What is your best "sleeper lens"?

[Russ - SVP]

Nikon 75-150mm Series E Zoom f/3.5 AIS

This low-cost lens produces great images. Liked it so much that I bought a second as a backup. I use this manual focus lens when I do not need to carry my larger and heavier 80-200mm f/2.8 auto focus Nikon.

https://flic.kr/p/8XERAb

Made by Kiron, for Nikon. It and the smaller, better built Kiron 70-150, deliver superb results.

 

[AllanD]

Vivitar 19mm lenses

I know nothing of the Vivitar 19/3.5 but can only agree with those that have already warned that it should not be confused with the 19/3.8, which is I think, a later lens. The 19/3.8 is definitely a rebadged Cosina.

I have a Vivitar 19/3.8 and it was extremely poor until I "recentred" the rear element by the simple expedient of loosening the plastic rear retaining ring and letting the element find an alternative position! With that "fixed", it has gone from being crap to achieving the heady heights of mediocre. A shame really, because it certainly looks, and feels, like a quality product. This is the only lens that I have considered throwing in the bin rather than have it fall into the hands of some other mug.

I would hope that the 19/3.5 is a very different proposition.

 

[gzhuang]

Made by Kiron, for Nikon. It and the smaller, better built Kiron 70-150, deliver superb results.

Kiron only makes the best. :munch:

 

[benjiboy]

I know nothing of the Vivitar 19/3.5 but can only agree with those that have already warned that it should not be confused with the 19/3.8, which is I think, a later lens. The 19/3.8 is definitely a rebadged Cosina.

I have a Vivitar 19/3.8 and it was extremely poor until I "recentred" the rear element by the simple expedient of loosening the plastic rear retaining ring and letting the element find an alternative position! With that "fixed", it has gone from being crap to achieving the heady heights of mediocre. A shame really, because it certainly looks, and feels, like a quality product. This is the only lens that I have considered throwing in the bin rather than have it fall into the hands of some other mug.

I would hope that the 19/3.5 is a very different proposition.

I had the Vivitar 19mm f3.8 lens that someone bought me as a present, as Allen writes it was very poor indeed and when I sold it I replaced it with Tamron SP 17mm f3.5 lens that's excellent, except for the filters that actually screws into the hood because the lens has no filter thread are 82 mm and cost a fortune.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Kiron only makes the best. :munch:

I prefer the Kiron 70-150 over the Nikon E 75-150. Only because its smaller and better built. The Kiron and Nikon both deliver superb results.

 

[ronwhit]

I'll stick my neck out a bit on this and nominate my Kiron 30/80, f 3.5/4.5 zoom. I purchased it in 1983 for $99.00, and have often used it as my "travel lens" since. It stops down to f 22, takes conveniently sized 55mm filters, and will close focus to under a foot. I'm often pleasantly surprised at the quality of the images it produces.

 

[dpurdy]

Tamron

When I first bought my Nikon F100 I got the Nikkor 28-105 and was so disappointed in it that I returned it.
Then I bought a 28-105 f2.8 Tamron and was very surprised that it seems to me to be the best of all my Nikon lenses.. about 8 or so.
Dennis

 

[agfarapid]

Ancient 35-70mm f3.5 Tamron Adaptall II. Used on everything from my Topcons to my Nikon F100. Love it's constant aperture!

 

[Russ - SVP]

I'll stick my neck out a bit on this and nominate my Kiron 30/80, f 3.5/4.5 zoom. I purchased it in 1983 for $99.00, and have often used it as my "travel lens" since. It stops down to f 22, takes conveniently sized 55mm filters, and will close focus to under a foot. I'm often pleasantly surprised at the quality of the images it produces.

Ron

The Kiron 28-105 is an improvement over the Kiron 30-80. However, it is a bigger and heavier lens, that uses 67mm filters.

 

[Russ - SVP]

Tamron

When I first bought my Nikon F100 I got the Nikkor 28-105 and was so disappointed in it that I returned it.
Then I bought a 28-105 f2.8 Tamron and was very surprised that it seems to me to be the best of all my Nikon lenses.. about 8 or so.
Dennis

I really like my Nikon 28-105. It's very sharp and the macro function is usable. I was disappointed with the Tamron 28-105, f/2.8 and the first two editions of the Nikon 24-120 lenses, which prompted me to go with the Tamron SP 24-135 lens, which I am quite happy with.

 

[Eric Rose]

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 pre AI

 

[Black Dog]

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 pre AI

Watch out for overexposure Eric

 

[darinwc]

Oh, one vote for the f3.5s.. like all of them. Olympus, Nikon, and Pentax 28mm f3.5, 135mm f3.5, and Pentax 35mm f3.5 (not sure if nikon made 35mm f3.5's)
Nikon micro-nikkor 55mm f3.5, olympus 50mm f3.5 macro (by way of reputation only)

-Very inexpensive since the digital people are all looking for fast lenses. But many are better at any aperture than their expensive cousins.

 

[benjiboy]

Oh, one vote for the f3.5s.. like all of them. Olympus, Nikon, and Pentax 28mm f3.5, 135mm f3.5, and Pentax 35mm f3.5 (not sure if nikon made 35mm f3.5's)
Nikon micro-nikkor 55mm f3.5, olympus 50mm f3.5 macro (by way of reputation only)

-Very inexpensive since the digital people are all looking for fast lenses. But many are better at any aperture than their expensive cousins.

Your'e wise Darin, because in many cases the smaller aperture lenses are easier to design to giver a good performance and often their faster versions aperture for aperture don't perform as well.

 

[anfenglin]

Your'e wise Darin, because in many cases the smaller aperture lenses are easier to design to giver a good performance and often their faster versions aperture for aperture don't perform as well.

That's exactly the reason why I, regarding 50mm lenses, deliberately go for 1.8 or f2 and not 1.4. When do you even use or need 1.4 in every day life? You also has to carry around fever glass, so you have less bulk, weight etc. My old Nikkor 50mm f2 is among the finest pieces of glass ever made, same goes for the 50 1.8 AI-S and the Takumar 55 1.8, the Pentax 50mm 1.7 etc pp.

On topic: One of my finest sleeper lenses is the Jupiter-21m 200mm f4, crazy sharp even at open aperture but bulky and somewhat broken mechanically. It works when you know how to fiddle with it. Someday I'll give it a CLA.

 

[benjiboy]

That's exactly the reason why I, regarding 50mm lenses, deliberately go for 1.8 or f2 and not 1.4. When do you even use or need 1.4 in every day life? You also has to carry around fever glass, so you have less bulk, weight etc. My old Nikkor 50mm f2 is among the finest pieces of glass ever made, same goes for the 50 1.8 AI-S and the Takumar 55 1.8, the Pentax 50mm 1.7 etc pp.

On topic: One of my finest sleeper lenses is the Jupiter-21m 200mm f4, crazy sharp even at open aperture but bulky and somewhat broken mechanically. It works when you know how to fiddle with it. Someday I'll give it a CLA.

I wrote "in most cases" there are notable exceptions the Canon FD 50mm f2 standard lens is pretty poor and designed to go on budget SLR's and these days fortunately are quite rare, the 50mm f1.8 is a very good six element standard lens that I think most people would be happy with, I.M.O. the star performer is the 50mm f1.4 which is a multi- coated seven element double gauss type lens that's world class that was an industry standard in it's day and would give any other leading lens manufacturers 50mm f1.4 lenses a run for their money. My impressions of the two latter lenses are based on around thirty years of use

 

[anfenglin]

I wrote "in most cases" there are notable exceptions the Canon FD 50mm f2 standard lens is pretty poor and designed to go on budget SLR's and these days fortunately are quite rare, the 50mm f1.8 is a very good six element standard lens that I think most people would be happy with, I.M.O. the star performer is the 50mm f1.4 which is a multi- coated seven element double gauss type lens that's world class that was an industry standard in it's day and would give any other leading lens manufacturers 50mm f1.4 lenses a run for their money. My impressions of the two latter lenses are based on around thirty years of use

I didn't mean that they're all brilliant, the Pentax-M 50mm f2 is by far not as good as the 1.7, on the other hand, the Takumar 50 1.4 is far better than the f2. It all depends. In my experience it is like that.

 

[Pioneer]

I didn't mean that they're all brilliant, the Pentax-M 50mm f2 is by far not as good as the 1.7, on the other hand, the Takumar 50 1.4 is far better than the f2. It all depends. In my experience it is like that.

The reality is that all this is anecdotal at best and there can be no resolution.

First, there is an unavoidable built in bias, for or against, by the user. It all depends on whether he/she has generally been pleased with the results from that lens.

Second, and even more important, all of these discussions are based on very limited samples, usually one lens. My f/2 lens could be absolutely magnificent while yours is a true dog. (I mean no disrespect to anyone's dog.) Variation is present in all lenses when new, that variation doesn't narrow as lens age. So, a small handful of discreet samples only show that we, as individuals, are happier with one lens, and not as happy with another.

There are other variables as well. I could be shooting my Pentax 50/2 at f4 to f8 under the majority of circumstances while I rarely touch my Pentax 50/1.4 unless I am shooting at f/1.4 or /2.

Finally, this is the internet. I may occasionally use a little extra emphasis when describing my fish in comparison to yours.

The truth is, I don't really shoot a lot of lenses, not nearly as many as I own. And a lot of what I use is used because of (shhh!!) habit. The lens on the front of my Zeiss Ikon, a favorite camera of mine, is usually either the C Sonnar 50/1.5 or the MS Optical Perar 35/3.5. And a lot of the time I use whatever is on it that day unless there is a good reason to change it.

But, from what I read here and on other forums, I am probably not the norm. It sounds as if a lot of people walk around with cameras bags complete with two or three spare lenses and perhaps a backup camera.

So what's the point. The point is that a sleeper lens for me is probably in use pretty regular, but I don't hear too many people talking about it on the various forums I visit. The Pentax M 50/2 is on my K1000 almost all the time. Why? Because it is light, compact and gives me good results in the situations I normally photograph in. It isn't really a sleeper for me. I know its strengths and weaknesses and I play to its strengths. But I don't hear a lot of talk about it. So, when I see a thread like this I throw it out there for others to consider. I really have no idea whether it is better than his Nikkor or your Zuiko. I may never have used those lenses in my life.

But hey! If you want to argue about it? I am happy to oblige. (But don't feel too bad about it, I don't really know if yours is better or not. I just like to argue.)

 

[darinwc]

"..there can be no resolution."

Lol, made me laugh. i read this as a lens with 'no resolution' -thats an odd one for sure!

-But you are right. This is all subjective. You dont know what a persons perspective is.
"I went from using a holga to that no-name lens and it is sooo sharp!"
-um, yeah, ok.

 

[blockend]

...a lot of the time I use whatever is on it that day unless there is a good reason to change it.

Yup. Grabbing the shot will always trump a perfect lens that happens to be at the bottom of your camera bag. I shot with a 50mm for years and rarely felt compromised. Adding a 28 was a luxury.

 

[lxdude]

EBC Fujinon 55/1.8. Just a really good lens.

 

[ozphoto]

My MF Tamron 28mm f2.5 currently on an EF mount.

Love this lens to bits!!! Pinsharp, lightweight and gave the Canon (FD) equivalent a darn good run for the money. Haven't compared to the Canon EF version, but I'm sure it's going to rate highly against it as well.

Often I'll just head out with it on my EOS-1 body, (no other lenses with me), and shoot B&W with a red filter. Just enjoy the wide angle and creativity that flows.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

I also have a Nikon 50-135 f3.5 that I like. Heavy little bugger but it's fast and sharp. Isn't that what we seek?

 

[Xmas]

I also have a Nikon 50-135 f3.5 that I like. Heavy little bugger but it's fast and sharp. Isn't that what we seek?

Well not all of us...

cue star trek theme
voice over 'space the final gadget bag frontier, ...'

small and light weight may be preferred at the end of the day and you limp back to the transport home.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Well if you sport 17 inch biceps it's not all that heavy. No I don't lift weights or work out. Genetics I guess.