was there ever a good slr zoom lens?

[AgX]

It's on topic. One of the differences between old and new zooms is in-camera sharpening and other tweaks. That makes it more difficult to tell what's lens definition and what is processing. Canon EOS is one of the few brands that has a lens range to fit both film and digital cameras natively, so direct comparisons can be made.

I got your point. I did not even think of concerning a lens quality based on looking at photos taken with such lens mounted an a digital camera.
I thought of either comparing MTFs, or, still better, of comparing old an new lenses mounted on a film camera.

 

[Paul Howell]

The EOS range is the only one I can think of off the top of my head that had fully electronically compatible lenses for film and digital bodies, unless someone can think of another?

Well Sigma, other than lens designed for a cropped sensor all full frame Sigma lens will work on SA bodies, at least all mine do. Have to say that I'm sure about full frame OS lens working on SA bodies. All Konica Minolta lens and later Minolta lens will work on film bodies, the SSM lens will work with Minolta 7 and Minotla 9s that were convered and all Sony A bodies.

I think the new Sony 70 to 200 2.8 is the same design as the Minolta G high speed 70 to 200 2.8. coating might be different.

In terms of Canon, has the 70 to 200 2.8 L changed over the years?

 

[__Brian]

My AF-D Micro-Nikkor 105/2.8, a film-age lens, is far better than the "digital-age" Nikon Micro NIKKOR 105mm f/2.8G AF-S VR IF-ED. The AF-D Micro-Nikkor 200/4, film-age, and 70~180 Micro-Nikkor-Zoom are better than the new Nikkor 105. The new lens was better than the film-age 105/2.5.

Lenses made in the film age were designed when "digital corrections" were done by very few people, we relied on the lens being good. The marketing department learned that new lenses for digital cameras can be crap, and the image be fixed using a "profile" in firmware.

 

[Les Sarile]

I used the trio of Canon f2.8 zoom "L" lenses (16-35, 24-70 & 70-200) on my EOS3 and 1V and not only were they good but they were all great! Super sharp results with lickity split focus! I even used the Canon Extender EF 2x on the 70-200 and never noticed any degredation as far as image was concerned. A little slower to focus but that's only because the focus had no delays. What makes them great is that after using them for a number of years - and I took good care of them, I sold them for just about the same price I paid for them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Years ago I had a pre Series I Vivatar zoom lens and it had poor contrast compared to Rokkar lens and was just barely passable. Now I have three excellent AF zoom lenses which compare favorably with primes: Nikon f/2.8 20mm to 35mm AF zoom, Nikon 28mm to 200mm AF zoom and Tamron 28mm to 300mm AF zoom. New VR lenses would be much better.

 

[BradS]

Define “good”.

 

[blockend]

Define “good”.

Does it hold up at 12 x 9"?

 

[John51]

50mm prime cropped at the enlarger to give the same image as an 80mm prime or use a zoom @ 80mm and print full frame. Which would be better?

 

[Les Sarile]

Does it hold up at 12 x 9"?

That may be the limits of a cheap minilab scan & print from disposable cameras . . .

 

[GLS]

New VR lenses would be much better

They absolutely are. Zoom lens technology is light years ahead of where it was 20 or 30 years ago. Confining a prime vs zoom debate to exemplars of that latter period is naive at best.

 

[jtk]

Does it hold up at 12 x 9"?

I've standardized on 13X19, the maximum of my Canon Pro10 printer. That's with Nikon-scanned film as well as with mirrorless and DSLR.

Part of "good" is physical construction: My digital zooms are better than film zooms because their construction is more precise...thanks to precision molding .

 

[Paul Howell]

Define “good”.

Will reslove 200 LPMM or better, minimum distortion entire zoom range, with lens hood does not show flare, all as compared to primes within the zoom range.

 

[Neil Grant]

The good thing about zoom lenses is that the older ones eg Nikon Ai and Pentax M and A series can be bought for next to nothing, stoped down 2 or 3 stops and you will find it very hard to tell it is a zoom. One example is the Nikon AI 35-105 3.5/4.5 with macro...

...another example is the Nikon AiS 35-70 f/3.5. Constant aperture. Cracking definition at one stop down. Little distortion, excellent resistance to flare (only 10 elements) and no problems with colour fringing. Macro setting at 70mm works well. Great on film or digital cameras. Replaced in the 80's by an AF f/2.8 version which was massively bigger but no better unless you really needed that aperture. Mechanically the pinnacle of manual focus zoom-Nikkors.

 

[markbau]

I only ever owned 2 film camera zooms, a Kiron that I got about 35 years ago and a Pentax 35to105. Didn't like either of them. Compared to now, on my Pentax K-x I have a 55-300 and as long as you keep it on f8 it is superb so I would agree with earlier posters that newer digital camera zooms can't be compared to 30+ year old film camera zooms.

 

[Les Sarile]

I've standardized on 13X19, the maximum of my Canon Pro10 printer. That's with Nikon-scanned film as well as with mirrorless and DSLR.

Part of "good" is physical construction: My digital zooms are better than film zooms because their construction is more precise...thanks to precision molding .

I doubt there are better built zoom lenses for film (or digi) then the trio of Canon L's I listed above. Testing was conducted using Kodak Techpan to resolve the differences between models with and without IS. I also remember their MTF were rated at the top of the charts but unfortunately that site had changed and I can't find where they moved it to.

Back in the day, I had many 20" X 30" optical prints made by Fuji Pro lab in Phoenix to test the extents of various films shot with these lenses and I would be very disappointed if the image quality would break down even on the glossiest (highest res) prints.

 

[AndyH]

In the 1970s I worked in a camera shop, and got to try out a lot of lenses. The Nikon factory rep was always pushing the 43-86 zoom as being the "only good zoom" on the market, under the rubric that only a shorter lens and low zoom ratio could produce a good image. The Series 1 Vivitar zooms were introduced during this period, and I thought they were fairly decent, though pricey.

As for the Nikon, I thought it was one of the worst lenses I'd ever shot with. Soft corners and vignetting at any aperture. Apparently the photographic community agreed, as they never sold well, and are now available as cheaply as ten or twenty bucks on eBay.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...n+43-86.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+43-86mm+lens&_sacat=0

Andy

 

[Paul Howell]

The Sigma Art Zooms are very good, I mean really good, the 70s Zooms are not even close to a modern Zoom. (And yes Sigma Arts count as they will work on Canon, Sigma, and I think late models Minolta like the 7, I think.)

Other than Series 1 and perhaps Soiligar CD lens the only zooms from the 60 and early 70s that could hold to a prime were Zoomar, among the few lens that made the cut for Swiss Alpha.

 

[David A. Goldfarb]

I had a Tamron Adaptall 2 SP 35-105/2.8 constant aperture zoom that I liked. Tele-wide zooms usually involve a compromise between barrel/pincushion distortion and corner sharpness at the extremes. The greater the zoom range, the more the compromise, unless you’re looking at professional cine lenses priced in the range of luxury automobiles, so 35-105 is pretty reasonable for that purpose.

I liked the Tamron lens mainly for candid event photography, where I’d be shooting handheld and couldn’t always get myself into the best position to compose the shot in time. In that situation with a small format camera, image quality is more about getting all the right content into as tight a frame as possible than the absolute MTF numbers of the lens tested on an optical bench.

 

[jtk]

Main problems with Vivitar et al are physical wear (they get wobbly). Today's plastics are far better.

 

[__Brian]

In the 1970s I worked in a camera shop, and got to try out a lot of lenses. The Nikon factory rep was always pushing the 43-86 zoom as being the "only good zoom" on the market, under the rubric that only a shorter lens and low zoom ratio could produce a good image. The Series 1 Vivitar zooms were introduced during this period, and I thought they were fairly decent, though pricey.

As for the Nikon, I thought it was one of the worst lenses I'd ever shot with. Soft corners and vignetting at any aperture. Apparently the photographic community agreed, as they never sold well, and are now available as cheaply as ten or twenty bucks on eBay.

https://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_fr...n+43-86.TRS0&_nkw=nikon+43-86mm+lens&_sacat=0

Andy

The photographic community bought the 43~86/F3.5 in great numbers- one of Nikon's best selling lenses of the 60s and 70s. There are two main versions, 9 element and 11 element. The 9-element was originally single-coated, then multi-coated.

The 43~86 F3.5 sold in great numbers defined here as several hundred thousand- 1/2 million or so. It was a favorite among journalist. You can get it dirt cheap these days, there were that many made and it is the "Rodney Dangerfield" lens of the Nikon line-up. For $25 or so, you can try one yourself- the Ai version is superior to the 9-element version. The 11 element version is on par with the 35~105/F3.5~F4.5 Ais.

 

[AgX]

It was a favorite among journalist.

As this thread is about image quality: a photo journalist has other demands on a zoom lens than let's say a architectural photographer.

 

[__Brian]

These are with the 40+ year old Zoom-Nikkor 80~200/4.5 Ai.

At 200mm v

at 80mm v

All wide-open, at F4.5.

 

[__Brian]

As this thread is about image quality: a photo journalist has other demands on a zoom lens than let's say a architectural photographer.

Someone made the mistake of stating that the 43~86/3.5 zoom did not sell very well. I corrected that mistake.

Are the thread police out today? Are you a Moderator? Report my post if you do not like it.

 

[AgX]

This is not about thread police but about good argument. I read your hint at that lens being used by reporters as hint at its quality. In case you meant it that way you now will understand my remark.
But now I see you rather hinted at reporters in the context of market success.

 

[AndyH]

Someone made the mistake of stating that the 43~86/3.5 zoom did not sell very well. I corrected that mistake.

Are the thread police out today? Are you a Moderator? Report my post if you do not like it.

I certainly took no offense at being corrected. I guess I should have said that it didn't sell well at the store where I worked, serving a mostly hobbyist market. Hobbyists then, as now, seem to focus (pun intended) more on the zoom range and focusing distances than on the IQ. I personally found the 43-86 to be soft in the middle at wide apertures, and at the corners, even stopped down, and nowhere close to the other Nikon lenses in anything but build quality. I honestly had no idea they were good sellers - they weren't cheap as I recall. Seeing them at the prices they're selling for on eBay and other marketplaces these days is surprising.

Andy