Good, bad lenses

[dmr]

I found a Tele-Lentar 135/3.5 at Goodwill in 2010, and I was actually pretty impressed with it. The build quality wasn't up to Takumar standards, but it was decent.

This was possibly the same lens I remember.

Does yours vignette, particularly at wide apertures?

I got curious and googled a bit. It seems that at least some Lentar lenses were rebranded Tokina, which I've always heard good things about.

Back in the day, it seemed like Lentar, Cambron, and Spiratone were the Rodney Dangerfields of third-party lenses.

Cambron was the house brand of Cambridge Camera, which at the time had the reputation of being shysters.

Spiratone was the house brand of, well, Spiratone which was more noted for accessories and gadgets and such. I had a number of Spiratone filters and whatzits, particularly back when I was shooting tungsten Ektachrome in daylight.

Speaking of BAD lenses and Spiratone, my brother had this incredibly cheap Spiratone 400mm (I think) lens for his old Pentax HV. This was what he called his "beach lens" and he used it for, well, LOL! It had an incredibly funky two-ring aperture thing, for focusing wide open and then stopping down for taking. I use this a couple of times on my Spotmatic and found it very awkward to use. I really don't remember much about the quality of the lens or images.

 

[Swift1]

This was possibly the same lens I remember.

Does yours vignette, particularly at wide apertures?

I got curious and googled a bit. It seems that at least some Lentar lenses were rebranded Tokina, which I've always heard good things about.

My Lentar was made by Tokina AFAIK. In my use, it didn't have noticeable vignetting even wide open.
Here's a photo of my lens,

 

[pagpow]

Does anyone like or use any of the Lentar lenses?

When I was young(er) these had the reputation of being about the worst el-cheapo M42 lenses around. LOL, "sub-Spiratone." The only one I ever remember was one a friend got (135 IIRC) which was soft in performance and had terrible vignetting.

See #38 in this thread

 

[dmr]

Got a Lentar 250mm 5.6 mirror with a large amount of fall-off and not sure it has high resolving power, but transparencies of flowers taken with it have them standing out beautifully. Sure it does not rank with the Minolta 250 reflex in terms of stats. The results I like are due completely to its technical deficiencies. Thanks for starting this thread, Roger -- except, of course, for the effect it will have on cheap good bad lens prices.

I musta missed this one.

I guess some of the Lentars are fairly good, and others not so good. Consistently inconsistent.

Same with Takumars, actually. They have a reputation for being consistently good, but the one I posted on earlier is known to have some obvious issues.

 

[kuuan]

...
Same with Takumars, actually. They have a reputation for being consistently good, but the one I posted on earlier is known to have some obvious issues.

The Takumar 28-80 f3.5-4.5 zoom that you had mentioned is a budget line, single coated Pentax K Bajonett lens.
These budget K mount lenses are distinct and very different to all the earlier M42 lenses made by Pentax known as Takumars.
The screwmount M42 Takumars have great build and, for their time, superior coatings and rightfully can be considered consistently good.

It is unfortunate and confusing that Pentax called later non-MC budget K mount zooms also Takumars, actually A-Takumars ( your lens, right? ) and F-Takumars. To avoid confusion between the earlier M42 Takumars, about 50 prime lenses and 4 zooms, and these later Pentax K single coated budget zooms, for better classification e.g. the Pentax lens database doesn't call these Takumars but instead "non-MC Pentax zoom lenses": https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/Pentax-Takumar-A-28-80mm-F3.5-4.5-Zoom-Lens.html

 

[dmr]

The Takumar 28-80 f3.5-4.5 zoom that you had mentioned is a budget line, single coated Pentax K Bajonett lens. These budget K mount lenses are distinct and very different to all the earlier M42 lenses made by Pentax known as Takumars. The screwmount M42 Takumars have great build and, for their time, superior coatings and rightfully can be considered consistently good.

Mine is indeed the Takumar-A.

That review you cited is typical, the "it sucks but I love it" opinion.

Mine was a local Camera Show Special some years back. I offered him a ridiculous low-ball offer and he went for it. This was on the last day of the show as everyone was starting to pack up.

I know it's notoriously bad, but for some reason it's often the one I grab when I go out shooting film.

 

[dee]

....my fave was a Vivitar 100mm f2.8 in MC - instant soft focus, alternating between flair and flare !
The Mr Kipling moment 'making surprisingly good lenses ... ' for the M8 [ Contax adapter ] £20 new Helios , Brian Sweeney J3 Contaxed , Fed 50 f3.5 39mm collapsible which should not be compatible , various Contax J8 .

 

[Roger Hicks]

....my fave was a Vivitar 100mm f2.8 in MC - instant soft focus, alternating between flair and flare !
The Mr Kipling moment 'making surprisingly good lenses ... ' for the M8 [ Contax adapter ] £20 new Helios , Brian Sweeney J3 Contaxed , Fed 50 f3.5 39mm collapsible which should not be compatible , various Contax J8 .

Dear Dee,

Beautifully phrased!

Cheers,

R.

 

[02Pilot]

I'm not sure it qualifies since it's a fixed lens (on a box camera, no less), but I love the cemented doublet on my Ilford Craftsman. It's got a unique look that I've never found in another camera, box or otherwise.

 

[F456]

Fair enough, but this stands outside budget to some extent. The 35 pre-aspheric Summilux, for example, is silly-expensive but has a unique look. The Porst, on the other hand, is silly-cheap but has a unique look. I'm talking about lenses that are objectively inferior but which we like not despite their faults, but because of them.

Cheers,

R.

Roger, mine would have to be the little pre-aspheric Summilux 35mm too. I bought it because you said in a 1980s' or 1990s' book that night-time street pictures should be taken with discretion, preferably in conjunction with an M-series Leica and a 35/1.4 Summilux. I soon found it perfect for virtually all the photography that I do and It's still my favourite lens. If objectively worse than its successors it's subjectively better because the faults help draw my attention to the focused, usually human, subject. At full aperture that focused subject looks quite dreamy and the lack of contrast is flattering to skin. When looking at a face, who cares whether a peripheral out of focus street light looks correct or like a bleached banana?

I have yet to try out my Noctilux f/1, unused simply because I've been too busy. With use that might turn out to vye with the old Summilux 35 for my very best lens with faults. Do you think lenses are like human faces: more beautiful in effect for having a distinctive imperfection?

All the best,

Tom

 

[raid]

The pre-asph Lux 35mm is not a cheap lens. It is my top choice for travel gear when I pick my photography gear for a trip.

 

[Steve M.]

No thread featuring good, bad lenses would be complete w/o a few shots from the plastic fantastic cheap cameras. Here's mine from an old Diana Stellar Holga like camera. I have no idea what focal length the lens was, nor what aperture settings it had. All I know is it was a plastic lens that was far better than it should have been. Tri-X in D76 full strength.

Pretty good, right? Unfortunately, consistency is the hobgoblin of plastic lenses on plastic cameras, as more often than not you got shots like this

My Dacora 1 folder was also capable of frustratingly erratic shots. From this

To this

 

[bmattock]

Ah, yes, though I think it was spelled Portragon with an R. I used to have one but I much prefer the 90/4 Dreamagon with its weird "radiation symbol" diaphragm. Then there's the Subjektiv with its choice of glass lens, plastic lens, pinhole and zone plate, in about a 65mm mount, and of course the dear old Lensbaby.

In all fairness I think that the Portragon was easily the worst of that crew, even to the extent that I'd call it a bad, bad lens -- albeit deliberately bad.

Cheers,

R.

It's a deliberately bad lens, as you said. I like the badness of it, to be honest.



Hot Rod by Wigwam Jones, on Flickr

 

[kshapero]

a few, older lenses that come to my mind

e.g. a Komura LTM f3.5/105mm
first sample I had reduced "clarity" in Lightroom:

Untitled by andreas, on Flickr


even without PPing which pushes the result in a certain way as above, not only softness caused of simple coating makes results unique but specially also amazing colors

Love this shot.

 

[giganova]

[deleted because not relevant]

 

[giganova]

Picked up a Russian 1950s 50mm Jupiter 8 not long ago.

Thanks for posting! Now I know which lens to avoid in the future

 

[giganova]

a better known lens, Sonnar Canon LTM f1.5/50mm. My copy possibly is not a best performing one due to little haze ...


malu ( shy ) by andreas, on Flickr

A little haze, ya think? LOL

 

[NaChase]

I really like my Canon 50 1.2 LTM. In fact, I bought it because of its characteristics rather than in spite of them.
Black and White Weekend by Nick Chase, on Flickr

 

[peterm1]

I really like my Canon 50 1.2 LTM. In fact, I bought it because of its characteristics rather than in spite of them.
Black and White Weekend by Nick Chase, on Flickr

Mine works well in some situations as in the image below (in my view) but is terrible in some situations such as when there is backlighting (though this is admittedly aggravated by roached coatings on the front element).
Those Eyes - Color by Life in Shadows, on Flickr