Your underrated lenses

[oldhaven]

A couple of Mamiya early lenses I like a lot. Again on my K-5 IIs. this is a 135/2.8 from very early in the TL Chrome nose lens period. It and the 35/2.8 below look never used, and I wonder if people bought the kit with common choice lenses of wide, normal and tele and then only used the normal prime lens. Now the adaptation to digital cameras has brought these out of hiding. I intend to use them both digitally and with m42 film cameras. The house across the bay is 1-1/4 mile away.

 

[oldhaven]

And the 35/2.8 Auto mamiya/sekor TL era, but late, no chrome nose. Again, same house 1-1/4 mile away.

 

[mtnbkr]

I think Canon FL lenses are underrated. I believe this is due to the need for stop-down metering and being overshadowed by the FD line. However, I actually like these lenses better than the FD line.

50/1.4 on Fuji Acros (the big chunk of petrified wood is about 3' long):


28/3.5 adapted to M4/3:


Chris

 

[Zuiko-logist]

I think Canon FL lenses are underrated. I believe this is due to the need for stop-down metering and being overshadowed by the FD line. However, I actually like these lenses better than the FD line.

50/1.4 on Fuji Acros (the big chunk of petrified wood is about 3' long):
View attachment 4885282

28/3.5 adapted to M4/3:
View attachment 4885283

Chris

Out of interest, why do you prefer FL to FD - rendering, mechanical quality or something else?

 

[mtnbkr]

Out of interest, why do you prefer FL to FD - rendering, mechanical quality or something else?

Rendering and mechanical quality. Though, the build quality of the FL lenses is similar to the early FD "breechlock" lenses (lots of metal, no plastic). I really can't explain it, but I feel like the images I get with the FL glass, especially in B&W, just speak to me.

Chris

 

[jaredangle]

I’m not sure if I’d quite say that the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D is “underrated,” but the used market certainly treats it that way from a price perspective. I got this one for $100 in mint condition. There’s a fair among of distortion at the wide end and it doesn’t have the fastest aperture, but the wide range of focal lengths, compact size, and generous macro ability make it a great “go anywhere, do everything” lens when I have plenty of light and don’t want to bring the full kit.





I would say that the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.1 is underrated. Plenty of people have complained about sharpness at f/1.1 and focus shift at f/2.8 to f/4, but I’m obsessed with the way it renders scenes. The wide-open performance isn’t a drawback for portraits, the bokeh is wonderful (slight swirl like a toned-down Helios 44-2), and the focus shift issue is moot on mirrorless. I use it all the time.

 

[38Deardorff]

I'm very fond of the Tessar on my Rolleiflex T....I've had Planars on a 2.8F..... but prefer the character of the Tessar.

 

[splitimageview]

I’m not sure if I’d quite say that the Nikon 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-D is “underrated,”

I'd say that it qualifies! Similarly, the 70-210 AF-D.

 

[KoNickon]

Rendering and mechanical quality. Though, the build quality of the FL lenses is similar to the early FD "breechlock" lenses (lots of metal, no plastic). I really can't explain it, but I feel like the images I get with the FL glass, especially in B&W, just speak to me.

Chris

Not the longer focal lengths, but the normals and wides were especially well finished-- matte chrome and black gloss paint. And the aperture rings are up front with handy grips, a la rangefinder lenses and the Zuikos -- very handy location.

 

[CMur12]

I'm very fond of the Tessar on my Rolleiflex T....I've had Planars on a 2.8F..... but prefer the character of the Tessar.
View attachment 4885290

I like Tessars and Tessar-types.

I, too, have and appreciate a Rolleiflex T. Other great Tessar-types are the Minolta version in the Autocord, the Schneider Xenar, Voigtlaender (Color-)Skopar, Agfa Solinar, Kodak Ektar, etc.

- Murray

 

[p.giannakis]

Every time I read a response in this thread I I remember another favourite lens that is underrated.

I will add the Triotar in that list. People go for Tessars, Xenars, Planars etc.. but the Triotar is such a nice lens really. Doesn't cope well with flare, so a hood is essential but other than that it is great little performer.

 

[Zuiko-logist]

100mm f/3.5 Zeiss Sonnar, Contax-Yashica.

The 85/2.8 Sonnar gets the vast majority of the kudos but the 100 is actually a better performer, according to the MTF charts.

Unfortunately Zeiss has removed the MTFs from their site! I have emailed them and received a response, hopefully they can supply copies for archiving.

Out of interest, did Zeiss explain why they had removed the MTF charts. Seems a useful thing to have and odd to remove.

 

[mtnbkr]

Not the longer focal lengths, but the normals and wides were especially well finished-- matte chrome and black gloss paint. And the aperture rings are up front with handy grips, a la rangefinder lenses and the Zuikos -- very handy location.

Great shout about the aperture rings. I like the location and shape (grips) as well.

Despite being the objectively better camera and lenses, I just prefer my Canon FL system to the FD system. Kind of like Jeremy Clarkson in this clip:


Chris

 

[Freakscene]

100mm f/3.5 Zeiss Sonnar, Contax-Yashica.

The 85/2.8 Sonnar gets the vast majority of the kudos but the 100 is actually a better performer, according to the MTF charts.

Unfortunately Zeiss has removed the MTFs from their site! I have emailed them and received a response, hopefully they can supply copies for archiving.

Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 3.5/100

They are on the web in a number of places. Not sure anything by Zeiss can be “under-rated”.

 

[Out to Lunch]

Not sure if underrated but for quite a long time, Canon's EF L lenses were standard kit for very many photojournalists. In particular, the EF L 2.8/16-35, the EF L 2.8/24-70, and the EF L 2.8/70-200. Of special mention is the EF L 1.2/85, AKA the pineapple. Many of the EF L lenses are still being used by Canon mirrorless users.

 

[splitimageview]

Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 3.5/100

They are on the web in a number of places. Not sure anything by Zeiss can be “under-rated”.

True, under rated is the wrong description for this lens, for those who know. But many don't, so perhaps 'unknown' is better.😎

Yes, the MTF charts can be found, but I do find it interesting that Zeiss removed them from their historical data pages. However their support was very responsive, they emailed me a zip with all of them.

 

[Leon C]

55/2.8 ais

If you mean the Micro Nikkor, then that's far from under-rated, it's one of Nikons better lenses.