« ...But Can You Find It? (Part 2) | Main | In Praise of the Indecent Light Meter »

April 11, 2009


That's kind of a humorous comment, as I tend to shoot film with my old Canon FD set rather than with any modern autofocus lenses and I find it quite enjoyable and relaxing. Now, I wouldn't want to shoot a basketball game with one of those lenses, but obviously people managed to do it somehow. Very nice image.

"Plastic-fantastic" heh heh heh. I admire those who can invent words that express reality in a precise way!!
Excellent image, great text. Coming to this blog is always an enjoyable experience.

I didn't know Kiron lenses were fine, despite its original low prices.

Bauru - BR


Do you know which Kiron lenses were the best? I have a 28mm f2 that's OK wide open and very sharp stopped down beyond that. I believe the 24mm f2 performed in a similar fashion. Were there any others that stood out?


"Were there any others that stood out?"

There were very few dogs, but the 105mm f/2.8 Macro was exceptionally good. If you're into zooms, the Kiron 28-85mm f/2.8-3.8 Varifocal was quite good, as was the 28-210mm f/3.8-5.6. Given the lack of plastics, they were both rather heavy though. The 70-210mm f/4 with zoom lock was also a fine performer. To be honest though, I never used the longer lenses much. Short, light and compact was always my preference.

I had the Kiron 28-210mm f/3.8-5.6 on a Minolta X570 body. The kit served me well until I went digital in 2003 and I sold it on eBay. It was a nice kit for traveling and the lens performed very well. Like any other lens however, the 28mm became not wide enough and the 210mm not long enough!

I picked up a 80-200mm f/4 Kiron zoom last year to use with my old Olympus OM-1, for the price of that entree you mentioned. So far I've taken a number of slides with this lens that have pleased me very much. The sharpness, contrast and color are just fine. I think that, interestingly, Kiron outdid Olympus at its own game of light weight and compact size: About the same time this Kiron zoom came out, Olympus introduced a Zuiko 65-200mm f/4 zoom, but that lens is actually noticeably heavier and a bit bulkier than the Kiron. (Anyway, these days one should avoid that Zuiko 65-200mm like the plague because of a defective inner element that self-etches and clouds up the lens, but that's another story!) I would rather have the Kiron than the Zuiko, no question.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Tip Jar

Thank you!

Tip Jar