Your underrated lenses

These days there are plenty of lenses you can pick up for very little money.
I’m especially thinking of lenses from “dead” systems, like the Konica AR series (40/1.8, 28/3.5, 50/1.7, and I’d also add the 52/1.8—not outstanding, but it has a nice vintage character), or the Minolta classics that have already been mentioned (58/1.4, 50/1.7, 28/2.8, 35/2.8…).

I also wouldn’t overlook M42 screw-mount lenses. Some of them have become really affordable now, thanks to the decline of the “adapter ring craze” for mounting them on mirrorless cameras. For example, various Helios 58/2 versions (I personally like the 4, 6, and 7) are often selling for no more than €35–40. You can also find lenses like the Chinon 28/2.8 or the Yashinon M42s.

Then there are Fuji X bayonet lenses, such as the 28/3.5, and the Zuiko OM line, whose prices are dropping fast. Lately I’ve seen 28/2.8 or 28/3.5 models go for just over €60, and the 50/1.8 for around €40 (I actually picked one up for €25).

And if you look at less common systems like Rollei QBM, you can come across real bargains—lenses like the 50/1.8 or the 55/1.4 are often sold off at very low prices.
 
interesting series of observations

Unfortunately , liking the contents of pictures is often confused with equipment quality. Famous names as producers may easily be confused with quality (mainly because the fame was gained by past quality). Also, the use of materials, appearance and style will affect reputation and price.

Hence my contribution to this litany is only to echo a comment a few dozen posts above ad Panasonic L-mount 20-60 variable aperture plastic zoom. I have found it perfectly adequate (and not inferior to the really excellent but much wider Leitz wide zoom for the CL). I have not yet dropped it on a hard surface like what happened to a canon plastic 50mm so that it split in two. But unlike the Leitz zoom, the Panazoom sunshade clicks in place and is not as easily skewed or lost. Such small things also count.

I realize that making lenses optically cheaper and having the cameras correct the flaws creates larger markets. And that plastic construction instead of aluminium and brass (or magnesium), changing couplings and other tricks to create faster aging of ones lens library also keeps the industry alive; while those of us who just keep using less fashionable old equipment because we like the results contribute to the industry demise.

p.
I chose the Minolta lens for use on the M8 based on the performance over the center 2/3rds of the image.

minolta-a.jpg


I went through the 1976 Pop Photo tests of 32 50mm lenses and picked four for conversion. The Minolta- ended up getting most of the use.
(Looking closely at the chart- I believe the datapoint for F2 at 1/3rd out is in error, or my lens is just better than their test sample)
 
For a relatively short period between 1975-79 Nikon made a 6 element 35mm f2.8 that was better than the both the 7 element predecessor and 5 element successor, both of which are not so highly regarded.
This particular 35mm lens placed in-between may be a little difficult to identify and therefore mostly sell at the same (low) price as its successor.

It is absolutely worth picking up if you spot it.
Serial no. should be in the range 773111-870063.

It features two very thick elements which were said to be too expensive to produce for what was basically meant as an entry level lens.
View attachment 4876120View attachment 4876118
Interesting -- I just pulled out my two rubber-grip 35/2.8s. One is 877xxx so presumably one of the later five element lenses. It is AI and it gives excellent results. The second sounds like it's one of the six element lenses you mention -- 790xxx. It is pre-AI and has the narrower ribbing on the focusing ring, common among the K-type lenses (the first ones with the rubber focusing ring).

In short, based on my 790xxx and your AI lens pictured, this six element lens design seems to have bridged between the K version and the first AI version.
 
Not sure whether or not this is limited to 35mm -- the 40/2.8 in the Canonet 28 (the small bodied version) always impresses me. The 40/1.7 in the G III of course gets all the attention but the 2.8 is great.

So is the 2.8 in the Retina IIc.

For medium format, there are some excellent triplets -- the Yashikors in the Yashicamats. And, the various Novars and Nettars in the Zeiss Nettar folders. Not made by Zeiss I understand, but remarkably good.
 
I'm a big fan of underrated lenses. One man's trash is another man's treasure, you know. Recently I bought an old 35/2.8 Nikkor which is the same version I had for my Nikon F back in the early 1970s. Nostalgia I guess. I didn't expect much because that first 35/2.8 wasn't very memorable (although I did take some memorable photos with it--to me anyway). Big surprise. Damn lens is tack sharp, beautiful rendering that I love. Variation in manufacturing? Luck of the draw? Changes in attitude? Whatever.

Saw a photo of Sally Mann recently. She's the queen of worn out, defective and underrated lenses for her large format work. She had a digital Leica around her neck and it was wearing an old collapsible something or other lens. That made me happy to see that.





..................
 
From Dagors over Apo-Sironars, Tessars over Planars, I've often preferred lenses w character. The same with the Color-Skopar on the
diminutive 6x6 Voigtlander Perkeo ll. Not the fastest in use, but this one finds a place in my travel kit...& replaced the much better Plaubel Makina 670. This one has made quite a few fine images for me.IMG_9413.JPGIMG_8905.JPG
 
I m not sure if the Cooke Amotal is underrated or just little-known. Made for the Bell&Howell entrance to 35mm photography, which failed, it wound up in surplus when the cameras were not selling. I am not sure if the was overproduction by Cooke or cannibalization. There were some sent to Italy to be made into Leica screw mounts. Some were converted elsewhere. They have a reputation for sharpness and kindness with color. They also incorporate the "Cooke Look" glow with light. I stumbled across one and have been happy with how it works, bright light or dim. Here are two oft-posted images I use to illustrate how well it works, both an an M9,

L1002332 by West Phalia, on Flickr

L1002835 by West Phalia, on Flickr

Amotal.jpg
 
From Dagors over Apo-Sironars, Tessars over Planars, I've often preferred lenses w character. The same with the Color-Skopar on the
diminutive 6x6 Voigtlander Perkeo ll. Not the fastest in use, but this one finds a place in my travel kit...& replaced the much better Plaubel Makina 670. This one has made quite a few fine images for me.View attachment 4876298View attachment 4876300
Hard to believe a place like this exists. Dolomites I guess? Lovely.
 
I m not sure if the Cooke Amotal is underrated or just little-known. Made for the Bell&Howell entrance to 35mm photography, which failed, it wound up in surplus when the cameras were not selling. I am not sure if the was overproduction by Cooke or cannibalization. There were some sent to Italy to be made into Leica screw mounts. Some were converted elsewhere. They have a reputation for sharpness and kindness with color. They also incorporate the "Cooke Look" glow with light. I stumbled across one and have been happy with how it works, bright light or dim. Here are two oft-posted images I use to illustrate how well it works, both an an M9,

L1002332 by West Phalia, on Flickr
L1002835 by West Phalia, on Flickr

Nice composition, exposure and color balance on the boat pic.
 
From Dagors over Apo-Sironars, Tessars over Planars, I've often preferred lenses w character. The same with the Color-Skopar on the
diminutive 6x6 Voigtlander Perkeo ll. Not the fastest in use, but this one finds a place in my travel kit...& replaced the much better Plaubel Makina 670. This one has made quite a few fine images for me.View attachment 4876300
Beautiful, dramatic image. Nice job!
 
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.

I found the image. This was made with a Walker Titan 4x5 Pinhole camera which is still currently available from places like B&H. Pinholes are so underrated. I don’t have means to scan 4x5 yet and this is just an iPhone shot on a light box. The details on the truck is telling. It’ll be much better when properly scanned.

 
Back
Top Bottom