Your underrated lenses

[Pioneer]

Every Pentax M 50mm lens I have ever owned has been great, but for the money you pay for one today I don't think you can get a better lens than the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2.

 

[boojum]

A CV Ultron 35mm f/1.7 fell into my lap. It has poor reviews and is not much desired. Kind of the redheaded stepchild of CV, like the M240 is in the Leica family. But these two unwanted stepchildren play well together. ;o) You know MS used to rate employees as either "Runs with scissors" or "Plays well with others." This lens-camera combo is "Plays well with others."

M2419847 by West Phalia, on Flickr​

 

[Archiver]

@Erik van Straten Your photos always look so classic and timeless!

@p.giannakis @Sanug I adore my Pentax ME, and wish that someone would make a full frame mirrorless camera in this same size and form factor. The ME is the same width and height as the Panasonic GX85, and only 1.5cm longer, so it's a delightfully compact SLR. Pentax M lenses are the bessst.

 

[WJJ3]

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?

The Canon 17-85 is a really capable 1-lens kit. I bought one cheap several years ago with a broke AF motor and had it repaired by Canon. I've been shooting it a bit this summer on hiking trips. Another EF lens I think is underrated is the Compact Macro 50/2.5.

 

[boojum]

I have a Sony 24 - 240 zoom, made in China, which has been good at all focal lengths and f-stops. With this on my A7 I am good to go for just about anything. I believe I shot most if not all of the Our Lady of Chartres in Chartres with it and it did alright. Chartres

This is a working parish church. I have been there during a baptism and a during a wedding. Imagine!

 

[Archiver]

The Canon 17-85 is a really capable 1-lens kit. I bought one cheap several years ago with a broke AF motor and had it repaired by Canon. I've been shooting it a bit this summer on hiking trips. Another EF lens I think is underrated is the Compact Macro 50/2.5.

The 17-85 surprises me with how small it is for such a zoom range, especially for DSLR lenses. I'm thinking of taking it out for a spin this weekend and seeing what I can do with it now.

 

[Disappointed_Horse]

Every Pentax M 50mm lens I have ever owned has been great, but for the money you pay for one today I don't think you can get a better lens than the SMC Pentax-M 50mm f2.

Good call. I have always been very pleased with the performance of my 50mm f/2 SMC Pentax M lens:

 

[d__b]

The Canon RF35mm F1.8 MACRO IS STM is a little bit of an overlooked lens in Canon's modern mirrorless lineup. It's not too expensive, it's compact, it focusses really close (1:2) and it has image stabilisation. But aside from the features I also really like how sharp it is (without being harsh) and how it renders out of focus elements in the picture.

Athens by David B, on Flickr

 

[kxl]

I have some Light Lens Lab and Thypoch Simera lenses--do they fit the definition of underrated?

 

[Darinwc]

* Pentax Takumar 55mm f1.8.
People rave about the f1.4 but the f1.8 is way better.

 

[Archiver]

I have some Light Lens Lab and Thypoch Simera lenses--do they fit the definition of underrated?

If you think they're great, and you also think they don't get the attention they deserve, then yes! 😄

 

[Out to Lunch]

Among the super-wides, the Voigtlander Super-Wide Heliar 4.5/15 V.III stands out. With the Epson R-D1x and Voigtlander Zoomfinder 15-35.

 

[p.giannakis]

* Pentax Takumar 55mm f1.8.
People rave about the f1.4 but the f1.8 is way better.

I agree 👍

 

[Mos6502]

CZJ Pancolar 2/50. Everybody knows the later Pancolar 1.8/50 and it's become a sought after lens. But the 2/50 is sharp, contrasty, and has a lovely OOF rendering, and is a fantastic lens in its own right. You can find a good 2/50 for half the price of a good 1.8/50.

paint by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Pentacon 3.5/30, compact, and gives a "perfect" wide angle view IMO, between a 35mm lens (which often seems not wide enough) and 28mm lens (where the angle of view begins to become noticeably "unnatural"). Sharp, and render colors beautifully.

Peugeot by Berang Berang, on Flickr

Schneider 1.9/50 Xenon. Widely regarded as one of the best lenses available in the 1950s, seems relatively overlooked today. In a test of all my vintage fast 50s, it came out on top for center sharpness (but lagged behind on corner sharpness even stopped down). Tremendously good color rendition on slide film, and dreamy OOF rendering for the boke' enthusiast. My favorite version is the 1950's production with a 20 leaf diaphragm and a magnificently constructed and ergonomic lens barrel.

Untitled by Berang Berang, on Flickr

I have some very strange lenses, and some common but unfairly maligned types (personally, I quite like the Meritar 2.9/50 for instance) but the above are lenses I think most people understand are good, but few understand just how good.

 

[santino]

This thread will possibly drive prices up 😉

About 15 years ago I got a C/Y Yashica 50mm 1,4 for 16. I‘m still convinced that it is as sharp as the Planar and has better out of focus rendition due to more aperture blades. It only has a slightly worse coating.

 

[Sanug]

Pentacon 3.5/30, compact, and gives a "perfect" wide angle view IMO, between a 35mm lens (which often seems not wide enough) and 28mm lens (where the angle of view begins to become noticeably "unnatural"). Sharp, and render colors beautifully.

Peugeot by Berang Berang, on Flickr

It is also known as Meyer Görlitz Lydith. The Pentacon labelled lenses are of later production after Meyer was integrated into VEB Pentacon. You may get the Pentacon branded lenses for a lower price, only for the name.

I can also recommend the Meyer Görlitz Orestor / Pentacon 2.8/100mm. Sharp with a beautiful rendering. It is a lot cheaper and a good alternative to the overpriced Zeiss Jena Pancolar 1.8/80mm.



Praktica MTL5
Meyer Orestor 2.8/100
Adox HR-50
Adox XT-3, 1+3, 16 Min.
Silver Gelatine Print

 

[dexdog]

This is a working parish church. I have been there during a baptism and a during a wedding. Imagine!

Love the images, dude.

 

[dexdog]

Canon 50/1.8 LTM and Topcor 50/2 LTM

 

[pgk]

Here are a couple of shots taken on two very different lenses:


The first was taken on an 1862 Grubb Petzval lens on a Sony A7II using an Arca Swiss M/F-Line body as the main system. The second was on a Leica M9 using a late (E46) 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar lens. The designs are over 100 years apart. Neither are exactly cheap but then again by today's costs neither are expensive either.

 

[chuckroast]

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 have two of them:

I "settled" on the 21mm f/4 LTM Color-Skopar when I saw the prices of an M mount 21mm. It had the added advantage of being usable on both Barnack and M bodies. I didn't know what to expect but when I looked at the first prints I was just blown away. Tack sharp, corner to corner stopped down even a small amount, great contrast, and a wonderful overall rendering in monochrome at least.

I have an AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm zoom. I love the lens but it won't work with my legacy Nikon film bodies and it is a big fella - a lot to haul around . So I found a really cheap Nikon AF-D 28-70mm zoom. I think I paid something like $70 all in for it. It works with both my F3 and D750. I took that lens to Italy last year and Greece this year and couldn't be happier. It is very sharp, has wonderful color rendering and is just the right size for a "wandering around" lens. On neither trip did I remotely miss the 28-300 - a lens I still love when I go out in nature, so say, the autumnal color changes or the winter in Alaska.

I think people overlook these older lenses because they think old means worse. But the older primes were- and are spectacular. (The older 1970s era zooms were hot garbage, though). The AF-D zoom is a bit slow in autofocus, but I don't care. I'm not shooting sports or SI covers...