Old Glass

[cc143]

With mirrorless cameras becoming better and better, offering focus peaking and lens adaptability and "dumb" adapters being dirt cheap right now, I was wandering what glass are you guys looking forward to being able to use again? Keeping in mind of course that, provided you are willing to manually focus, you could save a huge amount of money by going with legacy glass, are spoilt for choice and could really experiment quite nicely with it. CSC Videographers especially I assume would be overjoyed. 

 

My first camera was a Canon EOS 1000, so I was in the EF ecosystem even when shooting film. 

 

So, we could make this a running thing even, where we recommend glass, share sample images etc. I currently have on order from ebay a pentacon electric 50mm f/1.8 which I just got off ebay for under £20, which my little research has shown it to be quite a catch. Will be posting samples first thing once it arrives. 

 

What about you guys? 

[emosun]

i assumed most cameras were made of glass

[Mihle]

For photography I would definitely want a lend that have autofocus, but that's my opinion.

 

Like if you take pictures of things standing still and you have good time, it isn't needed, it just saves time, but when you take pictures of things where you don't have much time to take the picture, autofocus is a must for me.

[cc143]

2 hours ago, emosun said:

i assumed most cameras were made of glass

By glass I mean lenses and no, cameras aren't made out of glass, DSLRs have a mirror, but mirrorless cameras for instance don't. Any glass other than that is in the lens and possibly in viewfinder or on the back screen.

9 minutes ago, Mihle said:

For photography I would definitely want a lend that have autofocus, but that's my opinion.

 

Like if you take pictures of things standing still and you have good time, it isn't needed, it just saves time, but when you take pictures of things where you don't have much time to take the picture, autofocus is a must for me.

I'm not for a moment suggesting a manual lens is a perfect replacement for an AF lens, not in the slightest. However, you have to consider the possibilities of using pretty cheap glass, that may even be optically better than a modern equivalent. You will obviously not shoot a football match, but portraiture? architecture? Landscapes? even some slow action or street photography is possible given some skill with MF and a good peaking system. Don't forget, AF lenses didn't always exist, just as we didn't always have the capability of shooting 1000 frames and reviewing and deleting on the spot. 

 

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, wheather you are talking film, MF glass or manual car transmissions. 

 

For me, buying a decent portaiture lens, that will see little use no doubt, but saves me purchasing an AF lens that costs 20 times as much is a pretty nice deal. 

 

Also, I have found myself using MF more and more on the Fuji, no doubt because its not on par with my 5d, causing frustration, but still, it says something. 

[emosun]

4 minutes ago, cc143 said:

I'm not for a moment suggesting a manual lens is a perfect replacement for an AF lens, not in the slightest. However, you have to consider the possibilities of using pretty cheap glass, that may even be optically better than a modern equivalent. You will obviously not shoot a football match, but portraiture? architecture? Landscapes? even some slow action or street photography is possible given some skill with MF and a good peaking system. Don't forget, AF lenses didn't always exist, just as we didn't always have the capability of shooting 1000 frames and reviewing and deleting on the spot. 

 

Each has its advantages and disadvantages, wheather you are talking film, MF glass or manual car transmissions. 

 

For me, buying a decent portaiture lens, that will see little use no doubt, but saves me purchasing an AF lens that costs 20 times as much is a pretty nice deal. 

 

Also, I have found myself using MF more and more on the Fuji, no doubt because its not on par with my 5d, causing frustration, but still, it says something. 

for some reason I read this in a drunk rick accent lol.

[LyondellBasell]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

However, you have to consider the possibilities of using pretty cheap glass, that may even be optically better than a modern equivalent. You will obviously not shoot a football match, but portraiture? architecture? Landscapes? even some slow action or street photography is possible given some skill with MF and a good peaking system. Don't forget, AF lenses didn't always exist, just as we didn't always have the capability of shooting 1000 frames and reviewing and deleting on the spot. 

Comparing older lenses with their modern equivalent is an interesting exercise.

 

I sincerely doubt that some, if ANY, older lenses are optically superior to their contemporary counterparts.

Glass has come a long way, especially since the manual-focus-only days. Part of the reason for this is rapidly-growing capabilities of sensors to produce sharp images.

I believe there is some crossover when comparing older, top-tier primes to today's kit lenses. But I would not consider the two to be equals.

 

The allure of older lenses is often actually the flaws they posses.

Their barrel distortion, lack of sharpness at the edges of the frame, and certain forms of chromatic aberration all have their place in portraiture and experimentation.

 

I definitely agree with you that pulling out old lenses and finding new use for them can be an exciting challenge.

Not so sure about that optically superior part, is all

[cc143]

4 hours ago, LyondellBasell said:

Comparing older lenses with their modern equivalent is an interesting exercise.

 

I sincerely doubt that some, if ANY, older lenses are optically superior to their contemporary counterparts.

Glass has come a long way, especially since the manual-focus-only days. Part of the reason for this is rapidly-growing capabilities of sensors to produce sharp images.

I believe there is some crossover when comparing older, top-tier primes to today's kit lenses. But I would not consider the two to be equals.

 

The allure of older lenses is often actually the flaws they posses.

Their barrel distortion, lack of sharpness at the edges of the frame, and certain forms of chromatic aberration all have their place in portraiture and experimentation.

 

I definitely agree with you that pulling out old lenses and finding new use for them can be an exciting challenge.

Not so sure about that optically superior part, is all

it would of course depend on the 2 lenses being compared, an 85mm f1.2L II will certainly be sharper than a carl zeiss from the 60s or 70s, but an 85 1.8 probably won't be...

 

And also, it's not all about corner to corner sharpness, there are vintage lenses that render out of focus backgrounds very pleasingly, and when you factor in price, it becomes quite a good deal. 

 

My point is, Assuming you have a mirrorless camera, you can, with a £10 adaptor off ebay or amazon get the £10 lens you found in that antique store or were sold on the side of the street fit your camera, you may as well test it out. I'm not about to swap my Sigma 35 art for a 35mm FD, but the possibilities are interesting (as you said yourself). 

 

Case in point, almost 10 years ago, I was with my parents in monastiraki in Athens Greece and bought a 20Eur Zenit with a helios m44 58mm f/2. The lenses aperture doesn't work so you can only shoot it wide open, but on my xt10 it made for some interesting results (which are on my pc back home unfortunately). 

[xQubeZx]

I've been looking to get something like an old MF 35 or 50 1.4 lens but I can't decide which one I would like. The Canon FD 50 1.4 seems very popular. 

 

But basically I have been looking for a fast "wide" prime that would be used for portraits for example. But I'm not willing to drop 500US+ for a native Sony lens as I don't do portraits that often. 

 

Got any reccomendations please tell me. 

[Stagea]

I have some old full frame Pentax and Nikon lenses that I use on my m43 body. They work great for slow photography, but many of them are now starting to cloud with smoky haze.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/flashlight-test.htm

[cc143]

I got the pentacon 50mm 1.8 today and I have to say Im pretty pleased with its capabilities up to now, although I will need to test it further, Ill try to post some sample pictures later. 

@xQubeZx if you were to look for something a stop slower youd probably have way more options at a much cheaper price. Ideally, being on a crop sensor, the best thing would be a 58 1.2, but since such a thing may exist but cost more than a 50mm 1.4 sigma art lens and adapter for sony, you have to compromise. 

 

If you went to 1.8 or f/2, which are still very fast apertures, you would be spoilt for choice, you may find a helios m44 58mm f2 in most garage sales, and they are actually more common and cheaper in most part of mainland europe...

[xQubeZx]

4 hours ago, cc143 said:

I got the pentacon 50mm 1.8 today and I have to say Im pretty pleased with its capabilities up to now, although I will need to test it further, Ill try to post some sample pictures later. 

@xQubeZx if you were to look for something a stop slower youd probably have way more options at a much cheaper price. Ideally, being on a crop sensor, the best thing would be a 58 1.2, but since such a thing may exist but cost more than a 50mm 1.4 sigma art lens and adapter for sony, you have to compromise. 

 

If you went to 1.8 or f/2, which are still very fast apertures, you would be spoilt for choice, you may find a helios m44 58mm f2 in most garage sales, and they are actually more common and cheaper in most part of mainland europe...

Already got myself an Nikkor 50 1.8 in excellent condition. A ~35 1.8 or ~85 1.8 could work if it is well priced. 

 

Also looking at the Voigtländer Super wide 15mm 4.5 for the Leica M mount. Found it for 300USD. The question is if I will find it more useful than say a faster Samyang ultra wide as the 12mm f/2 or 16mm f/2