Vintage Lenses

That is lovely Neil. I like what you are achieving with this old lens and sympathetic processing. Well done :D
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
I've always loved vintage lenses. I love using them, handling them, photographing them.. Having begun my foray into photography in the late 80s, many of the now vintage Nikon lenses bring back a real sense of nostalgia for me but I also remember how good some of them were and how good they still are. Lenses that were tack sharp then are still tack sharp today. The 35-70mm f/2.8 AF-D was/is a cracking lens and was found in the bag of many a top journalist.

50-1.png

50-2.png
Click to expand...
I too have one of these lenses and in their day when the 1st version was introduced it was claimed it was as good as a prime optic. However, my version is an old, pre 'D' version and has a degree of internal haze on the glass and when the few times I use it on digital the contrast is as flat as a very old non coated pre war lens on a folding camera. But used on my F6 it bounces back to life when used for B&W with apparently normal contrast. I only very rarely have to use a grade harder than 2 - 2.5 when printing (Ilford MG5). I have my own theories about this but what are yours?

Even a quite old Tamron Adaptall11 35/135 comes up from being a reasonable lens to actually a very good one when used with B&W or Colour film. With digital (used on manual with a separate meter) it has always performed way below average - and this lens has no 'haze'.
 
Last edited:
My all time favourite 'old' zoom', well a varifocal lens is a very old Vivitar 28/90 F2.8/4. As sharp as you will ever need (and a ton weight!) and the glass could have been made yesterday. It fits my one and only Minolta body, but by golly it is good. Far far better that the later 28/105 stretched version. I searched for a lens hood to fit the 67mm thread and eventually found one sold by SRB Griturn and it is wide enough to stop any cut-off at 28mm and still provide a degree of shade when it is sunny. They never did seem to make a specific hood for one which would have benefited with a 'petal' shaped one.
 
Last edited:
Rodinal said:
Apart from the improved coatings
Click to expand...
There absolutely nothing wrong with the old MC/MD Minolta lenses. The 20mm F2.8MD was at least as good as the same specification Nikon lens but a lot cheaper. Try to get hold of one nowadays apart from off Fleabay and sent from Japan and you will be really struggling to get a good one. Both the 20mm and 24mm MD lenses had floating elements to compensate for close up work, exactly the same as Nikon versions
 
Rodinal said:
There absolutely nothing wrong with the old MC/MD Minolta lenses. The 20mm F2.8MD was at least as good as the same specification Nikon lens but a lot cheaper. Try to get hold of one nowadays apart from off Fleabay and sent from Japan and you will be really struggling to get a good one. Both the 20mm and 24mm MD lenses had floating elements to compensate for close up work, exactly the same as Nikon versions
Click to expand...

I have some Minoltas. 24 and 28mm f2.8 MD, 35mm f2.8 MC MK I and f1.8 MD, 50mm f1.7 and f1.4 MD, 55mm f1.7 MC MK II, 85mm f2 and 135mm f2.8 MD. I think that's the lot.
 
woof woof said:
People might find this interesting.

phillipreeve.net

Filter Stacks compared: Sony E | Nikon Z | Leica M | Kolari UT

We see how different lenses perform on Sony E | Nikon Z | Leica M | Kolari UT cameras to find out if it actually
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net
Click to expand...
Thanks for posting this -its very interesting and I will have a good read later.

My own limited experience was trying my Contax G biogons (21 and 28 ) fitted with the reversed plano- convex front filter on my A7 and then on a Z6. I could actually see no difference in the corner smearing typical of WA RF lenses between the two.

I have given up on adapting RF lenses - just use SLR ones now.

Another anecdote ( from another forum ): someone tested a Sony 20/1.8G on a A7x and a Z6, They found the lens was significantly softer on the Z with the Megadap EtZ21 than on the Sony body. A bit of a bummer because I was going to get the Sony over the Z 20/1.8s - the former is smaller, lighter and cheaper and has better coma control.
 
I have the Sony 20mm f1.8 and I think it is a very nice lens. I use it on my quite old now Sony A7 mk1.

I bought the Sony as it was the 1st FF mirrorless camera. I'd previously had Canon DSLR's and further back a Nikon SLR for a long time and a couple of RF's. If Nikon had been first to market no doubt that's what I would have got.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
People might find this interesting.

phillipreeve.net

Filter Stacks compared: Sony E | Nikon Z | Leica M | Kolari UT

We see how different lenses perform on Sony E | Nikon Z | Leica M | Kolari UT cameras to find out if it actually
phillipreeve.net phillipreeve.net
Click to expand...
Of all the MD/MC lenses I owned was a F2.5/28mm MC with a low radioactive Thorium element. It had turned yellow and it was a wonderful lens for B&W because you didn't need a filter. (Rubbish though for colour!) It was outstandingly sharp from full aperture down to about F11/16. For a 28mm it was a large lens and next to a 28mm MD it absolutely dwarfed it and was so much heavier.
 
woof woof said:
I have the Sony 20mm f1.8 and I think it is a very nice lens. I use it on my quite old now Sony A7 mk1.

I bought the Sony as it was the 1st FF mirrorless camera. I'd previously had Canon DSLR's and further back a Nikon SLR for a long time and a couple of RF's. If Nikon had been first to market no doubt that's what I would have got.
Click to expand...
I got my A7 mk1 used to mount my C/Y lenses having used them before on a NEX6 + focal reducer. When the Z6 appeared, I realised I could mostly fund it and use Nikon and vintage lenses on just one body by selling my Nikon DSLR and the A7.

Quite liked the A7 - felt a bit like my contax 139 in the hand. Preferred the light grip to that on the Z6 - for shorter lenses anyway.

The Sony to Z adapter I just use with the cheap and cheerful “tiny” Samyang 1.8’s. Work fine as casual snappers - nothing like that in the Z system.
 
My A7 is rather slow in operation compared to other things and I think it has a rather basic focusing system and only face detect rather than eye detect but these things don't really matter for what I use it for. One thing it does have going for it is that it's smaller than the later models.
 
piper said:
I got my A7 mk1 used to mount my C/Y lenses having used them before on a NEX6 + focal reducer. When the Z6 appeared, I realised I could mostly fund it and use Nikon and vintage lenses on just one body by selling my Nikon DSLR and the A7.

Quite liked the A7 - felt a bit like my contax 139 in the hand. Preferred the light grip to that on the Z6 - for shorter lenses anyway.

The Sony to Z adapter I just use with the cheap and cheerful “tiny” Samyang 1.8’s. Work fine as casual snappers - nothing like that in the Z system.
Click to expand...

I got into Sony about 10 years ago with the A7 (which I still have and use occasionally) because I was using my Yashica primes on my Canon 5D2 and I read or heard about the magnification, evf and focus peaking to aid manual focus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top