentax (K-mount) are outstanding. Very well built, excellent performance and compact. The most I paid was £50 for the 35f/2.8 (although this one is more expensive nowadays). The rest varied from £2 to £20 for the 50f/1.4. I also owned the 40f/2.8 but I was never impressed. Maybe a bad copy, maybe poor ergonomics or its just that the 35f/2.8 is a much better lens.

View attachment 4875741

Good to know about the pentax 35mm. I am looking for a small lens for my ME Super. I've been weary of the 40mm though partly due to the higher price and partly due to the mixed reviews.

 

[p.giannakis]

Good to know about the pentax 35mm. I am looking for a small lens for my ME Super. I've been weary of the 40mm though partly due to the higher price and partly due to the mixed reviews.

It made a nice compact set but I don't think it worth the price. The 50f/1.7 or the 35f/2.8 are easier to operate and better optically at open apertures.

 

[valdas]

Konica Hexanon 28mm/F3.5 - very cheap, but very good (at least my copy).​

 

[Sanug]

I cannot complain about the SMC Pentax-M 2.8/40mm pancake. The images from my copy are indistinguishable from other lenses. And I was lucky to get it very cheap. Yes, the ergonomics is not so nice, but the ME super is really compact size and lightweight with it.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

I think screw-on close-up lens are underrated. Good quality close-up lenses can produce surprisingly good images. I have a Pentax close-up lens that gives excellent results (see below). I also just picked up a set of Nikon close-up lenses that I have been playing with but haven't finished off the roll yet.



Taken with Pentax SL, 50mm f/1.4 S-M-C Takumar w/ Pentax No. 1 close-up lens, f/2.8, 1/60th, FP4+ developed by Fulltone Photo.