No name lenses

[Melvin J Bramley]

Gear acquisition syndrome often revolves around collecting the best one can afford.

What no name lenses do you use without embarrassment on your uber camera?

Lenses such as the Nikon 75-150 are well regarded but were not designed and perhaps not even built by Nikon.
Is it possible that Minoltas 75-150 shares the same design and manufacturer?
Many 90mm macro lenses seem to be well regarded.

What about those Vivitars, Soligors, Tamrons , Kitstars, Pheonix , and who of the ancients will remember Spiratone! to name but a few?

 

[Paul Howell]

Vivitar's S1 were among the best of the 70s and 80s, computer designed, made by various makers with good quality control. Soligor CD, some say the CD stood for compact design, others computer design, I have a 35 to 70 3.5 in Konica AR, not compact at all but very sharp. Sigma made good glass, Although not indepdent lens makers, Rioch, Chinon, and Consina made really good lens in M42 and K mount. I also have Kino, a 28 to 70 3.5 in Konica mount, very good glass. For the most part the standared Vitiar's and Soligor's were pretty much hit and miss, wide range of quaility, from poor to very good. But at least here in the U.S I can get Nikon, Minolta, Konica, and Pentax lens for not much more than a 3rd party lens.

 

[Chuck1]

Tokina has some nice ones too

 

[chuckroast]

Color Skopars on Leica Thread Mount are a favorite here.

 

[bluechromis]

Tokina has some nice ones too

My Tokina (Bokina) AT-X 90 mm f/2.5 macro has perhaps the best image quality of any of my lenses. It is sharp even when wide open. Tokina made a similar lens for Vivitar. One benefit of a lens not from a major camera maker is that Tokina offered lenses with various mounts. I was happy to find a Bokina with a Minolta SR mount. You won't find that variety with Nikon or Leica lenses.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/tokina-90mm-f2-5-x-macro.html

 

[bluechromis]

What about Meyer Gorlitz lenses? These seem to be uneven, with the Domiplan having lousy sharpness compared to Prioplan, which some people praise.

 

[Ian Grant]

What about Meyer Gorlitz lenses? These seem to be uneven, with the Domiplan having lousy sharpness compared to Prioplan, which some people praise.

It was only the Domiplan that rightly had a bad reputation. The 30mm f3.5 Lydith was a lovely little lens, and their telephoto lenses were excellent

Wider angle third party lenses were the weak link, often suffering poor spherical correction, it was the Vivitar S1 range that first achieved the same standards as manufacturers' lenses, followed by the Tamron SP.series.

Ian

 

[loccdor]

Osawa 28mm f/2.8 in M42. Compact, cheap, sharp, multicoated. Total bargain. Like $20 last I saw.

Samyang/Rokinon 14mm f/2.8 in Canon EF (manual focus & aperture selection). Sharp across the frame, less expensive than alternatives.

Sigma ART and Tamron SP lenses in EF mount made last decade for DSLRs are mostly quite exceptional. Many of them are also an affordable way to add image stabilization to a film camera.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Color Skopars on Leica Thread Mount are a favorite here.

Are you referring to modern (10 or 20 years old) Color Skopars? Or are there ones from the 1950s in LTM?

 

[chuckroast]

Are you referring to modern (10 or 20 years old) Color Skopars? Or are there ones from the 1950s in LTM?

Mine are all (21, 35, & 50mm) LTM and appear to be from the 1990s.

 

[Kodachromeguy]

Not quite a no-name, but often overlooked: the 50mm f/2 Ricoh Rikenon in K mount is very competent:

https://worldofdecay.blogspot.com/2025/08/small-towns-in-washington-packwood.html

It is light weight, partly plastic, contrasty, with 52mm filter mount.

Another surprising winner: Sears 50mm f/1.7 MC lens in K mount.

 

[reddesert]

Lenses such as the Nikon 75-150 are well regarded but were not designed and perhaps not even built by Nikon.
Is it possible that Minoltas 75-150 shares the same design and manufacturer?
Many 90mm macro lenses seem to be well regarded.

Without disagreeing with the premise (3rd party lenses are often useful, and back in the heyday of film were sometimes what-you-could-afford to use): there is internet lore about Nikon series E lenses being contracted out, that is myth / lore / snobbery. They did contract out (AFAIK) some of the later very cheap AF lenses and whatever goes with the FM10. But the 75-150/3.5 even has its own entry at the "Nikon 1001 Nights" that discusses the lens design and gives the name of the lens designer on the Nikon staff: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0042/

I haven't spent a lot of time peeping the details of lens quality, but from the modern SLR era - that is anything from maybe the late 1960s and after - it seems that nearly all 50mm lenses, and the humble 135/2.8 (including third party versions) are good for something.

 

[xkaes]

Spiratone gets a bad rap with a broad brush, but they got their lenses from lots of different makers -- and some are winners. The first generation Minitel 500mm f8 (77mm filter thread) was actually made by Yashica/Tomioka (but, without a tripod socket). It's a super performer.

Likewise, Seagull lenses are looked down upon, but they were the makers of Minolta's manual-focusing lenses when Minolta switched to AF in the 1980's. When Minolta stopped having Seagull make its SLR lenses, Seagull continued to make the same lenses on the same assembly lines -- and stuck the SEAGULL name on them. I have a Seagull 24mm f2.8 and a Seagull 17mm f4 that I got much cheaper than the Minolta versions -- that were made on the same line!

FYI, Seagull did the same thing with Minolta X-370 camera models -- and added many new features to some. How about a 1/2,000 second shutter speed -- without the need for a battery?

Then there are great Tokina lenses, for example, that were never sold under the Tokina label. They made a 650mm f8.5 CAT that sold under the OSAWA, SOLIGOR C/D, and BELL & HOWELL labels.

 

[jeffreyg]

Although I have long departed with both the camera and lens and no one has named one I’ll toss in a Panagor 200mm that I used with a Minolta SRT 101 that I bought for $40 new. The lens was actually very sharp. I used it for a number of years and gave both the camera and lens to my son. I don’t remember what he did with it.

 

[Melvin J Bramley]

Without disagreeing with the premise (3rd party lenses are often useful, and back in the heyday of film were sometimes what-you-could-afford to use): there is internet lore about Nikon series E lenses being contracted out, that is myth / lore / snobbery. They did contract out (AFAIK) some of the later very cheap AF lenses and whatever goes with the FM10. But the 75-150/3.5 even has its own entry at the "Nikon 1001 Nights" that discusses the lens design and gives the name of the lens designer on the Nikon staff: https://imaging.nikon.com/imaging/information/story/0042/

I haven't spent a lot of time peeping the details of lens quality, but from the modern SLR era - that is anything from maybe the late 1960s and after - it seems that nearly all 50mm lenses, and the humble 135/2.8 (including third party versions) are good for something.

Thanks for the Series E info! I stand corrected.
One of my best lenses was a Mamiya 135mm f2.8 screw mount.
The Mamiya lenses were reportedly re badged Rollei.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/threads/may-2021-part-1-this-month-through-your-adapted-lens.4572083/page-2#post-65102405

 

[xkaes]

The Mamiya lenses were reportedly re badged Rollei.

Ever hear of Mamiya-Sekor? Sekor is an abbreviation for Setagaya, Mamiya's principle lens maker. Setagaya also made many lenses for other companies, as well, because they made great glass. Sure, Mamiya used some lenses from other lenses makers to, as did Nikon, Minolta, etc., but Setagaya was Mamiya's lens bank, making lenses for their professional TLR's, and RB67, etc.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Vivitar's S1 were among the best of the 70s and 80s, computer designed, made by various makers with good quality control. Soligor CD, some say the CD stood for compact design, others computer design, I have a 35 to 70 3.5 in Konica AR, not compact at all but very sharp. Sigma made good glass, Although not indepdent lens makers, Rioch, Chinon, and Consina made really good lens in M42 and K mount. I also have Kino, a 28 to 70 3.5 in Konica mount, very good glass. For the most part the standared Vitiar's and Soligor's were pretty much hit and miss, wide range of quaility, from poor to very good. But at least here in the U.S I can get Nikon, Minolta, Konica, and Pentax lens for not much more than a 3rd party lens.

Before the Series 1 lenses came out, I brought a Vivitar lens for my Minolta slr. It was darker and lower contrast that the Minolta lenses.

 

[Paul Howell]

Before the Series 1 lenses came out, I brought a Vivitar lens for my Minolta slr. It was darker and lower contrast that the Minolta lenses.

Over the years I have come across a number of 3rd party lens, some came with used cameras, some were gifted to me by someone clearing out a relatives belongings. The lens that date to the 60s and 70s were often not up to same focal lengths offered by the major camera makers. There are exceptions, but weeding out the good lens from the mediocre to bad is time consuming. By the 80s and into the 90s computer design and automated manufacturing brought increased quality control.

There are also store brand lens, I have a Sears 300mm 4.0 in K mount that is a very good lens, made in S. Korea, and a late model J.C Penny's in Minolta MD 135 2.8 made in Taiwan that is also very good.

 

[btaylor]

There are exceptions, but weeding out the good lens from the mediocre to bad is time consuming.

This. I have also acquired a few no names through cameras coming my way. Unless they have a good reputation I just put them in a box. I have a few Tamron SP lenses that I like very much. And I gotta say that the Spiratone 400mm tele I got back in the ‘80’s works surprisingly well!

 

[Paul Howell]

Spiratone 400mm tele I got back in the ‘80’s works surprisingly well!

In the 70s Brooklyn and Cambridge and I think Spriatone all sold the same rebranded preset 400MM, 5.6 or 6.3, Cambridge printed the Modern Photos resolution chart, it was sharp without much distortion, contrast was poor, likely due to poor flocking of the inside of the lens barrel and bottom feeder coatings. I had a Vivitair 400 preset in M42 mount that I gave away to someone who is using it on his Sony A7 for birding, he shoots at infinity on manual, works pretty well.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Spiratone 400mm tele I got back in the ‘80’s works surprisingly well!

In the 70s Brooklyn and Cambridge and I think Spriatone all sold the same rebranded preset 400MM, 5.6 or 6.3, Cambridge printed the Modern Photos resolution chart, it was sharp without much distortion, contrast was poor, likely due to poor flocking of the inside of the lens barrel and bottom feeder coatings. I had a Vivitair 400 preset in M42 mount that I gave away to someone who is using it on his Sony A7 for birding, he shoots at infinity on manual, works pretty well.

I have tried a bushel basket full of 400mm tele lenses from different brand names and most were just not up to par until you hit f11 or f16. Some weren't even good at those f-stops. I only kept one of those and that was a Vivitar branded 400mm f5.6 tele. I use a Sony A7RII 42mp camera as a good test platform. If a lens can do good on that camera it will do just fine on just about any camera, including 35mm film cameras. The only thing that gets better when stopping down past f8 on the 400mm Vivitar is the contrast and the greater DOF. It was such a surprise to get that quality for such a low price, but miracles do happen. It was even better than my 400mm f6.8 Leica R lens so I sold the Leica and kept the Vivitar for a good knock about tele lens.
I also have a Promura C.P. Hi-Lux 28mm f2.8 that is really an excellent lens for sharpness and controlled distortion, but contrast is a little lower. Not bad just a little les contrast than say a Pentax K-mount 28mm. There are plenty of Promura lenses out there, but have only tried the 28mm. It's said the 135mm f2.8 Procure C.P. Hi-Lux is of the same quality as the 28mm, but I could say for sure. There are plain Promura and C.P. Hi-Lux Promura's and rumor has it to only buy the Hi-Lux version. Again, I can't verify that rumor, but for as cheap as what they sell for one could try them all and not hurt the wallet much.

 

[Paul Howell]

Did have the 5.6 or 6.3 version? The few times I used my Viivtar 400 it was in full sun, so likely shot at F11 or 16 the sweet spot.

 

[John Wiegerink]

Did have the 5.6 or 6.3 version? The few times I used my Viivtar 400 it was in full sun, so likely shot at F11 or 16 the sweet spot.

Yes, if you can keep the shutter speed high enough or use a good tripod the f11 to f16 setting will usually give you satisfactory results. Many folks and even friends of mind back in the 70's and 80's bought some pretty decent 35mm gear and after a while they got the super-telephoto bug and wanted to shoot wildlife, car races and there kids soccer/Little League baseball games. I can't tell you how many came to me complaining about their faulty 400mm, 500mm and long tele zooms. They wanted me to look them over before they sent them back or took them back to camera store. It took a lot of explaining to make them understand that it was near impossible to shoot a picture of their dog running across the yard or child running the bases and get a sharp clear picture with the lens set at f111 or f16 and a shutter speed of 1/30th or even 1/60th of a second. Some got it and some didn't, most didn't.
The trouble with shooting wildlife in my neck of the woods is coyote, deer, black bear, raccoons and the like, have turned almost nocturnal from human pressure. They usually are only seen very early at predawn and near dusk. Try to use the 400mm 6.3 in those conditions and you're playing Russian roulette to get a decent shot. You soon understand why professional wildlife photographers spend huge sums of money to buy the best and fastest tele they can. The occasional user and wannabe wildlife nut just can't do that unless he or she has money coming out their ears. So, while my Vivitar 400mm f5.6 is an exceptional lens for the money and actually kind of a sleeper lens for the time period is was sold in, it really can't cut it as a good wildlife lens no matter how you slice it.

 

[dynachrome]

An odd lens I just got is a 21mm f/3.8 Super Lentar. It was advertised as being in Nikon mount but is actually in M42 mount, which is fine with me. From what I know, it was made by Tokina. It looks like the Vivitar and Soligor 21/3.8 T4 lenses I have. I think Tokina made other Lentar and Super Lentar lenses and that those are similar to Vivitar models. I have some nice pictures I took years ago with the Vivitar 21/3.8 on Kodachrome 25. When Vivitar changed over from the T4 series to the TX series, 24 was as wide as they went. I would have liked a 20 or a 21.