Cult and Legend lenses?

<p>When I moved over from Leica to Nikon members of this forum gave me some fabulous advice about the lenses I should look at, and more importantly they were mindful of budget - I have a nice bunch of primes that suit what I do but after driving myself mad on a holiday with a truck load of gear I got some advice (again from here) for a handy "holiday/general purpose" zoom for my D800 a 24-85/3.5-4.5 G.</p>

<p>Now this cheap little plastic lens has completely blown me away, particularly when corrected in Lightroom with the simple press of a default button. I can clearly see by the number of these lenses being sold cheaply second hand on that auction site that people don't share my enthusiasm for it while I think of it in the class of "cult or legend".</p>

<p>I think there must be many other contenders for "cult or legend" status now that lens correction software is so easily available, what do you reckon? Here's a quick snap taken of a dinner party on Saturday night with it ISO 3200.</p>

<p><img src="https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/v/t1.0-9/10268576_850681108297939_824513137338253453_n.jpg?oh=fb5fb5321197ef8fdd609f98e85f29bc&oe=54F73547&__gda__=1424275470_f68eb6edea909acf41323367ac2e0b33" alt="" width="850" height="567" /></p>

I think a lot of the reason it's so cheap on eBay has to do with specials Nikon ran on D600 kits after the D600 got a bad

reputation because of sensor spots. They were pretty much giving the lenses away, so eBay got flooded with lenses from

people who bought the kit but didn't need the lens. The used price never came back. I had one for a while and found it

quite capable.

 

Not sure what sorts of lenses you're in the market for, but there are definitely some cult ones out there. The 105mm f/2.5

and the 28mm f/2.8 AIS, for example. Some current ones that really impress are the 50mm and 85mm 1.8G lenses-

they're both amazingly good and not very expensive.

<p>Hi Andy - I'm just on a general fishing trip, I've got both the 50mm & 85mm 1.8G and I agree that for the price they are amazing though I think the 85 is a cut above the 50. I have 180/2.8 brilliant lens on many occasions, a Voigtlander 58/1.4 (has a classy look to the pics it takes) a 75-150/3.5, a PC-E 45 (perfect for my main work pictures) 24/2.8 very nice. And just to cover extra wide a Sigma 15-30/3.5-4.5, I have a bit of love hate relationship with this one, it can take fabulously sharp pics but flare is either great or very nasty. </p>

<p>Although I'm covered quite well between 85 and 180, 105s and 135s do appeal.</p>

<p>Surely it should be a "legendary lens", as there are legends about the lens - it's an adjectival description. Likewise a cult is a small group who believe something considered unusual, so a chunk of glass and plastic cannot be a cult. It can, however, be the object admired or worshipped etc by a cult. Carry on. </p>

<p>I was expecting to be blown away by the 135 DC, but it turned out to be too fickle for me. While it doesn't really hold up on a D800, I'm still very fond of my 28-200 f/3.5-5.6 G, at least for D700 use. A bit of post-processing helps. The 200 f/2 (VR 1, in my case) is epic, but you'd expect it to be. I'm much more impressed by the 150mm OS Sigma macro than I might have expected to be (and it's had more use than the non-VC 90mm Tamron I've owned for longer). The Nikkor 135 f/2.8 AI-S is pretty small, cheap and good. The 300 f/4 AF-S is great, but everyone expects that. I'm much more impressed by the 85 f/1.8 G than the 50mm - but the latter is visibly more usable than the AF-D version. The 85 f/1.8's main problem is its LoCA, but so long as you like green backdrops, it's fine. The 500 f/4 AI-P is very competent, but a bit of a pain to use (Santa, a 400 f/2.8 VR, please).<br />

<br />

The optics aren't great, but maybe a shout out to the (adapted) TC-16A as a cheap and special piece of kit?</p>

<p>A dose of semantics never goes astray Robin, but words regularly have their meanings changed through misuse, "visitations" when used to mean numbers of visitors irks me, equally the use of the word iconic to describe just about everyhing........... but do you have any suggestions for rather nice Nikon glass that has benefited from "click of a button" Lightroom strategies.</p>

<p>Second the 105mm f2.5. I had one and loved it when I shot Nikon.<br>

but the lens I KEPT to shoot all manually on my new µ43 rig is the 55mm f3.5. Really, I think all the 55mm micro lenses are pretty amazing.</p>

<p>Is the OP referring to the original 24-85G or the VR version? We wouldn't want a prospective cult member to get the wrong idea.</p>

<p>Robin, I think our culture has decided "cult" is an accepted term in this context. The usual definitions don't quite fit. I think the common usage (when we are talking about a camera, or TV show) is intended to mean something like a small group of people with an unusually strong devotion to a thing. Bonus points for when the "thing" is sort of off the beaten path. You don't hear a lot about "cult followers" of Seinfeld or "the Camry is a cult hit in America."</p>

<p>By my own definition, the 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor might have a tough time with "cult" credentials because it is almost universally praised and it is supposed to be good. The Series E 75-150mm is considered a cult-lens by some, I think because it is a Series E lens and should not be so good. </p>

<p>Chip - on the lens it reads Nikon ED/AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm 1:3.5-4.5G/ VR (on 3 separate lines)</p>

<p>Andrew - I've noticed that there quite a few devotees for both the 135/2.8 and 3.5. Though just looking at pictures on the net the 135/3.5 looks hard to beat...to my eyes at least.</p>

 

<p>Sorry Peter - missed that one, I used to shoot 43s and loved old 50's on it, mainly Leica R and Zeiss CY, I've always been a bit disappointed with Nikon 50s since my F3 + 50/1.4, maybe the reason I got the Voigtlander 58/1.4 was that I just couldn't see a really good Nikon 50. The Nikkor PC-E 45 is another story all together though not cheap!</p>

<p>Of course there are some old familiar lenses that have always been favorites like the 105, but as I think I've mentioned before, one of the greatest surprises in the old lens department is the ancient (mine from around 1962, and not AI convertible) 28/3.5, which was never all that interesting on film, but looks really nice on digital DX. I think that one may be gaining some late cult status, as I gather aside from being sharp and rather good about flare, it's apparently very good for IR as well.</p>

<p>The 75-150/3.5E might be the nearest to a cult classic. It has all the elements of having a stunningly beautiful quality and an impossibly low price used. It is everything that was not expected of a series E lens. It's mechanically rock solid, optically beautiful, and has fine bokeh. All you have to do is decide on a fix for the floppy one-touch zoom/focus ring that all share. <br>

I'm a big fan of the 28/2 AI. It has a rounded, cinematic look. I kept it even after buying the 28/1.8g, and use it at least as much. <br>

The 105/2.5 AIs is a lens that all Nikon users need to own, and that's never been a secret.<br>

The 135/2DC is a quirky phenom, with bokeh as beautiful as any lens ever made. <br>

The 180/2.8D ED-IF is a solid, light, compact, fast tele. It's sharp wide open, and has a beautiful look with wonderful bokeh. And it's a fraction of the price of a 200/2.</p>

<p>Matthew - thanks for that re: the 28 you talk about so fondly, sounds like a few of us should be looking at it, can you point us towards some pictures that capture what you feel are its strong points?</p>

<p>I guess my 75-150 sort of spoils me from getting too serious about 105s which are always a lot more expensive. The sliding zoom hasn't annoyed me yet, must be the way I intuitively use it or something. And yes Luke, the 180/2.8 is one of the best bits of advice that members on this forum recommended that I get, very happy with it.</p>

<p>It's strange that no slowish/cheapish auto focus zooms other than my own suggestion, seem to have cracked it for this little list,surely there must be some sleeping giants that have been liberated by a bit of Lightroom fixing. </p>

<p>My vote for a "cult classic" (sorry Robin) goes to the 105mm f/1.8 Ai-S Nikkor lens. I've put my copy head-to-head against the legendary, but common-as-muck, 105mm f/2.5 and it equals that lens in image quality at every like aperture - and then offers you a whole stop extra with accompanying shallow DoF!</p>

<p>WRT the Series E 75-150mm f/3.5; I agree whole-heartedly that its image quality punches well above its weight. However I can't agree that <em>all</em> copies have a sloppy zoom collar. I have a silver ring version that has a non slipping zoom ring, with no sign of it becoming sloppy either. OTOH I bought a black plastic ring version that slipped all over the place. It was quite a simple task to remove the zoom collar and pack out the felt rings with small strips of thin card. Sorted! It now feels as good as you could expect any trombone-style zoom to feel.<br>

I also Dandelion chipped the silver ring version; making it an extremely handy little zoom to use.</p>

<p>+1 to the 28mm f/2 being a great lens. The 20mm f/3.5 Ai Nikkor is also quite nice, from the point of view of being very small and lightweight for its focal length, and taking what were once Nikon's standard 52mm filters. The 80-200mm f/4 Ai-S Zoom-Nikkor can also hold its own on a modern DSLR, but isn't quite good enough to rate as legendary IMO.</p>

<p>My vote for 3rd party classic goes to Tamron's SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 zoom. Best Lens Bargain Ever IMHO. It shows that a constant aperture f/2.8 standard zoom with excellent IQ doesn't have to break your back or your bank balance. And it doesn't have to take 82mm filters either Sigma!</p>

<p>Clive: Well, I'm standing by the 28-200, but mostly if you've got a D3 or D700. I guess it might be okay on a Df... I really must give my 28-80 f/3.3-5.6 G a better test. Does the 70-180mm Micro count as a "slowish zoom"?<br />

<br />

Luke: The far distant bokeh of the 135 f/2 DC is lovely. My problem was everything near the transition zone looking like traffic lights because of the colour fringing. It appears that not everyone has had the problems I had with it, though as far as I can tell this behaviour is actually part of the design. I'd prefer to achieve the same goal via something like the Fuji APD or Sony/Minolta STF lenses.<br />

<br />

I don't own a 180 f/2.8. Many people gush about it. However, looking at <a href="http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/722-nikkorafd18028ff?start=1">recent</a> <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-AF-Nikkor-180mm-F28D-IF-ED-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-200mm-f2G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-70-200mm-F28-G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810___706_963_404_963_406_963">comparisons</a>, the 180 isn't as sharp at any aperture as the 200 f/2 is wide open, doesn't match the 70-200 VR 2 for sharpness, has very slightly nervous bokeh and certainly has a lot of LoCA (despite being "ED"). For the money - and it's not <i>that</i> cheap, at least new - the main redeeming feature seems to be that it's half the weight of a 70-200. I'm not saying it's a bad lens, just that "good" is relative, and it's an old design. I'd take the 150mm Sigma OS macro for less money most of the time if I wanted to do the 180mm's job (and I <i>do</i> have that lens).</p>

<p>I like the 85mm f/2.0 and the 50mm f/2.0 I am also a big fan of the 105mm f/1.8. I like it better then I like my 105mm f/2.5. I also use and love my 135mm f/2 DC. I use it for shooting sports when I want an ultra shallow DOF and supper smooth OOF backgrounds.</p>

<p>For a look all it's own I really like the 58mm f/1.4 from the very early 60's as well as the 55mm f/1.2. Both of these lenses do something for an image that is almost magical.</p>

<p>I have been very happy with the image quality I get from my 180mm f/2.8 AI-S.</p>

<p>And while it is hard to make a photograph without a lens it really all boils down to using what you have to the best of your ability </p>

<p>Ask 100 Nikon photographers this question, and you may receive 100 different responses. I do not really characterize the 105 2.5 as qualifying as "cult" status. <br>

My choices are-<br>

50mm Series E<br>

50-135 f/3.5 Macro<br>

28-50 f/3.5 Macro<br>

None were runaway successes, but all three can yield spectacular results.</p>

<p>A</p>

 

<p>Oh, but the 105mm f/2.5 has all the necessary criteria for 'cult status':<br /> For example, in the <em>Nikon Compendium</em> it says</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The next in the line, the Nikkor<br />105mm, f/2.5, can rightfully be called<br />a Nikon legend, and many photographers<br />consider it to be the finest<br />lens Nikon has ever produced.</p>

</blockquote><div></div>

<p>Michael: You're an example of "not everyone having the problems I had with" the 135 DC. I couldn't trust mine to focus accurately, for a start (the colour fringes threw the AF system). Anyway, it's gone now. As for taking shots with what we have, please don't tell my wife that until <i>after</i> I get a 400 f/2.8 (you may have a wait). Of course not having a particular lens won't stop a photographer from taking a good photo, but it might stop the photographer from taking a <i>particular</i> good photo. I've always bought a lens when there's a specific type of shot that I want to take with it. And "the best of my ability" is limited enough without an aberrant lens making things worse.<br />

<br />

Arthur: I've always been tempted by a 50mm f/1.8 series E. Not for the optics (I have the AF-D, and I'm not blown away) but because I like the idea of something that's nearly a pancake lens, and not as preposterously overpriced as the 45mm f/2.8 AI-P.<br />

<br />

Incidentally, I'd probably distinguish "cult" from "legend". The 125mm APO-lanthar is kind of legendary; the Coastal Optics 60mm also, and the Otuses (Oti?) are getting there. I'd include oddballs like the 300 f/2, 1200-1700mm and 6mm f/2.8, too. But I think of "legendary" as "can do things that are way beyond what other lenses can do", whereas I'd define "cult" as "very good, but most people don't know it". At least in keen photographic circles, I don't think there's any danger of the Otus being unknown. Unless "cult" should mean "a lens that everyone should own" - but in that case we should talk about the 50mm f/1.8 lenses or the older 90mm Tamron instead.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone - looks as if I've got a lot more homework to do, just a point though with something like the 180/2.8 and softness, the neat thing these days is how much tweaking you apply in Lightroom or better still Photoshop "smart sharpen". I think people simply got in the habit of looking at lenses with no processing but its much more interesting to accept that 'sliders' are a very useful part of our activity.</p>

<p>Clive: That's true. However, there's always a trade-off. Sharpening accentuates noise (or concentrates sample error, depending on how you want to look at it) and tends to make bokeh look more intrusive. Distortion correction reduces sharpness. Radial/lateral chromatic aberration correction softens both because of stretching and because the captured image is typically not sampled at three pure wavelengths. Longitudinal/axial chromatic aberration correction is typically based on a colour range guess, and can introduce false colour shifts. You don't get anything for free, even though it's often worth it. I certainly usually apply a lot of corrections - and I usually start with DxO's raw conversion and lens correction, before doing some dynamic range adjustment - but there's still something to be said for getting it right in the glass. And, indeed, when taking the shot, but neither are always possible.</p>

<p>I have three manual focus "legend or cult" Nikkors left in the bag/closet: 105/2.5 Ai, 28/2.8 Ai-S, and 75-150/3.5 Series E. <br>

Never owned the 105/1.8 Ai-S but for the price they go for, I would likely prefer the 85/1.8G AF-S (which I have and which gets about as much use as the 105/2.5 (i.e., very little)). <br>

The 28/2.8 AI-S will see less use now too - the Ricoh GR will takes it's place in many applications. <br>

And instead of the "sloppy" 75-150, I'd rather have the Kiron 70-150/4 (it's a lot smaller and allegedly optically as good) - it might see some use on a Sony A7 (on which the Nikon 75-150 already feels too big). Unfortunately, the Kiron I purchased recently developed some mechanical issue that killed it and I haven't found another one yet. <br>

I had a 20/4 Ai that was supposedly one of the better 20mm lenses - but when I finally got to use it on an FX camera, I wasn't impressed - the heavy vignetting in particular was too much for me and I sold it. </p>

<p>55/2.8 Micro - never warmed up to it and sold it.<br>

Any 50mm - I have no use for any of them.<br>

<br />180/2.8 - never owned one - but have a "legend" from another company adapted to F-mount instead: Leitz Apo-Telyt 180/3.4. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to really live up to its legendary status for me...</p>

<p>Point taken Andrew - yes, like anything else PP does require a fine eye, and even an ability to comprehend anticipated results. The picture that I started this post with would make many people's flesh crawl if they got to see it at 100%, ISO 3200 from a D800 can look pretty nasty especially if you crank the LR sharpening up to 50, beyond that it really becomes unacceptable to my taste, but all the problems magically go away for a web post.</p>

<p>And I totally agree that there is a lot in the "quality" of the glass as starting point. Like with anything "quality" can mean many things.</p>

<p>RJ: I'm very envious that you have a 75-150 with a NON-floppy one-touch zoom ring. Mine is also a silver-ring, but it's as floppy as they come.</p>

<p>Dieter: The Kiron 75-150 f/4 is reputedly the same optical design as the Nikon, just a bit slower. I've never been able to confirm the rumor that Kiron actually made these for Nikon.</p>

<p>I've never found the 180/2.8D soft wide open, but surely it is not as sharp as the 200/2. It might not be cheap new, but for years there have been pristine used copies out there for under $500, as mine was.</p>

<p>Informal comparison of two other 'legendary' or 'cult' lenses - the Zeiss Olympia Sonnar 180mm f/2.8 and the Nikkor-P 180mm f/2.8 at</p>

<p><br /> http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00bTe1<br>

(pay no attention to the digressions about lens families - it's not significant to this issue of 'cult' status)</p>