was there ever a good slr zoom lens?

[macfred]

Ah, photographs ... I love photographs !
--
I really like my old Nikon Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8 - a little clunky but a reliable tool.
A few examples with the F4 :

Examples 1.,2. and 3. are on Provia; 4. and 5. on 400TX

 

[jssaraiva]

For a Pentax you have the excellent Pentax-A 24-50 F4 and a few other very good options around that range.

 

[Bikerider]

I have no complaints about my two shorter Nikon Zooms, 1) 20/35 and 2) 35/70, both constant aperture @ F2.8. From 1 stop down on each I can get edge to edge sharpness when using film and a 12x16 print is a mere formality. Most of the problems with zoom lenses of whatever make is the longer end of some, especially the telephoto end is the smaller aperture and the requirement to use a slower shutter speed with the consequential risk of camera shake.

The finest and cheapest way of getting a much better zoom lens is to buy and use a good solid tripod and a remote release - you will be surprised how much better the lens becomes.

Even my 70/300 F4/5.6 Nikon zoom is no slouch when I use a tripod!

 

[Bikerider]

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.

Who actually cares? If a print is made using film and the print is sharp then what is the problem. This insistence on even higher definition from the lenses will not affect how good a film is or make it better. As I said in my previous post the best definition is gained when a tripod is used.

 

[dutchsteammachine]

Its unfortunate the F100 and F6 can not take the latest Nikon and Tamron lenses without a physical aperture notch.

I for one am disappointed with my:
Tamron F 70-300mm f/4-5.6 SP Di VC USD
And
Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF Macro

Thinking about selling those and most of my Canon FD gear to buy something like a prime Nikon AF-S or the later Tamron zooms with VR that work on an F100.

If the nikon AF-S primes aren't sharp or clear to me maybe I will try the Leica R route. I've got the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f1.4G and its alright I guess, doesn't appear better than my AF-D 1.8 though. So much for optical improvement.

Problem with Tamron or other third party lenses is that they often need to be micro-focus corrected because out of the factory they aren't calibrated as wel as the Nikons. Film Nikons can't do this. Tamron now got a tool that you connect to your PC so you can correct for it in-lens. But this doesn't work with lenses that work on Nikon F bodies.

 

[John51]

Who actually cares? If a print is made using film and the print is sharp then what is the problem. This insistence on even higher definition from the lenses will not affect how good a film is or make it better. As I said in my previous post the best definition is gained when a tripod is used.

I used to care back in the 70s. This time round I'm more pragmatic and for easy reckoning, I relate IQ to maximum print size. The lower the maximum print size I want, the less I need wrt IQ.

eg. Say a 35mm camera + tripod is capable of giving an excellent 16x20 print but not quite an excellent 20x24 print. There are mf cameras that can give an excellent 16x20 print hand held. If 16x20 is the maximum I'm going to print full frame, then I can leave the tripod at home and spent a little extra on film by using mf. I wouldn't lug a tripod round for a few quid a day, why would I do so to save the same amount on film?

I know that my logic is somewhat faulty here but it does help me keep the GAS under control.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

EOS L series zooms gives the ride even to to Leica primes, I also have.
But Pentax, who knows. I have EOS film bodies and EOS L lenses, so I can't make odd assumptions as OP

 

[Alan Gales]

I used the Carl Zeiss 35mm lens system in the 1980s and, indeed, there was no zoom available maybe because zoom technology could not compete with the primes.
View attachment 232690

I bought a Contax 139 back in the 80's. I owned 5 primes for it. I used to have a poster of all the Zeiss lenses at the time. I seem to remember a couple Zeiss zoom lenses available back then so I looked it up. If what I found is correct then there were 4 available in the 1980's. They were expensive and you may have had to have the camera store order them for you.

Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 70-210 f/3.5 released in 1978.
Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 80-200 f/4 released in 1985.
Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 35-70 f/3.4 released in 1985.
Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 28-85 f/3.3-4 released in 1988.

https://www.apotelyt.com/photo-lens/zeiss-contax-catalog

 

[Paul Howell]

Who actually cares? If a print is made using film and the print is sharp then what is the problem. This insistence on even higher definition from the lenses will not affect how good a film is or make it better. As I said in my previous post the best definition is gained when a tripod is used.

Sharp enough is subjective, the quality of lens starts with the basics, then time for my personal interpretation. I don't often shoot 35mm with a tripod, sorts of defeats the benefits of a small portable camera that can be hand held. But you are right, most lens made in the last 40 years can resolve Tmax 100.

 

[Bikerider]

The Vivitar Series One 24-48mm comes in the Pentax K Mount and is a very good lens, as is the Vivitar Series One 28-90.

Both of the above are very sharp and provide excellent alternatives to the marvelous Pentax Prime lenses if you need a zoom. The primary downside is their weight.

I will second that comment with regard to both lenses. My 70/210 is as far as I can tell one of a series made by Kiron. there were other makers and you can find out where yours was made by googling the lens name and serial number. I find the 210 end isn't as sharp as the rest lens focal lengths up to about 150mm but stopped down one notch, it is very good indeed.

The 28/90. Well what can I say or I will run out of superlatives. It was really a lens ahead of it's time. Two things though, it is heavy (very) due I suppose to the all metal and glass construction and difficulty in finding a hood with a 67mm thread that is of any use at the 28mm end. It is miles ahead, performance wise to the later Series1 28/105. Perhaps they 'stretched' it a little too far. I use both lenses on my Minolta manual focus bodies and as they are also heavy, (XE1 and XM) they can be a handful without a tripod.

 

[destroya]

I have great luck with 2 nikon 80-200 zooms. the first, already mentioned, the older 4.5 with the rectangle baffle in the rear as well as the push pull 2.8 d lens. great performance.

for me the best by far is the 24-14 2.8. Yeh its a G lens, so out comes the f100 N80 or the F5. prints are awesome with that lens. much better at 20mm than the primes Ive tried. its not an easy lens to use as it cant take filters, so it gets used primarily with slide film. the slides look awesome

 

[Pentode]

In fact, the Komine built Vivitar Series One 28-90 and 70-210 lenses make a great set for those wanting zooms for their older Pentax cameras.

I concur. Both of these lenses were excellent. I find I like the 28-90 a little less at the 28 end of its range as I start to notice distortion and it vignettes even with a WA hood, but once it gets out to about 35 it’s great. Heavy as hell, but great.
The 70-210 is absolutely outstanding.

Other lenses I like from that era are the Tamron Adaptall series and the fixed aperture Rokkors (which won’t work with your Pentax, sadly).

 

[GLS]

There are filter holders made specifically for the 14-24mm actually, but the 150mm slot-in filters it uses are monstrously expensive.

 

[TheRook]

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

View attachment 232751 View attachment 232752

At 200mm v
View attachment 232753

at 80mm v
View attachment 232754

All wide-open, at F4.5.
View attachment 232755

Those images look plenty sharp with sufficient contrast to me. I certainly wouldn't call that lens "bad" or "junk" as some photographers here may feel inclined to do. And not to forget, zoom lenses can be quite practical in some situations, despite whatever optical short-comings (real or imagined). If I had the choice between missing a shot with a prime lens and getting the shot with a zoom lens, I would probably opt for the latter.

 

[benveniste]

I don't think anybody's 35mm zoom lens was ever as good as their prime kit lenses, and certainly not nearly as good as their digital lenses.

I'm not sure what you mean by "digital lenses." I do own one lens which only fully works with Nikon dSLR's, but the limitation is not in the optics. Nor am I quite sure what you mean by "prime kit lenses." Even before the shift to digital, zoom lenses had replaced the 50mm prime in new camera "kits."

On film, I've never noticed a significant difference between my 180mm f/2.8D and 70-200mm f/2.8 VR Nikkors. The 17-35mm f/2.8 is considered "over the hill" by today's standards, but outperformed the 28mm f/2.8D and 18mm f/2.8D lenses, and give both the 20mm f/2.8D and 24mm f/2.8D lenses a run for their money.

One of my mantras is that the quality of a missed shot, no matter how you judge it, is zero. It doesn't matter if you missed it just because you had the wrong lens mounted, or if decided it was too much bother to lug a bag full of primes to a potential shoot. I own both prime and zoom lenses, and will use a mix of them based on needs and whim. If you feel you get better results with primes, by all means continue to use them. But be prepared to hear the same "never as good" logic from medium format users.

 

[johnha]

There are a few Pentax 2x or 3x zooms that are highly regarded: the A24-50 has been mentioned, the A35-105/3.5 is often described as a 'stack of primes', the A70-210/4 is also highly regarded. The A series lenses will work seemlessly as manual focus lenses on any Pentax film or digital body. Some of the Vivitar Series 1 or Tamron ADii SP zooms are also very good.

I use the FA20-35/4, F35-70/3.5-4.5, M75-150/4 & M80-200/4.5 without any complaints.

Check the Pentax Forums lens review database: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

 

[blockend]

EOS L series zooms gives the ride even to to Leica primes, I also have.

Canon UK are currently offering double cash back on EOS D/SLR lenses, so now might be the time to compare old and new zooms on a 35mm body. This act of generosity may not be unconnected with Canon's conversion to mirrorless and the R full frame mount.

 

[jtk]

There are a few Pentax 2x or 3x zooms that are highly regarded: the A24-50 has been mentioned, the A35-105/3.5 is often described as a 'stack of primes', the A70-210/4 is also highly regarded. The A series lenses will work seemlessly as manual focus lenses on any Pentax film or digital body. Some of the Vivitar Series 1 or Tamron ADii SP zooms are also very good.

I use the FA20-35/4, F35-70/3.5-4.5, M75-150/4 & M80-200/4.5 without any complaints.

Check the Pentax Forums lens review database: https://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/

Thanks for directly addressing my OT re Pentax

In fact some of us actually do routinely make large prints...my default is 13X19 because that's the limit of my printer (Canon Pro 10). But I often crop significantly (eg might be 30X40 uncropped).

It's easy for me to make exquisite dust-free Nikon scans (including from silver B&W negs) Nikon's Ice is the real thing, unlike Epson's)...

Guess I'll hold with my anti-zoom prejudices (tho may pick up a Pentax F35-70/3.5-4.5). Digital camera zooms are clearly vastly better than the Vivitar zooms of yesteryear.

 

[Russ - SVP]

The Vivitar Series One 24-48mm comes in the Pentax K Mount and is a very good lens, as is the Vivitar Series One 28-90.

Both of the above are very sharp and provide excellent alternatives to the marvelous Pentax Prime lenses if you need a zoom. The primary downside is their weight.

In fact, the Komine built Vivitar Series One 28-90 and 70-210 lenses make a great set for those wanting zooms for their older Pentax cameras. You would certainly have the focal lengths pretty well covered with some pretty nice glass. Image quality from those two zooms is certainly more then adequate. You will do a bit better using primes but you will certainly feel the extra weight in your camera bag.

Add in the Vivitar 2x TC and your reach is even greater. Though the image quality degrades a bit with the tele-converter I find it is often preferable to cropping while enlarging.

Interestingly I find that if I can get focused properly with these zooms the results are really spectacular. A good tripod, a sharp film like TMX100, and the Pentax Action Finder on the LX are wonderful tools for ensuring tight, sharp focus and astounding image results.

I agree completely.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

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.

Yet, this is analog forum, digital bits don't apply, that was the idea. I guess ideas mean nothing because someone said there is overlap thus anything goes ... not.

Back to topic, Minolta's 70-210 / 4.0 MD mount was a superb zoom and arguably one the few that gave primes a run for the money at the time. Even those Leitz people liked it.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Most good zooms from older times were short range, so the mentioned Pentax 24-50 does come to mind. That Minolta I mentioned was just a top animal in zooms of the time and BTW, the thread started with a rather general statement regarding zooms, sure ended with a Pentax, but was easy to miss the intent of OP.

 

[markjwyatt]

I picked up a Fujinon 43-75mm f3.5-4.5 (M42), and like the way it renders. I tested it on a digital and got magenta/green fringes in strong light, but do not see that with film.

 

[138S]

I don't think anybody's 35mm zoom lens was ever as good as their prime kit lenses, and certainly not nearly as good as their digital lenses.

I really like my old Nikon Nikkor AF 35-70mm f/2.8

Yeah, the 35-70 zoom is a great example of a crazy good glass

Another example: Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8 AFD , or the previous iterations. A prime was lighter, cheaper and faster, but even best primes are only marginally sharper with perhaps no effect in real photographs. That zoom is crazy sharp even wide open at 2.8.

I feel that its bokeh nature chages a bit with focal, being of better quality in the long end.

One good thing in the nikon word is that "modern" SLR bodies (F5, F6, F100, F65, F80...) start VR funtion of modern DSLR lenses. VR is a great feature for sharpness when shooting handheld.

__________________

Still it's difficult to say when a lens is "better", perhaps ultimate sharpness is often overrated. A lens I don't have and I'd like is Nikon DC 135 (or 105). It sports a ring that adjust the defocus rendition... it is ultra sharp anyway, but adjusting bokeh nature with a ring is what it's makes it unique.

 

[blockend]

Yet, this is analog forum, digital bits don't apply, that was the idea. I guess ideas mean nothing because someone said there is overlap thus anything goes ... not.

Back to topic, Minolta's 70-210 / 4.0 MD mount was a superb zoom and arguably one the few that gave primes a run for the money at the time. Even those Leitz people liked it.

Are you saying lenses designed in the digital era that fit Canon EOS film cameras are off limits because they were made for digital cameras? That seems a fundamentalist stance even for this forum.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

Are you saying lenses designed in the digital era that fit Canon EOS film cameras are off limits because they were made for digital cameras? That seems a fundamentalist stance even for this forum.

No, the digital chat associated with them.