Lens snobbery

[benveniste]

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 ?

My experience has varied over the years along with technology.

In the early-to-mid 1980's, the market was flooded with 3rd party lenses competing on price. Many of these lenses cut corners on build quality and didn't have access to the same options in optical glass. I owned a Vivitar 35-70mm f/3.5 and a Sigma 8mm f/4 fisheye from this era, and they both are "meh" but adequate for color print film or Tri-X. Nikon introduced their "Series E" lenses to compete with those 3rd party offerings and for the most part succeeded.

Then product lines such as the Vivitar Series 1 and Tokina ATX came along, which often (but not always) matched OEM lenses or pushed the envelope in terms of features. I've owned 4 Tokina lenses from this era -- a 24-40mm f/2.8, a 60-120mm f/2.8, an 80-200mm f/2.8 and a 90mnm f/2.5. While Nikon did offer a manual focus 80-200mm f/2.8, it was larger and about three times as expensive as the Tokina. Soon all major camera manufacturers introduced 80-200mm f/2.8s based on the Tokina design.

During the first decade or so of autofocus cameras, quite a few 3rd party lens makers abandoned the market, including brands like Soligor and Kiron. Vivitar chose to move downscale. Other brands lagged in R&D, producing autofocus versions of their existing products. Because I stayed with manual focus gear until 2001, I don't have much experience with these lenses. An exception to this was the Angenieux 28-70mm f/2.6~2.8 lens, which Tokina brought to the mass market (with different optical glass) in 1994. Like the 80-200mm f/2.8, major camera manufacturers soon introduced their own versions.

From 2001 through to about 2014, I had mixed experience with 3rd party lenses, especially after buying a D200 in 2005. With Sigma, I experienced both compatibility and quality control issues. I used Tokina 20-35mm f/2.8 and 28-70mm f/2.6~2.8 for several years, but found that the Nikon offerings were better. With its "Global Vision" lines, though, Sigma underwent a drastic change for the better. They were (and are) producing some excellent optics by choosing to accept larger and heavier designs which required fewer exotic elements. I'm also quite happy with my Tamron 24-70mm VC and Zeiss ZF.2 lenses. I'm less happy with my Voigtländer 58mm f/1.4, but that's more a matter of unreasonable expectations. It's a beautifully built lens with an "old school" design, which results in "old school" overcorrected SA in the background.

So in all, I agree that there are "many third party lenses of equal or better performance" if judged against what was available when they were introduced.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Part of the success of the less expensive wide angle lens is because wide angle lenses have such a large depth of field that the are more forgiving of some optical problems.

 

[xkaes]

So in all, I agree that there are "many third party lenses of equal or better performance" if judged against what was available when they were introduced.

One of my favorite lenses is the Minolta 24mm f2.8. Leica liked it so much, they sold it with a Leica R mount. But a few years ago I ran into a Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f2.0 (it was also sold under other labels) -- at a price I couldn't refuse. So I ran some resolution tests, I decided to sell my Minolta. The Minolta was only very so slightly better than the Kiron at f2.8, but only at f2.8 -- which I hardly ever use. Plus, the Kinon has f2.0, and the results there are impressive as well.

 

[xkaes]

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.

I use a different Vivitar too -- made by Kiron -- the 28-85mm f2.8/3.8. It's much larger and heavier (1.5 lbs.) than the Minolta and has a 67mm filter thread, but it's a one-touch zoom -- unlike the Minolta -- and much "faster". The results are great, but the varifocal design requires a little adjustment time. It stays in focus as you zoom at infinity, but that's it. Close focusing to 10 inches.

 

[benjiboy]

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.

They did make a hood to fit because I had one , it was a special order item and was expensive .
You are comparing apples with oranges, because the Minolta 28 -85 MD was a zoom lens, and the Vivitar Series 1 28 - 90 wasn't a zoom lens it was a varifocal lens.

 

[BMbikerider]

It may be that I have sorted out the hood problem. I have bought an aftermarket 'petal' type hood which still vignettes at the 28mm end but as it was made from quite thick plastic I have ground away one of the two petal leaves which was one of the offending areas and after removing about 7mm it no longer vignettes so today is the turn of the opposite side. It cannot be worse than not having one at all.

It is a screw fit hood but can be mounted,on the filter ring (with a filter already fitted and then a locking ring can be adjusted so it is fixed in the position I require. I am aware of the difference between a zoom and a varifocal lens but a lot of folk won't so thanks for pointing this out. For me it matters not one iota because it delivers a better performance than the Minolta alternative.

 

[BMbikerider]

I use a different Vivitar too -- made by Kiron -- the 28-85mm f2.8/3.8. It's much larger and heavier (1.5 lbs.) than the Minolta and has a 67mm filter thread, but it's a one-touch zoom -- unlike the Minolta -- and much "faster". The results are great, but the varifocal design requires a little adjustment time. It stays in focus as you zoom at infinity, but that's it. Close focusing to 10 inches.

I seem to remember that Vivitar also marketed a 28/85 lens which had a very limited focussing range with the closest focussing point at certain focal length was something around 5 feet and quite unusable for what I needed it for.

Vivitar did not make their own lenses (as far as I am aware) and the ones that bore their name could come from a few manufactures (one being Kiron). I have no idea who made the one, I have but somewhere there will be a lost of lens numbers that may give a clue. Then there was the famed Series 1 70/210 with the name of Vivitar, there were at least 4 different makers all with different reputations and tracked one down which is actually as good as the genuine 70/210 Minolta item and I still use it. I have no idea who the manufacturer was though.

Then there was the Tamron 80/210 adaptal2 which was, shall I be kind and say very variable in performance, depending upon who made it. But they also marketed a 70/210 F3.5 constant aperture designated 'SP' also with the same mount, which was outstanding but also a lot more expensive.

 

[axestrata]

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.

Same here. But for me, this is usually in the context of 'vintage' lens (pre 80s). I definitely have a soft spot for CY Zeiss and m42 Pentaxes.

 

[xkaes]

I seem to remember that Vivitar also marketed a 28/85 lens which had a very limited focussing range with the closest focussing point at certain focal length was something around 5 feet and quite unusable for what I needed it for.

There are lots of zoom lenses where the focusing is restricted by the focal length. For many, you can only "close focus" at one particular focal length (either the longest or the shortest). If it's at the shortest focal length, the "macro" feature simply adds a little extension to the rear of the lens.

And you're right Vivitar never made anything. Like other marketing/distribution firms -- Soligor, Bell & Howell, etc. -- they bought gear from various companies and put their own labels on it.

 

[jeffreyg]

Back in the early seventies I bought a Panagor 200mm lens for a Minolta SRT 101 for $40 new. Tack sharp glass. This was through a thick glass wall of an upper floor hotel room

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

The pre Series I Vivitar was dark but its contrast was sorely lacking. A photograph of the subject with a Rokkor lens had noticeably better contrast the the Vivator's contrast of the same subject taken a the same time.

 

[Paul Howell]

The turning point came in the 70s, I have a number of 3rd party lens from the 60s and early 70s that I got with various bodies I bought over the years. For the most part these lens are optically much poorer than Nikon, Miranda, and Topcon branded lens. Even my Petri lens are better.

 

[ant!]

The turning point came in the 70s, I have a number of 3rd party lens from the 60s and early 70s that I got with various bodies I bought over the years. For the most part these lens are optically much poorer than Nikon, Miranda, and Topcon branded lens. Even my Petri lens are better.

But then there are the cameras/lenses until the 50s, where often the camera manufacturer did not make the lens themself. E.g. with the KW Praktina (50s) you could mount a Zeiss Jena, a Meyer, Steinheil, Angenieux... Or Rolleiflex came with Zeiss or Schneider lenses, or basically all 30s-50s folders which could come with very different lenses from different manufacturers. I guess only a few larger companies (Zeiss Ikon, Leitz) made both cameras and lenses. So in this case, there is simply no 3rd party, since there is no 1st...

I stay mostly with the camera manufacturer's lenses, but since I am using mostly Minolta, there were all cheap when I got them. Same for Pentax 645 (could mount easily with an adapter some Pentacon 6, but this would be probably "adapting", not 3rd party lens). For Praktina, I use only Zeiss Jena, just to limit my GAS a bit (Angenieux are much more expensive, and for the other manufacturers some are relatively cheap but don't really give me much what Zeiss Jena doesn't do).

But like others have said before fits for me as well: If a photo isn't good, it is very likley me, not the lens.

 

[Pioneer]

Back in the late 70s I found a Pentax K1000 with a Pentax-M 50/2 lens at a Reno pawn shop. I have used that camera and lens since then. I have always been thrilled with the results and always felt it was a great purchase. Oh...once in awhile I would miss focus and get a blurry photo but that certainly was not the fault of the lens or the camera. The huge majority of our family photos have been successfully taken with that camera and lens.

So you can imagine my shock when I was told many, many years later by internet forum "experts" that my camera and lens were only good for students, and then only barely good enough for that.

I guess it was a good thing though. I learned very quickly that it was far more effective to try out any cameras and lenses I was interested in for myself rather, than rely on internet wisdom. Over the years since then I have owned many different lenses, some from the camera manufacturer and some not. There may have been a few bad ones in the batch but I really can't pick out any bad prints from any of them.

I still own and use that old Pentax camera and lens and the combo still takes great pictures when I get it focused right. Today I prefer medium and large format and the lens myths surrounding those formats make 35mm stuff look pretty simple.

 

[Don_ih]

So you can imagine my shock when I was told many, many years later by internet forum "experts" that my camera and lens were only good for students, and then only barely good enough for that.

It's mostly weirdos that have that point of view - it's not worth listening to. A K1000 is often recommended because it was a top choice for high school photography classes for a long time. That doesn't spell out its limitations. If you can't take a good photo with a K1000 with a Pentax 50, you can't take a good photo.

 

[snusmumriken]

Back in the early seventies I bought a Panagor 200mm lens for a Minolta SRT 101 for $40 new. Tack sharp glass. This was through a thick glass wall of an upper floor hotel room
View attachment 392256

I don't mean to be rude, but this doesn't look 'tack sharp' to me, even by 1970s standards. Is it a detail of a very small part of the image? If it's the full frame, I suggest the thick glass wall has been significantly limiting, and no lens could possibly have done any better.

 

[Don_ih]

I don't mean to be rude, but this doesn't look 'tack sharp' to me

That image is 640x415 -- not exactly a high enough resolution to judge how sharp it is, really. As in, if you printed it at 300 dpi, it would be about 2.25x1.5 inches....