Russ - SVP
Allowing Ads
Made by Kiron, for Nikon. It and the smaller, better built Kiron 70-150, deliver superb results.
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.
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.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.
Kiron only makes the best. :munch:
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.
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
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.
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 useThat'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
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.
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....a lot of the time I use whatever is on it that day unless there is a good reason to change it.
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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?