Lens snobbery

Melvin J Bramley · Feb 22, 2025

I have had my share of lenses through the years .
Some name brand lenses and some third party lenses that I have owned have been deemed, on the internet, to be substandard.
My experience would suggest that whilst there are some stellar OEM lenses there are many third party lenses of equal or better performance.
What are your experiences ?

BrianShaw · Feb 22, 2025

Same. And then there are some lenses that reflect the poor impression they made on the internet.

MattKing · Feb 22, 2025

With lenses for 35mm cameras, the only lens related issues I've encountered that were problematic came from 3rd party lenses with poor build quality, not poor optics.

jimjm · Feb 23, 2025

I've found that the Cosina-made Voigtlander lenses for Leica and Nikon S mount are overall an excellent value. Mechanics and ergonomics are very good and optical qualities have never let me down.
I shoot all film, so pixel-peeping has never been a desire of mine. If a lens is a true dog, I'll see it right away once I start making prints.
I have a VC Nokton 35/1.4 lens that basically lives on my Leica M2 or M5, whichever one I'm carrying.

loccdor · Feb 23, 2025

Most lenses I've used have been good. The average I've paid for a lens must be around $75.

Lenses that have not been good:

Point and shoot zooms at the long end of the zoom range. Wide end is great
Lenses that were misaligned or had been worked on incorrectly, or were hazed
Very cheap very long telephotos
Old third party ultrawide zooms

halfaman · Feb 23, 2025

The only lens I can remember having clear optical problems was a Volna-3 I owned for the Kiev-60, rendering was similar to a Petzval lens even closed down. Beside this case, the rest of lenses of any format or system I came across was none bad. My current analog Canon EF system is made of cheap brand amateur zooms that I got for peanuts (28-70 mm f/3.5-4.5, 80-200 mm f/4.5-5.6). They are light, compact and the results with film are amazingly good. In my digital age I used a lot of Tamron lenses that never dissapointed me, and I still own a Tokina AT-X 17 mm f/3.5 that has very low distorsion. The only points where third party manufacturers were behind official camera brands was AF and coatings to a less extent, but not anymore since years.

I don't care anymore about MTF charts with modern lenses (late 1980's and beyond), the only reason I justify now to bring a lens with me is due to expected light availability relative to film speed. I rarely need f/2.8 or less (portraits aside), with f/5.6 I am normally good to go and it is very difficult to find a lens that doesn't behave well on that aperture.

Dali · Feb 23, 2025

OEM lenses are often globally (optical + mechanical) better than thirty party lenses but it rarely translate on the print.

When an OEM lens has an optical flaw, we say it has a « signature ». With a third party lens, we say it has a defect or a weakness.

snusmumriken · Feb 23, 2025

There’s a certain inverted snobbery in the title of this thread, isn’t there? I would certainly be offended if anyone disparaged my photos because the taking lens wasn’t expensive. But I don’t think people do that, on the whole. I assume what you are really asking is whether those who spend more on a lens are deluded.

The trouble is, you need to take into account the conditions of use. If you always use your lenses at f/5.6 or smaller, always 35mm format, always handheld, and only view the result after scanning the negatives, you may never notice the difference between two lenses, and the cheaper one would be sufficient.

I have experience of only four lenses prior to the two I own currently. I used all four for about 20 years, and of those original four, three were disappointing in the long run. I can honestly say that I really notice the difference since I cashed them in, paid more and moved on.

xkaes · Feb 23, 2025

I see it more as "Brand" snobbery, and that applies to cameras as well as lenses -- and it's here to stay.

I always got a kick out of "taking pictures" with my brother-in-law. He used an expensive Nikon with inexpensive lenses, and I used a "lowly" Minolta with Minolta lenses.

He could never figure out why my pictures of the same subject were noticeably "better".

That said, most lenses have a sweet-spot where the results are "the best they can be". You can get great results with less expensive lenses if you know where that is. More expensive lenses usually have a wider sweet-spot. This is very apparent with enlarging lenses. For example, the three-element Schneider Componar lenses give great results around f8, while the four-element Comparon lenses give great results from f5.6-11, The six-element Componon lenses are even more forgiving.

Petrochemist · Feb 23, 2025

Most of my lenses have been dirt cheap. I've occasionally had results I've been very happy with from 'rubbish' lenses & have some well regarded lenses that have never worked well for me.

However I have found the CZJ Flektogon 35mm/2.4 I picked up to be significantly better than average, so perhaps there is something behind it's reputation. My copy was surprisingly cheap it came as part of a job lot (3 lenses, film body, flash, bag etc) for only £10 when the typical e-bay price for the lens alone was £200.

I have to admit to a degree of inverse snobbery, enjoying getting nice results from cheap gear, but this is to some extent forced on me - There's no way I could afford to keep a top quality system up to date. Going to the other extreme I can build multiple systems for slightly different requirements, ranging from the ultra portable Pentax Q, through to FF digital & large format film. (with far to many intermediate steps available)

I guess if I was to sell off a hundred or so of my less used lenses & a number of the older bodies the extra space gained would be a big benefit. I don't expect the funds raised to be significant however

BrianShaw · Feb 23, 2025

Dali said:
OEM lenses are often globally (optical + mechanical) better than thirty party lenses but it rarely translate on the print.

When an OEM lens has an optical flaw, we say it has a « signature ». With a third party lens, we say it has a defect or a weakness.

Interesting observation! I have two 135mm Rikenon lenses, made by two different suppliers. One had a signature and the other clearly has a defect. The flare characteristic is astoundingly different.

ic-racer · Feb 23, 2025

Lens resolution plays almost little or no role in my photography (with the stash of lenses I have available). I can mention that because the last time I owned a crummy interchangeable lens was in the 1970s. Since then I stuck with name-brand interchangeable lenses and really don't worry about "Lenses."

I usually choose my interchangeable lenses based on maximum aperture, how they focus, and how they transfer aperture information.

loccdor · Feb 23, 2025

The spot where having very high resolution matters is when using with a teleconverter.

xkaes · Feb 23, 2025

loccdor said:
The spot where having very high resolution matters is when using with a teleconverter.

That's for sure, but just as with lenses there are differences in the optical quality of tele-converters too -- with anywhere from three to seven elements.

loccdor · Feb 23, 2025

xkaes said:
That's for sure, but just as with lenses there are differences in the optical quality of tele-converters too -- with anywhere from three to seven elements.

Very true. I tend to not go third party with teleconverters.

benjiboy · Feb 23, 2025

I have fourteen Canon FD lenses, and one Tamron SP 17 mm f3.5 lens, most of which I bought second hand over the last thirty odd years, I never worry about the quality because they are all better lenses than I will ever be a photographer.

Pieter12 · Feb 23, 2025

I know several photographers who make their own fairly primitive lenses, giving their work a uniquely personal look. One grinds his own, another uses elements from a variety of sources.

Sirius Glass · Feb 23, 2025

For some cameras it does not make sense to look for second party manufacturers: example Hasselblad.
For 35mm SLR, I have had a dud from Vivitar prior to Series 1 for Minolta. I have had very good quality on the order of equal from Tamron for Nikon which is/was designed and built by Bronica, and which is/was a quality manufacturers. There are some second party manufacturers, the I tend to avoid partly out of lack of personal knowledge and experience but not for any technical or optical knowledge.

BradS · Feb 23, 2025

some examples that come to mind....

- The much maligned 43~86mm f/3.5 zoom Nikkor. I had the later, all black AI version of this lens and other than being a bit heavy, it was fantastic.

- The 100mm f/2.8 Nikkor Series E is supposed to be low-budget garbage but it was in fact a low cost, fabulous lens.

-The 50mm f/2 Summicron-M type 5 - oft quoted as being the 50mm lens by which all others are judged...flares horribly at the slightest provocation. I guess it is ok under overcast sky or maybe with the sun at your back but otherwise...yuck.

Then there was a third party (Vivitar branded?) 28mm lens that was reputed to be excellent and definitely deserved the reputation. Similarly, I had a Tamron adaptable-II 28mm lens that was also fantastic - although the ergonomics were a little harsh.

xkaes · Feb 23, 2025

BradS said:
Then there was a third party (Vivitar branded?) 28mm lens that was reputed to be excellent and definitely deserved the reputation.

You're probably referring to the Kiron-made 28mm f2.5. Serial # starts with 22XXXX. I think it was sold under other labels as well.

Paul Howell · Feb 23, 2025

By the 70s with computerized lens designs and increased automation in manufacturing lens got better across the board. Vivitar Series 1, Soligor CD, Kiron, Sigma, Tamron and Tonkia to name a few of the Japanese 3rd party brands that began to revile camera makers lens. As noted by others it was often the build quality that was the let down. Today, Sigma Art lens are as good if not better than Nikon, Canon or Sony, while the Sports level lens are as close to Canon L or Nikon Ed as you can get for a lot less money. I have a Tonkia 28mm 2.0 in Konica mount that is as good as my Konica 28 3.5, Vivitar S1 80 to 200 3.5 again in Konica mount that is as good as the Konica version. As Cosina, Chinon and Rioch made cameras and lens in M42 later K mount, as well as other mounts it's hard to say if they are a 3rd party maker. I have a Chinon 35 2.8 in Konica mount that is pretty good, but not quite as good as the Konica version.

Patrick Robert James · Feb 24, 2025

Back when I was young I was using Contax cameras and was planning a road trip out West. I didn't have anything wider than a 28mm and I didn't have the money to buy a Zeiss 21mm so I ended up buying a cheap used Cambron 21mm lens from KEH thinking I'd upgrade when I could. I still have it 30 years later. Damn thing is sharp as a tack. I think it was made by Tokina by the looks of it but I don't really know.

I've had other lenses that didn't live up to their rep. A 35mm Summicron for example. Never really liked it. It was good but nothing special. I bought a Zeiss 35mm Biogon and when I compared the two it wasn't even close. Sold the Summicron.

The last little find was a 35mm 7Artisans lens for Leica. I stumbled across someone saying it was a Sonnar formula lens a couple years back which peaked my interest. 35mm Sonnar? I'm in. Picked one up for about a hundy. A special lens. No one even knows about it. I then picked up the 50mm 1.1 7Artisans Sonnar because, why not? Again just a little over a hundy. Two great lenses. The 50 has it's quirks but for the price, a steal.

Hassasin · Feb 24, 2025

It's all about the difference between what came out vs. what it came through.

Same as who shot it vs. what was shot.

grain elevator · Feb 24, 2025

I'm somewhat guilty of not giving third party lenses the benefit of the doubt and of listening to internet reputation and tests. this is at a relatively low price level though, most of my lenses are Minolta. And the have been burned doing this. My specimen of one lens that performes stellar in some tests I found online, and which look very well done, doesn't do very well at all. Either it has a field curvature performance that somehow results in a flat field on digital and not on film or I have a dog.

BMbikerider · Feb 24, 2025

Melvin J Bramley said:
I have had my share of lenses through the years .
Some name brand lenses and some third party lenses that I have owned have been deemed, on the internet, to be substandard.
My experience would suggest that whilst there are some stellar OEM lenses there are many third party lenses of equal or better performance.
What are your experiences ?

I have always tried to keep with the original makers lenses but with a mix of AF and manual Nikon Bodies I cannot use my 24/120 AFS lens on my Nikon F2a because it has no electrical contacts. I bought a Tamron Adaptall 2, 35/135 to fill the gap and it is almost every bit as good as the 24/120 especially when it is used on a tripod. (the 24/120 has image stabilisation so a tripod compensates for that.)

With my Minolta bodies I used to use a Minolta 28/85MD that was until I tried a Vivitar 28/90. That always had a good reputation but I find it outstanding and markedly better than the 28/85, although it is about 2.5 times the weight of the Minolta lens. The only problem I find it is prone to flare and finding a 67mm lens hood that will help to limit the affect, is proving difficult. I don't think Vivitar ever made one to fit.

Lens snobbery

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency