Which is the best 70-150mm zoom? Or maybe 50-135mm?

<p>I had a look around PN and found:</p>

<p>"One that is good, if you can find it, is the very compact Vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 Close-Focusing zoom. I have it in M42 screw mount. Not a wide range, which helps, but pin-point sharp, flare resistant and wonderful for close ups." - Louis Meluso<br /> http://www.photo.net/classic-cameras-forum/00Vuzj</p>

<p>So. What is your pick? Vivitar, Tamron, Canon, Soligor, Hoya and Olympus made lenses in this range, all about f/3.8. I prefer as wide an aperture as possible and don't really mind two-touch or one-touch. My aim is to use it with the Sony NEX system until someone makes an equivalent E mount lens, such as a 50-150/2.8.</p>

<p>EDIT: Minolta and Nikon made 50-135mm zooms which I would also consider.</p>

<p>Vivitar made a two touch 70-150, a later one touch 70-150 and a 70-150 two touch in TX mount. My recollection is that the first model (two touch) was made by Kino, the second model (one touch) was also made by Kino and the third model (TX) was made by Tokina. The first model seems best to me. The TX mount version is not seen very often. I have a late 70-150/3.5 Tamron Adaptall II. It's Ok if closed down but does not seem to be as sharp as the first Vivitar. I have seen photos of a 70-150/2.8 Tamron with a soft focus feature but I don't know whether it was ever made. There is the 70-150/4 one touch Kiron. It's nice to use in bright light. I have a 70-150/4 Konica Hexanon, which was made for Konica by Tokina. Years ago I remember seeing a 70-150/3.5 Soligot in M42 mount. I don't know how sharp it was but it looked sturdy and was heavy. You need more patience to use a lens in this range which has a maximum aperture of f/3.5 to f/4. Most of the time I would rather use a 100/2.5 Rokkor or 105/2.5 Nikkor or 90/2.5 Tamron SP (52BB). </p>

<p>I'd personally go (and actually did, several times) for the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm range lenses.<br>

They're all pretty good, and some are downright excellent, even by modern standards. As Jeff reminds us, Vivitar had a number of makers actually producing the lenses (details at http://www.robertstech.com/vivitar.htm )</p>

<p>I think the Kiron 70-150 f4 is the same lens as the Vivitar 70-150 f3.8. The difference between labeling the lens f4 or f3.8 is within limits of what the lens can be marked. I owned a Tamron Adaptall 70-150 f3.5 and the one touch Vivitar 70-150 f3.8. Found very little if any difference wide open at 70mm, but at 150mm wide open the Vivitar seemed a bit sharper. </p>

<p>Yeah, That's a good one, Karim. The Olympus OM 70-150mm version is good too. Some don't like the range, but for portrait work it's nice. The close-focusing feature of the Vivitar is very good and the build quality is top drawer.</p>

<p>That said, I have only used these on film cameras. Adapting it to a NEX is another story. The NEX sensor is <em>very</em> demanding of optics. I haven't tried the Vivitar but I have tried top line Nikkor and Canon FD zooms and was not happy with the results, particularly wide open. Even vintage primes struggle at wide apertures which is what I use on my NEX 5n. The Viv is pretty inexpensive though so it might be worthwhile to experiment for small $$$. </p>

<p>I have had a couple of dogs in that range. A tamron, which was just average everywhere and a Hoya that was plain awful. Third party lenses from this period are a bit of a lucky dip.</p>

<p>Just keep in mind that at their current age, out-gassing lubricant is causing fog/haze. (Extremely common)<br /> It's very easy to mis-judge the lens for a "no fault of it's own" image killing issue.<br>

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm"><strong>Flashlight Test</strong> </a><<< Click</p>

If you have a Nikon look at the 75-150mm Series E. that's a heck of a good lens. I also have a 3rd gen Vivitar S1 70-

210 that's really good, but the 75-150 E gets my vote for best lens of this sort.

<p>I have the Nikon 50-135mm 3.5 AIS lens, and it is sensationally good. I have used it extensively on Nikon film bodies and on a D200, and it is a terrific lens, if the focal length range suits your purpose. Really excellent contrast characteristics as well as sharp. Because it is all metal and glass, it is quite heavy by modern standards for a non f2.8 zoom. I don't know how well it would balance on a small digital body.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 70-150mm lens and consider it average. My Zuiko 70-150mm is better.</p>

<p>The Tamron I do like is their 70-210 f/4-5.6. It is a one-touch design. It may be too slow for your purpose. I like it because it is sharp, has good contrast, and is available new for $17.95 from KEH.</p>

<p>http://www.keh.com/camera/Tamron-Adaptall-Lenses-Zoom-Lenses/1/sku-TL070090415250?r=FE</p>

<p>I found it to be a nice size for the smaller film bodies like my OM-1. I have tried it on a smaller DSLR but not on a mirror-less body.</p><div></div>

<p>I didn't even notice that I had left my Tamron to EOS adapter on. This is in the 70mm position. It is still shorter at the 210mm position than the 70-150mm.</p>

<p>I just fot the Kiron (for Olympus OM) but I haven't test driven it yet. Perhaps tonight. Meanwhile my only other lens in that range is the Nikon 75-150 f/4 Series E -- a great lens. Check it out. </p>

<p>I just got the Kiron (for Olympus OM) but I haven't test driven it yet. Perhaps tonight. Meanwhile my only other lens in that range is the Nikon 75-150 f/4 Series E -- a great lens. Check it out. </p>

<p>Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is the Nikon E series 75-150mm f/4 is made by Kiron as well.</p>

<p>I have a semi-rat Nikon 75-150 e and wouldn't trade it. Sharp with pleasant renderings. Despite it's "e" status they don't make lenses like this anymore.</p>

<p>I have a Tamron 70-210mm f/4-5.6 like the one on the left in Marc's photo above. It was given to me a while back, and some time passed before I realized that the Canon FD mount on it was a removable adapter (Adaptall II). I think I may have put it on my Canon A-1 once just to check it out, but I didn't actually shoot with it. It's a rather cheap-feeling lens: lots of plastic, and the feel of the zoom/focus ring isn't very good. I suppose I should give it a try just to see if it performs better than it feels.</p>

<p>My favorite manual-focus zoom in the 70-200mm range is the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm (naturally), preferably the third version (f/2.8-4 with serial number starting with 28, made by Komine). You can get good deals on them sometimes on "the auction site". But it is a lot bigger and heavier than that little Tamron.</p>

<p>I have heard that the Nikkor 50-135mm f/3.5 AI-S is very good, but I haven't used it.</p>

<p>While I don't use many zooms, I find this Tamron Adaptall-2 to be a fine performer and a nice size to handle:<br>

<a href="http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/20A.html">http://www.adaptall-2.org/lenses/20A.html</a></p>

<p>I recommend the small, light, sharp, inexpensive Nikon 70-150mm f/3.5 manual focus Series E lens.<br>

<a href=" </div>

<p>Thanks for your responses. There are already a few DX lenses out there which would suit the NEX very well, but not available in E mount. One example is the Tokina 50-135/2.8; another is the Sigma 50-150/2.8. I think the Nikon is probably the best candidate at this stage.</p>

<p>Minolta Rokkor 50-135mm f3.5... I love it. Excellent quality...<br>

Here is one of my pictures, lens set around 150mm<br /> <a href="

<p>Only lens I've used in that range was the Zuiko 70-150/4, a very good lens and perfect size for travel.</p>

<p>My version of the Vivitar Series 1 70-210/2.8-4 is good within limits but I wouldn't consider it a substitute for the Zuiko 70-150. The Vivitar is much larger and heavier with harsh nisen-bokeh. Its main strength is up close where the continuous close focusing is very useful. The Zuiko is a better all around travel zoom and works well with a good quality closeup diopter for bugs and blossoms photos.</p>

Hmm...<br>The OM Zuiko 75-150 zoom was the first zoom lens i ever held in my hands. It left a lasting impression, as one of the worst lenses i had (and have) ever seen.

<p>Can you elaborate, please?</p>

Yes, it's not a very complicated matter: it was unsharp, showed bad contrast and too obvious colour faults. The difference between it and fixed focal length Zuiko lenses from the same focal length range was rather great. Shockingly so even, hence the lasting impression.<br>I have tried and used other Zuiko zoom lenses later, and the 35-70 mm zoom (to name one) is very much better than the 70-150 mm (can't remember which one, what speed, though. One of them is as bad as the 70-150).

<p>You had a bad copy of the Zuiko zoom. Several years ago John Hermanson reported that zoom seemed prone to separation of the cemented element groups. The good samples were very good, which was confirmed by methodical testing by credible sources.</p>