Hidden gems of independent lenses.

[cooltouch]

I have to add to the list with a Vivitar series 1 28/90. All metal and a lot of glass 2.8/3.5 zoom. Close focusses to I think 18". I have it in Minolta fitting. The only downside is it does vignette at 2.8 to 5.6.

. . .

They made a 28/105 ser 1 as well which came later but wasn't a patch on the 29/90. Perhaps a 'stretch too far'

I agree about the Vivitar S1 28-90. For years, it was my main walk-around lens and I've taken many a great shot with it. Yes, it's heavy, but I've always felt it was worth it. It was made by Komine, one of the better lens builders Vivitar used. The 28-105 S1 was made by Cosina and has never been as highly regarded as the 28-90. I have a copy of each. I should do a comparison between the two one of these days.

Tokina 3.5 17mm is great.
Exactly the same lens is offered by Tamron, Sigma and Spiratone.
I paid something like €75 used.

This isn't quite true. The Tokina and Tamron 17s are different lenses. Spiratone marketed at least two differeent 18mm's -- one made by Sigma. I don't recall ever seeing a Spiratone or Sigma 17mm, althoughthe 18mm's are considered as equivalent. I own a Tokina-made Vivitar 17/3.5 and the later model Tamron 17/3.5, and they're quite different in both appearance and performance. Most folks I've discussed them with who have had the opportunity to use both actually give a slight edge to the Tokina over the Tamron. Interestingly, those who have tried both the Tokina-made Vivitar and Tokina also give a slight edge to the Tokina over the Vivitar, chiefly because the Tokina got better coatings than the Vivitar did.

 

[NJH]

CV 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar, its a Leica screw mount job but really an amazing lens on an adaptor on just about any Leica M mount camera film or digital. I would go so far as to say its probably the best non Leica made lens for the M system, best of all they can be had for peanuts (relatively speaking) when they come up for sale.

 

[guangong]

Nobody has mentioned Kilfit lenses. I have several including 90mm macro, 150mm, 180mm and two 300mm, one with super macro focusing. These lenses would come packaged when new with test and quality testing results for each lens. I have adapters for Nikon and Leica but for the most part use on hassy 2000fcm.

 

[ColColt]

I still have the Vivitar Series I 90 f2.5 lens with macro adapter. It's been a superbly sharp lens from the beginning. I think I paid less than $100 for it around 1979.

 

[flavio81]

That's a pity, it's a wonderfully tough camera externally and the electronics are sound - it's just the padding for the mirror that needs replacing, new light seals (I could do those things) and the aperture lever for automatic diaphragm sometimes just... Locks up and won't move. Which is what needs the repair person, sadly. Actuating the shutter always fixes it, but potentially wastes a frame...

Typical symptoms of hardened /dried-up lubricants. Something very easy to fix for a technician!

 

[flavio81]

Most repair people that still work on Canon FD cameras won't touch the EF both because of its early complexity and the fragility of these complex circuits.

Cootouch,

This has been repeated often on the web, but after daring myself to open up my Canon EF for a repair, I must say it is not extremely complex nor fragile. Someday, i will post a little article (or similar) about repairing the Canon EF. It is well built on the inside and not exceedingly complex to service. It is, however, much more complex than a simple (low amount of features) SLR like a Pentax K1000 or a Nikon F.

 

[cooltouch]

Flavio, I do perform camera repairs on occasion, so what you wrote I consider to be great news. But I wasn't just pulling my statements out of thin air. I have a good friend who is now a retired camera tech, and he was the first person who told me about the EF and why techs don't like working on it. And that was some 25 years ago! I have since heard or read of other repair services declining to service EFs. So it wasn't just my friend.

I suspect it had mostly to do with the apparent fragility of the flex circuits, which may have become brittle over time. I have had apart Canon A-1s, and I also suspect that the A-1 is quite a bit more complex "under the hood" than the EF is, but the circuitry is much more highly integrated than it is with the EF. But my point is, I'm not afraid to have to handle cameras with even multiple flex circuits, as long as they still flex, that is.

 

[summicron1]

What would you consider the best bargains in lenses by independent makers ? I am curious as I have a great liking for Komine lenses by Vivitar and have just bought another 135mm f2.8 in OM mount. I have one like it in Nikon Ai mount and it is crazy sharp and has a lovely signature. Great bargain lens at a fantastically cheap price.

to respond to the op, the Leica 28-75 R Elmar Zoom, the original "Made in Japan" one may count because it was made by Tokina under Leica's quality controls, but because of its Japanese heritage can now be had for a LOT less than the later German ones.

Leica had Tokina make it because Wetzlar hadn't figured out zoom lenses yet and Tokina had. It's a good solid lens, very sharp, and can be had pretty cheap -- cupla hundred -- more than half what a comparable German lens would set you back.

 

[Toyo]

Another vote for the legendary stovepipe.
Vivitar (Komine) S1 28-90
Simply wonderful
T

 

[miha]

to respond to the op, the Leica 28-75 R Elmar Zoom, the original "Made in Japan" one may count because it was made by Tokina under Leica's quality controls, but because of its Japanese heritage can now be had for a LOT less than the later German ones.

Leica had Tokina make it because Wetzlar hadn't figured out zoom lenses yet and Tokina had. It's a good solid lens, very sharp, and can be had pretty cheap -- cupla hundred -- more than half what a comparable German lens would set you back.

Hi Summicron, Sigma, not Tokina.

 

[summicron1]

Hi Summicron, Sigma, not Tokina.

well, i was sure it was one of those. Great lens, in any event. thanks!

 

[Jim Jones]

A fairly inexpensive Promaster Digital EDO AF LD 11-18mm 1:4.5-5.6 bought for the rare times when such a WA lens was needed far exceeds my expectations.

 

[flavio81]

At one time all zoom lenses sucked. The major manufacturers saw no market for them until the Vivitar Series 1 turned the industry on it's ear.

This is not correct. Previous to the Vivitar Series 1 tele zoom, there were some high quality zoom lenses, like the Nikon 80-200/4.5. The problem is that they were very expensive. I, for example, own a 85-300 Canon Zoom lens from 1965 and it's a very good performer. But it was by far the most expensive lens on the lineup...

The Vivitar, while not cheap, was priced lower than the manufacturers' zooms, and this is what changed the industry.

There are a lot of hype regarding the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 being a revolutionary achievement and blah blah blah, but that's just hype. Or do you think that Ellis Betensky (optical designer of said zoom), probably a genius, but totally alone and by himself, with no computer of his own but "borrowing" computer time from Perkin-Elmer, is going to easily surpass the designs of the whole, all-conquering, lauded, proven, team of the japanese optical genii at Nikon, Canon and Asahi Pentax, all of them working as a team, having unlimited computer time and more resources, and willing to kill themselves if they don't surpass the competition? By 1974, when said Vivitar zoom was released, Canon already had its FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5, perhaps the first "standard zoom" with professional optical quality and the first production zoom using a 2-group system, a scheme which was going to be copied afterwards by the other manufacturers.

So high-quality zooms existed and were readily available by then, but not cheap at all.

The achievement by Vivitar was on daring to subcontract other good manufacturers (i.e. Tokina) so as to be able to offer a decent quality lower-priced third-party zoom. That was an achievement by itself. Bless Ellis, for his designs (particularly the fixed focal length lenses) are very interesting, beautifully made, and are still affordable in the secondhand market. But I feel the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 is a bit overhyped.

 

[flavio81]

On topic:

I would guess that for a list of "hidden gems" we should include the endless number of Tomioka-made lenses that were released with other brand labeling. Tomioka, if anybody does not know, is the optical powerhouse of Yashica and an excellent lens maker in its own right.

The other gems would probably be the lenses made by Mamiya and labeled with different brands such as "Sears". Also the OSAWA lenses which i guess were made by Mamiya, although on the 'net somebody mentions Osawa was a manufacturer as well.

 

[Alan Gales]

This is not correct. Previous to the Vivitar Series 1 tele zoom, there were some high quality zoom lenses, like the Nikon 80-200/4.5. The problem is that they were very expensive. I, for example, own a 85-300 Canon Zoom lens from 1965 and it's a very good performer. But it was by far the most expensive lens on the lineup...

The Vivitar, while not cheap, was priced lower than the manufacturers' zooms, and this is what changed the industry.

There are a lot of hype regarding the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 being a revolutionary achievement and blah blah blah, but that's just hype. Or do you think that Ellis Betensky (optical designer of said zoom), probably a genius, but totally alone and by himself, with no computer of his own but "borrowing" computer time from Perkin-Elmer, is going to easily surpass the designs of the whole, all-conquering, lauded, proven, team of the japanese optical genii at Nikon, Canon and Asahi Pentax, all of them working as a team, having unlimited computer time and more resources, and willing to kill themselves if they don't surpass the competition? By 1974, when said Vivitar zoom was released, Canon already had its FD 35-70 f2.8-3.5, perhaps the first "standard zoom" with professional optical quality and the first production zoom using a 2-group system, a scheme which was going to be copied afterwards by the other manufacturers.

So high-quality zooms existed and were readily available by then, but not cheap at all.

The achievement by Vivitar was on daring to subcontract other good manufacturers (i.e. Tokina) so as to be able to offer a decent quality lower-priced third-party zoom. That was an achievement by itself. Bless Ellis, for his designs (particularly the fixed focal length lenses) are very interesting, beautifully made, and are still affordable in the secondhand market. But I feel the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 is a bit overhyped.

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I started shooting 35mm in 1982, I both heard and read nothing but bad things about pre Vivitar Series 1 zoom lenses, especially concerning camera manufacturer's zooms. This was back in the 1980's when I was researching 35mm lenses.

I'm not saying you are wrong but this is the first time I have ever heard/read different.

 

[flavio81]

Hmmmm. Interesting.

I started shooting 35mm in 1982, I both heard and read nothing but bad things about pre Vivitar Series 1 zoom lenses, especially concerning camera manufacturer's zooms. This was back in the 1980's when I was researching 35mm lenses.

Well, we can put things into perspective and zoom lenses around that time were very expensive save for third-market zooms of poor quality plus the only "inexpensive" zoom lens, the Nikon 43-86/3.5 which sold like hotcakes since its introduction in the early 60s and has a deserved reputation for very POOR image quality, being exactly the same optical design from 1963 to 1977... It was made intentionally for low cost, not high image quality.

So what you read was accurate, unless we consider the more expensive zooms. By 1982 there were many really good quality zooms there, zooms that are still today high quality, for example the 80-200 of Canon and Nikon, the Canon FD 35-105/3.5 (a masterpiece even today), the Nikon 28-50/3.5, and others which have quality close to the quality of prime lenses and hold their value even today. But all those were very expensive lenses...

 

[Alan Gales]

Well, we can put things into perspective and zoom lenses around that time were very expensive save for third-market zooms of poor quality plus the only "inexpensive" zoom lens, the Nikon 43-86/3.5 which sold like hotcakes since its introduction in the early 60s and has a deserved reputation for very POOR image quality, being exactly the same optical design from 1963 to 1977... It was made intentionally for low cost, not high image quality.

So what you read was accurate, unless we consider the more expensive zooms. By 1982 there were many really good quality zooms there, zooms that are still today high quality, for example the 80-200 of Canon and Nikon, the Canon FD 35-105/3.5 (a masterpiece even today), the Nikon 28-50/3.5, and others which have quality close to the quality of prime lenses and hold their value even today. But all those were very expensive lenses...

Thanks for the info!

When I got into the game in 1982 it was said that the best current aftermarket zooms were on par with camera manufacturer's zooms but of course cost less. I bought a Tamron SP 80-200mm lens, I'm guessing in 1985 and it was very nice.

One interesting note. The camera stores at the time seemed to be pushing Tamron SP, Tokina ATX and Kiron over manufacturer's zooms. I later heard that the mark-up on aftermarket lenses was higher so they were more profitable to sell.

 

[flavio81]

One interesting note. The camera stores at the time seemed to be pushing Tamron SP, Tokina ATX and Kiron over manufacturer's zooms. I later heard that the mark-up on aftermarket lenses was higher so they were more profitable to sell.

LOL!

That's why one should never listen to what the salesman says...

Anyways those lines, Tamron SP, Tokina ATX and maybe Kiron, are very good brands, to be honest. Sigma, too.

 

[klownshed]

I'm another Adaptall 2 fan.

I have the 24, 28, 90Sp and 135mm primes and they're all good.

The 135 is a particularly good considering how little attention it gets (or got back in the day).

I also have the 24-48SP and 35-80SP zooms and they're both surprisingly good, but the 35-80 is a little gem.

 

[Alan Gales]

LOL!

That's why one should never listen to what the salesman says...

Anyways those lines, Tamron SP, Tokina ATX and maybe Kiron, are very good brands, to be honest. Sigma, too.

Yeah, I've been told wrong a few times by salesmen in camera stores.

I used to sell cameras myself for a department store. I worked in the Camera and Electronics and Sporting Goods and Books and Records department. I was one of the few employees who could actually load film into a 35mm camera.

 

[flavio81]

Yeah, I've been told wrong a few times by salesmen in camera stores.

I used to sell cameras myself for a department store. I worked in the Camera and Electronics and Sporting Goods and Books and Records department. I was one of the few employees who could actually load film into a 35mm camera.

Hahaha... i guess that's why 126 and 110 cameras were so popular? Easy loading.

 

[Black Dog]

+1 for the Tamron SPs!

 

[Dali]

LOL!

That's why one should never listen to what the salesman says...

I had the exact same feeling when Mamiya went almost bankrupt and dropped their 35mm camera line. Suddenly these cameras and lenses were the #1 recommendation of any salesman...

 

[Cholentpot]

Focal MC 135 2.8, I have it in K mount. Don't put it on a crop digi though, it only seems to be sharp on film or FF. It has a hint of swirlyness but not overdone. I think they were sold out of Sears or something.

 

[John_Nikon_F]

Most of the Tamron lenses are quite good, as are the Kiron lenses (as Kiron Kid has likely mentioned already)... I loved the old 17/3.5 Tamron SP. Quite a fun little lens.

-J