[asharpe]

The VS1 450/4.5 Aspheric Mirror. ... I went through two copies of it (not expecting the focusing to get any easier, but hoping to see its sharpness improve perhaps (?))

I have a Tokina RMC K 500/8 catadioptric that looks new, and *can* perform decently, but it's quite hit and miss, focus-wise, literally. Paper thin DoF. So, I tried an experiment making a Waterhouse stop. I have no idea what f-stop it was, I just cut some black dense foam with a hole in the middle for the mirror to fit, and as large a hole I could get offset to one side. I was surprised that it worked, and it was a bit sharper, but by then, of course, I was in the f11-16 range, and without cranking ISO way up, I was at slow shutter speeds with a 750mm-equivalent lens, which wasn't much fun.

---

Last edited by asharpe; 08-26-2017 at 01:21 PM. Reason: typos

[asharpe]

As a Takumar lover this causes me pain, but I completely agree with you about the Tak 50mm/1.4. It's one of the most over-rated lenses around, and I prefer any version of the Takumar 55mm over the 50mm in every way.

My copy is quite good, and it's not even the 8-element. I'd use it more except for two things: 1) I rarely shoot at large apertures, and the 50 macro takumar is also very sharp, 2) After quite some time, I just got tired of the exposure problems with these lenses on the K-100, K-20, and K-3 (and presumably on the K-1). Using the green button was certainly better than Av, but the A and FA lenses just get it closer, even keeping the meter on center-weighted.

[ivanvernon]

I know the Takumars are supposed to be special, and there are lots of folks out there saying good stuff about them. However, I have two copies of the Takumar 50mm f 1.4, and have set both of them out in the sun until the yellow cast disappeared. Using them, however, I don't get it. The lens is competent, but I do not seem to be competent enough to find anything special about either of these two lens copies. Any one of my Sear 50mm lenses, including the 50/f 2.0, produces better image quality.

[asharpe]

Pentax-A 135 / 2.8 provides better performance for portrait and long distance shooting that can not be replaced with my Pentax FA100 / 2.8 macro. In addition, less sturdy construction and the weight makes it impractical.

Hmm. My FA 50 and FA 100 macro lenses *seem* to be built like tanks. There are just plain metal tubes, so certainly not very fancy to look at. And yes, they are much heavier. But I guess I don't miss the extra 35mm for telephoto. Why do you think the A135 is much better for portraits? And if I need a longer telephoto, I have a Pentax-F SMC 70-210 which, while not stellar, is much better than the Takumar-F version, and at least seems to perform adequately, and can perform quite well with decent light.

[normhead]

Any lens, if you get one at the bottom end of technical spec will be disappointing, and any lens performing at the top end of its technical spec will probably be quite good. This is a thread about lens lemons, as much as anything else. "lens Lemons, who got one?" would be a more appropriate title.

We all like to think we can take our one little lens and generalize about every lens like it, but, it ain't necessarily so.

[boriscleto]

When did the A 135/2.8 ever have a good reputation, before this site anyway. IIRC PopPhoto gave it a bad review in 1983 and nobody really looked past the fact that it had the same optical formula as the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5.

[asharpe]

Any lens, if you get one at the bottom end of technical spec will be disappointing, and any lens performing at the top end of its technical spec will probably be quite good. This is a thread about lens lemons, as much as anything else. "lens Lemons, who got one?" would be a more appropriate title. We all like to think we can take our one little lens and generalize about every lens like it, but, it ain't necessarily so.

Maybe so. However, this thread is about overrating. I think the Lens Review sections here are sometimes guilty of that. But there aren't many sites like this, so it is very useful, even if it is a bit flawed at times. The lenses I listed originally all had good reviews, and not only from pentaxforums.com. Some had mythic status, like the Lydith. But in fact, it wasn't my specific copy, because, just before I bought that lens, I bought a Pentacon 30/3.5, which is the same lens. I didn't like it, because it was soft, so I thought that the Lydith would be better. It wasn't; they really are the same lens, and the performance was the same for both. So, not really about lens lemons, but about overrating.

I believe all the lenses I listed were good copies, with the sole possible exception of the F50/1.7.

Oh, and one other thing. If a well-regarded lens can have such poor quality control that it becomes a crap-shoot whether you get a "good" one or not, then it does not deserve a good reputation. I suppose it is possible, but I've rarely heard of someone complaining about a bad Canon L lens.

---

Last edited by asharpe; 08-26-2017 at 04:16 PM.

[GUB]

When did the A 135/2.8 ever have a good reputation, before this site anyway. IIRC PopPhoto gave it a bad review in 1983 and nobody really looked past the fact that it had the same optical formula as the Takumar Bayonet 135/2.5.

To turn this thread around I would have to say that the Takumar Bayonet group is the group with a poor reputation for that me has performed surprising well . In apsc the Tak bayonet 28 2.8 ended up being my go to after being run against M28 3.5s, M28 2.8, A28 2.8 and 2 or 3 old takumars. I have just run some of my 135s up against each other. (2.5 and 3.5 taks m42 , a M3.5 and the Tak bayonet)and I can see little difference. The 2 old tak 2.5 m42 may be a little softer wide open.

[normhead]

Oh, and one other thing. If a well-regarded lens can have such poor quality control that it becomes a crap-shoot whether you get a "good" one or not, then it does not deserve a good reputation. I suppose it is possible, but I've rarely heard of someone complaining about a bad Canon L lens.

You haven't read the guy over at lens rental.com! Sorry there are no good lenses with all good quality copies. Brand and price are no guarantee of anything. And yes I have read at least one post by someone dumping their Canon pr glass and going Nikon after a Canon lens screw up. It can happen to anyone.

GO over to lens rental.com and give it a read. It pays to be informed.

[stevebrot]

GO over to lens rental.com and give it a read. It pays to be informed.

This is the article I remember reading. Roger Cicala has written several on the subject.

Lens Rentals | Blog


The important thing to remember is that there is an intentional target variability as part of the design and manufacturing process specification. The notion of continuous quality/process improvement is somewhat passe' in a world where the cost of manufacturing is balanced against the cost of warranty replacement. The latter only happens when the customer figures out something is wrong. A maker may have tighter standards over all or may have different standards based on class or profitability of a particular product.

Whether disappointment in a lens having established reputation is based on same variability remains an open question in my mind. In the case of the ST 50/1.4, it was the first f/1.4 lens I had shot with and my expectation was that it would generally perform like my M 50/1.7 only 1/2 stop faster. I knew that user comments and published reviews stated otherwise,* but still, that was my hope. My disappointment was that I affirmed fact rather than fantasy during my short period of ownership.


Steve

* Reviews consistently indicate fairly low contrast wide open and softness at wider apertures.

[Skodadriver]

I am really disappointed in my Fujinon 50mm f1.4!
Disappointed that it "disappeared" in 1993 when I moved house that is.
I remember that it seemed a great lens on my Fujica ST901, as good as my Canon FDn 50mm F1.4 if not better (rose coloured glasses?).....but I may have revised my opinion if I had ever used it on digital. I have been a little disappointed with my Canon 50mm F1.4 on my digital Canon but am blaming the cheap adapter with corrective optic.
I have a Super Reflecta 55mm F1.4 that I would like better if the grease had not got so hard it is a pain to use but it seems quite good at F2 onwards, if not great at F1.4.
Which brings me to the Pentax & Takumar F1.4 standard lenses, I have never had one but always assumed they were going to be at the pinnacle of the Japanese made 50mm's.

Someone please reassure me that there are versions of Pentax 50mm F1.4 lenses that are as good or much better than their contemporaries.

[normhead]

The thing I'd say here would be if you look at the variation of lenses all of which are within factory spec. a bottom end of spec.version of a good lens may not be as good as the top of it's class version of a cheaper lens. Which is why I take these personal stories about liking this lens and not liking that lens with a grain of salt. It's also why I find second hand prices of gear so outrageous. I always wonder, "Would this person be selling this lens if they had received a good copy?" Most people don't know if they have a top class lens or a bottom of class lens. All they know is whether they like the lens or not.

Yet they all think their evaluation of the 31 ltd. is representative of every else's evaluation of their 31 ltd. and that other reviewers must be wrong. Everyone is right. Sample variation exists. The fact that your copy isn't as good as expected, doesn't mean other people don't have copies that would exceed your expectation.

The only grounds for argument here happens when someone with a bad copy of a lens writes about it as if every other copy is just like theirs.

[monochrome]

There's also the matter (40 or 50 years on) of buying a second-hand lens and using it under conditions it wasn't originally designed for. When they were new there was ample documentation, written opinion and cultural knowledge* of lenses' strengths, weaknesses and design intent. Many of us read internet fora and weblogs originally written in the late 90's, when cultural knowledge was still present, but today the words are read in a vacuum.

Our taste in what makes an image good has changed to better suit digital capture and display, versus chemical-coated acetate and wet printing. Lenses designed to excel on 60's media - that might have acquired an exceptional reputation - can be unsuited (or the converse - some lenses come into their own) to 2017 technology. We've lost far too much of the rich fabric of information in the last 15 years.

For instance, we've had the ST/S-M-C/SMC** 50/1.4 versus 55/1.8-50/1.7 discussion*** many times over the years. My opinion is the user often expects 50/1.4 lenses to perform in a fashion they weren't design for, so disappointment is misalignment of expectations with reality rather than plain bad information.



*at a time when camera stores might actually have offered advice to buyers, rather than steering them into a more profitable item

**Super-Multi-Coating was a genuine technology leap for flare reduction and contrast enhancement. I've long surmised Pentax lost it's creative focus when SMC patent license revenue allowed the company to build extravagant facilities and diversify into loosely related products

***50/1.4's were designed to incorporate edge softness in order to isolate a sharp central subject. 55/1.8's & 50/1.7's were designed for use on a copy stand shooting flat subjects to make copies or offset printing negatives. In the 60's subject isolation and 3D pop was preferred for use on a two-dimensional, printed magazine page. Today, a flat image that is sharp in the corners is preferred for digital display

[reeftool]

Our taste in what makes an image good has changed to better suit digital capture and display, versus chemical-coated acetate and wet printing. Lenses designed to excel on 60's media - that might have acquired an exceptional reputation - can be unsuited (or the converse - some lenses come into their own) to 2017 technology. We've lost far too much of the rich fabric of information in the last 15 years.

Back in the film days, we viewed most of our shots on 4x6 prints. Today, we are looking at them on hi-res 27 inch monitors. I have taken countless shots that look mediocre on screen but look great when printed. We rarely printed larger than 8x10 and then only our very best shots. Today, we judge a lens by viewing extreme crops, something we never did back in the day. Maybe, if we were shooting slides, but most of my shooting was with print film.

[normhead]

Back in the film days, we viewed most of our shots on 4x6 prints. Today, we are looking at them on hi-res 27 inch monitors. I have taken countless shots that look mediocre on screen but look great when printed. We rarely printed larger than 8x10 and then only our very best shots. Today, we judge a lens by viewing extreme crops, something we never did back in the day. Maybe, if we were shooting slides, but most of my shooting was with print film.

The level of detail folks expect from their images these days is completely insane. People used to be absolutely thrilled with 11x14 prints done ar 144 DPI. Now people are demanding 300 DPI, knowing full well that from an acceptable viewing distance like 3 or 4 feet away, you can't see a difference.

I have in the past pointed this out and had people post '" I like to gt right up 8 inches away from a print, and I want it to be as detailed as possible." So, yes, there are students of art, and then there are students of technology. You can satisfy any reasonable artistic demands without stretching the limits of the technology. In fact some prints look great at 72 DPI. The idea that you have to meet certain technical standards to produce compelling art has never been true. Concern over technical IQ has never been more overstated, and understanding composition has never been more ignored. Yet there is not one technical award for achieving the highest technical standards in all of photography. Composition on the other hand, remains, what it's all about.

After you lose a photo competition, pointing out that your photography uses better technology and is technically superior won't get you anywhere. There simply is no award or competition for such a useless thing. It's all about can you produce a compelling image.