Good legacy zoom vs kit lens

[coase]

I'm wondering how an old Series One 28-90 or a decent Tamron Adaptall in the similar range compares to the Sony FE 28-70 kit lens especially at f4 and f5.6? Can anyone show comparisons using both landscape shots and portraits in daylight?

Thanks.

 

[armin304]

Can anyone show comparisons using both landscape shots and portraits in daylight?

No, I can't. Don't own the the Sony 28-70 and the manual zooms I own are that bad, that I not really intend to use them anymore.

Tokina RMC 3.5/35-105, leftover from my film days. Tried with Nikon D70 (6MP APS-C). Wide open unusable, quite sharp at 5.6. Nothing my Nikon AF-S 3.5-4.5/18-70 couldn't do better at the time.

Tokina RMC 4/28-85. Found at a photo jumble in a crate with other junk lenses. Immaculate lenses. Tried with D700 (FX 12MP). The weirdest distortion at 28mm i've ever seen. Bad or no coating of the rear lens, makes the zoom rather unusable at a digital camera. Dismissed as unusable.

Tokina AT-X 3.5-4.5/28-85. Got it with a Canon A1 from my brother in law. The best of the bunch. Tried at Sony A7II. Rather good at 28mm but soft at 85mm even stopped down. Only used on one short trip.

Vivitar Series One 2.8-3.8/28-105. Got it as a gift to a Vivitar 2.8/55 Macro. It's like new. Tested with D700 (FX 12MP). Dark to black corners at every focal length. Sharpness usable. Dimissed.

My personal opinion: The kit lenses are nowadays that good that vintage zooms can't compete.

 

[coase]

I've seen many posts that show that good telezooms (e.g. Nikon 75-150 or Series 1 70-210) are quite competitive with kit zooms or even better (e.g. FD 80-200 f4 L vs almost any kit zoom) that I was curious to see how the best manual mid range zooms do. I certainly find that my old primes either surpass or are good enough relative to modern zooms at reasonable cost. I'm not interested in spending over $300-400 on a lens so comparisons with better modern zooms are out as I just want a walking about mid zoom. I already own the Sony so just wanted to hear how the older ones fare.

In general, the greatest weaknesses of older lenses -- low contrast or some CA don't bother me terribly if the price is right.

 

[Rol Lei Nut]

Depends on how you definite "legacy"...

To name just a few good older mid-range zooms:

- C/Y Zeiss 35-70

- Minolta AF 24-85 (very big sample variation - I tried 4 to get a very good one)

- Leica R 28-90 ($$$$!)

- C/Y Zeiss 28-85

- Contax N Zeiss 24-85 (expensive adapter)

- Some swear by the Minolta 35-70 3.5 (several versions exist)

 

[coase]

I do have an (unfortunately) defective version of the MD 35-70 which I like but wish were clean. So I was wondering if the Series 1 28-90 f2.8 comes close as it is usually quite cheap.

 

[John Michael Winterbourne]

Yes, I could - A7 + the Sony 28-70, and several 'good' Adaptall mid range zooms: 24-48, 35-70, and SP 35-80 and SP 28-80. The 35-80 has the best reputation for IQ, but the later 28-80 fits the zoom range you mentioned better. There has been talk (possibly urban myth) that to meet growing market demand for mid-range zooms going as wide as 28mm, there had to be a little more compromise in the design

I'm not going to do brick walls or test-charts though! If you're OK with shots looking down on Ludlow Castle + Town (Shropshire, England) from a view point a bit less than I mile away then I'll have a play in the next day or two.

Whoops - sorry, re-read your OP. Landscape only, no opportunities for portraits.

 

[coase]

I'll take whatever pics you can post.

 

[whisky]

I'll take whatever pics you can post.

In agreement with John W's post, I reckon the Tamron SP 35-80 f2.8- 3.5 zoom is a really good lens and was very well thought of If you believe what Adaptall.org says.

It is a really well made, if slightly heavy by modern norms lens and is good to use.

I tend to use such lenses more for other than day to day pics for a bit of fun.

I like it for the clever design and versatility.







Just depends what you are after.

Best of luck,

Cheers.

 

[Peter J Davies]

I can't make any comparisons because I don't have a Sony zoom lens (I bought my A3000 as a body only offer on ebay). However, I did pick up a Tokina RMC 35-105mm lens for $16 at a local thrift store, just because it was a Konica AR mount and I had that adapter. My expectations were not high, just because zooms of that vintage are not generally well regarded. I was pleasantly surprised and now often take it along to supplement my normal use prime lens (a Konica Hexanon AR 40mm f1.8). Here's a couple of examples:


Tokina RMC 35-105 zoom at 35mm


Tokina RMC 35-105 zoom at approx 50mm


Tokina RMC 35-105 zoom at 105mm (sorry about the dust spots......)

--
Peter Davies

Peter Davies

Explore Peter Davies’s 1,231 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

 

[Tom Caldwell]

Popular wisdom is that legacy zoom lenses are not particularly good. But there were some good ones and they are not particularly cheap. Generally cheap legacy zooms might be priced by preformance and inversely by weight.

I have very few of them but I do have an FD 80-200mm f4.0L (push-pull but the tube length does not change) in excellent condition that I can recommend but it wasn't cheap. It can stop right down to f32 - which is interesting. It is also capable of close focus (helpfully called "macro" - I will have to check the actual distance but it starts on the scale after 1.2 metres)

Just tested the lens - it will focus as close as about 600mm on the "yellow" macro extension of the focus scale. It is not distance marked and the macro closest focus probably varies with aperture. My quick test was wide open and using an RJ focal reduction adapter to M4/3 mount. Noteworthy that focus was achieved zoomed out and stayed constant for the full length of the zoom travel. Focal reduced on a M4/3 body it is 0.71x and converts the lens to 64-142mm f2.8 giving a 128-284mm field of view on the 4/3 cropped sensor.

The lens complete with focal reduction adapter but without caps weighs 799gm - which is not particularly heavy for such a capable lens.

As I can adapt by focal reduction to smaller sensors and this can give me a high performance zoom and suddenly it doesn't seem so expensive at all.

--
Tom Caldwell

 

[coase]

I do find that the A7 is least compelling for telephoto range above 150 or so because there is no real size benefit. Plus many cheaper telephotos or zooms above 100mm are quite good in the center and mounted on an MFT EPL5 with IS make excellent 270 to 500mm FF equivalent lenses for shooting from great distances.

I actually wish there were a cheap NEX type APSC camera with the form factor of the much maligned A3000 that has IS. It would be good for mounting old zooms on. I could live with its cheap EVF and other compromises in that role since it should work well for handholding larger lenses.

Till then I'm keeping my EPL5 for telephoto and concert work.

Then again, as I always emphasize, I'm not a pro so don't have a pro's strict requirements.

 

[Tom Caldwell]

I do find that the A7 is least compelling for telephoto range above 150 or so because there is no real size benefit. Plus many cheaper telephotos or zooms above 100mm are quite good in the center and mounted on an MFT EPL5 with IS make excellent 270 to 500mm FF equivalent lenses for shooting from great distances.

You can imagine my sense of frustration when I hitched an incomparable Canon 200mm f2.0L on to my A7R and the damned combination would not properly AF in theatre light and when it did eventually get there was too grindingly slow. When the ancient Canon 5D made almost instant AF focus. See below that M4/3 bodies on electronic adapters now give me very acceptable and accurate AF speeds with the same lens.

Surely MF could be used but the Sony system is not set to encourage very rapid and precise MF changes when I am trying to capture the moment at dress rehearsal, close up with a long fast lens, and I have little pre-indication of the plot. Besides the A7R "rock thrown into a bucket" shutter noise might only work if there is no audience (as there was).

I actually wish there were a cheap NEX type APSC camera with the form factor of the much maligned A3000 that has IS. It would be good for mounting old zooms on. I could live with its cheap EVF and other compromises in that role since it should work well for handholding larger lenses.

I have and like the NEX6 and when the chips are down prefer it as a user's camera to the A7R. Mainly because the earlier electronic adapters were finicky for AF and when they worked were too slow to focus the long lenses I used for theatre work I have done a u-turn away from Sony. I had no interest in buying native Sony E/FE mount lenses so this was a self imposed handicap of one that had great Canon EF lenses and a motley collection of Legacy MF ones.

One thing that works and works well is that EF lenses with stabilisation do work well as stabilised on ustabilised Sony camera bodies. Even if the use of Sony CDAF is still an emerging subject.

Since my venture into M4/3 bodies and the wonderful perfomance of Canon EF lenses adapted to M4/3 using my old EF lens crew in full AF mode is now quite do-able for theatre work where it drove me to distraction on Sony bodies. So my aging Canon 5D might be getting closer to retirement although it never fails to impress as just how advanced a camera it was when it was first released and I bought it. They must be super cheap these days.

The 5D impresses non-photographers with its purposeful bulk and battery pack but for effective images the 4/3 sensor bodies have caught up even if they might not match the latest iteration of FF sensor capabilities.

So my reasoning is that if the 5D images were oh-wow for so many years and the M4/3 bodies can keep the oh-wow at that level at least then I can surely handle the smaller pack-drill and lessor "photographer status" of looking like a compact camera wannabe on the make.

Till then I'm keeping my EPL5 for telephoto and concert work.

Then again, as I always emphasize, I'm not a pro so don't have a pro's strict requirements.

Not a pro either, and I wonder what my work might be worth if the amateur theatre groups had to pay for it if I charged for what I do. But "free" is worth as much as they pay for it and I am sure that they have no idea of the "worth" of what I do for them.

https://flic.kr/p/8iN3G8

Only cropped slightly to shape.

 

[jacketpotato]

Series One 28-90 or a decent Tamron Adaptall in the similar range compares to the Sony FE 28-70 kit lens especially at f4 and f5.6?

Minolta MD 35-70 F3.5 Macro

Beciase of

Meyer Trioplan £300 -£500 & Meyer Primoplan £200-£300 look. Taken by another photographer (Google image search).

I just purchased eBay. There are several ebay just ensure it is Macro manual focus : £35 tops

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/minolta-md-zoom-35-70mm-3-5-review/

 

[VLreviews]

I do have an (unfortunately) defective version of the MD 35-70 which I like but wish were clean. So I was wondering if the Series 1 28-90 f2.8 comes close as it is usually quite cheap.

I own both, the MD-III 35-70 and the Vivitar S1 28-90. The latter is not nearly as good wide open as the Minolta. Mainly because of heavy spherical aberrations ("glow") and some purple fringing. Also, the bokeh can be very busy, whereas the Minolta is pretty neutral. Stopped down once, the Vivitar is pretty usable and sharpness is actually very solid. Colors look a bit flat to me, but I shot it the last time around october, so that may be a biased judgement.

Test shots:

Vivitar (Komine) Series 1 28-90 mm f/2.8-3.5

Minolta MD Zoom 35-70 mm f/3.5 Macro

--

http://vintagelensreviews.com/

Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more

 

[moffatross]

I do have an (unfortunately) defective version of the MD 35-70 which I like but wish were clean. So I was wondering if the Series 1 28-90 f2.8 comes close as it is usually quite cheap.

I own both, the MD-III 35-70 and the Vivitar S1 28-90. The latter is not nearly as good wide open as the Minolta. Mainly because of heavy spherical aberrations ("glow") and some purple fringing. Also, the bokeh can be very busy, whereas the Minolta is pretty neutral. Stopped down once, the Vivitar is pretty usable and sharpness is actually very solid. Colors look a bit flat to me, but I shot it the last time around october, so that may be a biased judgement.

Test shots:

Vivitar (Komine) Series 1 28-90 mm f/2.8-3.5

Minolta MD Zoom 35-70 mm f/3.5 Macro

--

http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more

I have a Sony FE 28-70 kit lens and don't use it because I think the Minolta MD 35-70 makes better photos across its range. I used to use a Vivitar S1 28-90 on a NEX-7 and loved it on APS-C but sold it when I discovered it was not so good on FF (soft edges and lots of CA). I've also got a Rokkor 35-70 (it doesn't have macro but it's a clickless aperture version so comes out for video). I think Phillip Reeve reckons the later macro non-Rokkor badged lens is crisper but I can't tell a whole lot of difference.

To the OP, some Minolta 35-70 on Sony A7II photos here and some comments on the Rokkor version too ...

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3931598

 

[JT26]

Go buy yourself an Angenieux 35-70 or a Contax Zeiss 35-70. The former has stacks of character and gorgeous colours while the zeiss is probably the sharpest zoom lens I have ever ever seen, plus has nice colour and heaps of contrast.

 

[hex anon]

Hi coase, I have the Vivitar S1 28-90 2.8- 3.5 and it's one of my favorites. It's quite usable wide open, and sharpens up a little more with each of the first two clicks. Depending on type of background, distance to the background, lighting and f-stop, it can produce some nice bokeh. My copy is in Minolta mount and in very good condition. There were a lot of them made, in different mounts, and the most important thing is getting one in good physical condition. If in good condition, it's a very good lens. I don't have any samples handy, but if you want, I'm sure I can dig some up. If you get a Vivitar S1 70-210, seriously get the Third version, the one with the 2.8-4.0 aperture. I have one each, of the first three versions and the third version is definitely the, all around. best one. The early model Minolta 35-70 3.5 is an excellent lens. The early model was made in a macro and non macro version. Some people say the macro version is the best and others say the non macro version is. My research showed more people saying the non macro was best. So, that's the one I got. First copy I bought turned out to have haze and fungus inside and was returned. The second copy I bought is in very good condition and is another one of my favorite lenses. It's a great lens. The Nikon 75-150 3.5 E series is another very sharp, great lens. One that you might consider, also, is the Tokina ATX 50-250 4.0-5.6. This lens is very sharp and covers a nice focal range. A lot of these old zooms have "macro" in their names, but really only allow closer focusing, to one degree or another. The Tokina 50-250, on the other hand, actually goes down to 1:1.2, which is closer than any of the 1:2 dedicated macro lenses. Once in macro mode, the focusing is a bit fiddly, but with a little practice, it's not too difficult. Also, most of these zooms tend to get a little softer at the long end but the Tokina doesn't. Actually, it seems to get sharper toward the long end. And, the dark horse is the Vivitar 28-200 3.5-5.3. It's still a sharp lens, just not quite as sharp as the aforementioned lenses. But it does produce sharp images with good color and contrast with little distortion and it covers a great focal range. I own all of these and I would recommend any of them, without hesitation. Again, the key is condition. Any of these could be dogs, if they are in damaged, abused or worn out Condition.

hex anon

 

[hex anon]

Hi, again, coase. One that I forgot, in my earlier long winded post, is the Minolta 50-135 3.5. It's usable wide open and sharpens up some as you stop down. It's not too big or heavy and produces those great Minolta colors.

hex anon

 

[whisky]

Nice pics.

 

[Peter J Davies]

Nice pics.

Thank you Whisky.