Anyone using vintage lenses on modern bodies?

Kell

Kell

Messages
3,419
Name
Kell
Edit My Images
Yes
For years I wondered if my very old Minolta Prime lens (50mm, f1.7) could be used on my Canon - with an adapter of course.

Seems it's become massive of late with some real high-end videographers (especially) collecting serial matched sets of vintage primes.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuuIXfVjK6E&t=3418s


But also lots of stills photographers using them - and not just on mirrorless bodies. This guy is using a 6D.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPjierZwh_c


Anyone here done it with a Full frame DSLR? In particular a 5DIII?

I'm not very far into this journey, but the more I look into it, the more I realise I really don't know enough.

i.e. I made a bit of a leap today where I think it might ONLY be possible with primes, because of the clearance issues of the mirror. and the differnece between how primes and zooms focus.

If anyone has any other info or links, I'd be glad to read them.

Thanks
 
I have been doing it for about fifteen years, starting with OM and Contax C/Y on a 5D Classic but since 2013 on full frame Sony A7 mirrorless bodies l, mostly Canon FD and CY lenses

Typing on a phone, so I’ll keep it brief; Mirrorless is a lot easier all round
 
As above - whilst it's possible to manually focus using any AF (D)SLR, the truth is that they weren't designed to make that an easy task. Using live view and focussing aids (sometimes needing 3rd party firmware or a higher quality adaptor) makes it a bit easier. However the focussing on mirrorless makes it much much easier to use MF.
 
I have been using various m42 lenses on my 5DIII for a couple years now. I originally got them to play with reversing lenses for macro but really like how they render light for more standard images.

In-fact today I took a gamble on 5 lenses from a local charity shop which were selling them at £5 each. After some dusting and polishing they all seem pretty mint and fully working!!
One of them has a clearance issue, the Meyer-Optik Gorlitz 30mm f3.5. I am planning on getting around that by adding a 2mm thick 39mm ID rubber o-ring to put between the lens and adapter which should keep the back element from fouling the mirror. From what I have read it should still allow for infinity focus but I am dubious, just have to wait and see.

I have a few albums up on Flickr with various images using M42 vintage lenses if you wanted to have a look. I haven't added much to them recently but will be doing some more using my new(old) toys in the not too distant future.
 
Last edited:
I suppose the other important point is... what you photographing?

because for my use cases, AF was a gamechanger, and mirrorless eye AF is like witchcraft.

But if shooting street or landscape? very slow manual focus may be adequate
 
Thanks for the comments so far.

Just interested in trying it I guess.

@RyanB - as you have a 5D - are all the lenses you’re working with primes?

I ‘think’ I’ve seen people using vintage MF zooms on Sony Mirrorless cameras but wouldn’t swear to it.

I currently have three Pentax lenses and three Minolta lenses. Four of these are zooms though. The other two are both 50mm f/1.7

Minolta I’ve read is especially difficult on Canon as the distances are so close (within 0.5mm).

I’m on my phone so I can’t see signatures, but I’d love to have a flick through your albums if you could post a link.

Thanks.
 
I briefly used a couple of Olympus Zuiko lenses on my Canon 5D but whilst the image quality was easily good enough manual focusing wasn't as there are no focus aids with older DSLR's. I did buy an adapter which claimed to give focus confirmation but it simply didn't work. Maybe it was a duffer and others did work. I don't know.

When I got my Panasonic G1 I tried again with old film era lenses and they worked great with focus peaking and the magnified view but of course the crop factor made a 50mm look like a 100mm. When I got my FF Sony A7 I was in heaven as old film era manual lenses worked great with peaking and the magnified view and at their intended FoV too. I've taken a lot of pictures with old film era lenses and I've posted a lot on this forum.

I have two Minolta Rokkor 50mm f1.7's, one is the older more metal build with the scalloped focus ring MC and the other is the newer all black MD version. I'm mostly a prime user and the only film era zoom I've used in recent years is an old Tokina 70-210mm and it gives, what can I say... useable (maybe?) results. It isn't a lens which is going to set the world on fire but it was very cheap.
 
I've been using the same Tamron Adaptall 2 lenses I used with film bodies, on full frame dSLRs, since my first Canon 5D.

Now they are mostly used on a Nikon D600. It seems that you can get third party Adaptall mounts for all sorts of dSLRs, though I don't know how good they are.

Tamron Lenses with Nikon D600 GX7 P1140566.jpg
 
Kell said:
Thanks for the comments so far.

Just interested in trying it I guess.

@RyanB - as you have a 5D - are all the lenses you’re working with primes?

I ‘think’ I’ve seen people using vintage MF zooms on Sony Mirrorless cameras but wouldn’t swear to it.

I currently have three Pentax lenses and three Minolta lenses. Four of these are zooms though. The other two are both 50mm f/1.7

Minolta I’ve read is especially difficult on Canon as the distances are so close (within 0.5mm).

I’m on my phone so I can’t see signatures, but I’d love to have a flick through your albums if you could post a link.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Just primes thus far and only dared try it with m42 lenses and even with those I'd make sure the rear element at infinity isn't proud of the adapter.

As other have said getting focus is difficult without some sort of focus confirm which the 5D doesn't have. There ends up being a lot of switching between wide open to stopped down to check focus, on a tripod its a bit easier to do. I like my pre-set vintage lenses for that reason as its easier to open the aperture up and then get back to the desired stopped down one without taking my eye off the viewfinder.

I have a few albums here but most only have a couple shots in them as I had a cull a late last year. You might be able to tell my favourite lens of the vintage variety is the Mamiya 55mm f1.8 as that is my most populated album.

My current collection that I can confirm works with the 5DIII is(although there are loads of others out there that will also work)
M42 Cosinon Auto MC f=1.7 f=50mm
M42 Pentacon Auto 1.8/50 Multi Coating
M42 Auto Mamiya/ Sekor 1:1.8 f=55mm
M42 Helios-44m 2/58
M42 Praktica 1:2.8 f=28mm
M42 Prinzflex Auto Reflex 1:2.8 f=28mm
M42 Enna Munchen Tele-Ennalyt 1:3.5/ 135mm Pre-set
M42 Pentacon 2.8/135 Bokeh Monster Pre-set
M42 Asahi Opt. Co Japan Takumar 1:3.5 f=135mm Pre-set
M42 Hoya HMC Tele-Auto f=135mm 1:2.8

Testing tomorrow Meyer-Optik Gorilitz Lydith 3.5/30 (will update when my o-rings get here)
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
i.e. I made a bit of a leap today where I think it might ONLY be possible with primes, because of the clearance issues of the mirror. and the differnece between how primes and zooms focus.
Click to expand...

To respond to that point, mirror strike very much depends on the individual design of each lens and the camera body you are using. On the margins, where tolerances are fine, with some combinations it may depend on the individual copies of each.

I'm not sure that there is much relationship there for primes vs zooms, though. TBH, it's more likely to be an issue with wide angle lenses, especially retrofocus designs where the rear element is more likely to protrude into the mirror box.

There is a useful round up of Contax lenses here and you can see the wider lenses are more likely to be troublesome.

www.pebbleplace.com

DATABASES | Using Contax C/Y Lenses on Canon dSLRs

The Contax C/Y Canon Database lists all the Contax C/Y lenses and shows which Contax C/Y lenses will work with Canon dSLRs via a third party lens adapter.
www.pebbleplace.com www.pebbleplace.com

For example, both of the Contax zooms I own, the Vario-Sonnar 35-70mm f/3.4 and the 28-85 f/3.3-4.0 work safely with a 5D. I think I may also have used my OM 35-70 f/4.0 on my 5D.

If memory serves me well, the 5D and 5DII shared the same mirror box and were pretty much identical for compatibility, but I don't know about the 5DIII. Up to around 2014, there was a minor fad for 'shaving' a few tenths of a millimetre of the bottom of the mirror on 5D bodies to reduce the incidence of mirror strike, but most people migrated to using FF mirrorless once it became a viable option with the launch of the A7.
 
Last edited:
I use vintage lenses on my Fujifilm XT3 quite often. I've got a Tamron 28 F2.5 on there at the moment. Gives me the equivalent of about 42mm. It's a bit of a favourite of mine, as the Tamron gives excellent detail and lovely colours.
 
Musicman said:
On the margins, where tolerances are fine, with some combinations it may depend on the individual copies of each.
Click to expand...
Good point, there are lots of vintage lenses with the same naming made in different factories and with several different variations/ designs too.
 
Phil V said:
I suppose the other important point is... what you photographing?

because for my use cases, AF was a gamechanger, and mirrorless eye AF is like witchcraft.

But if shooting street or landscape? very slow manual focus may be adequate
Click to expand...

FWIW I'm reasonably capable of photographing fairly fast moving vehicles with manual focus lenses. It's a skill I acquired in the early 80s when there were no other options - prefocus at a distance where you think you will want to release the shutter and off you go. I'm also quite handy at photographing live music in low light and nailing focus where things are slightly less predictable, but the principles are much the same.

I never got on well with Canon's implementation of AF on the 300D and 5D (I constantly had to second-guess on what and where the camera was going to choose to focus). A lot of the rest of my photography is buildings, which (usually!) don't move very much at all and autofocus is frankly often more a distraction. For my purposes at least, manual focus was at least as reliable as Canon AF of fifteen years ago, and possibly more so.

Over the last couple of years, though, I dipped my toes back into using AF lenses with modern Sony mirrorless bodies, and you are right, it's so much better that it's like witchcraft. I am certainly learning to use and appreciate autofocus much more.
 
Last edited:
I love adapting lenses, so have lenses in more than 20 different mounts, many of which will be adaptable to most of my digital bodies (not quite so many mounts here but 7 different crop factors).
Most of my lenses are pre AF days, with a few over 100 years old, so I'm pretty sure some would qualify as vintage. I don't think any of my digital bodies are less than 5 years old now, so there may be some debate if they count as modern bodies...

Back in 2011 I adapted a 1930s kodak lens to my Pentax K100d (though I fitted a film body to the bellows to take a shot of the set-up)
bellows IMGP2838 by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr

Even back in the early 80's I adapted M42 lenses to my K mount bodies, so I guess it's become a habit to use lenses not intended for the camera I'm using.

Not a modern camera but last year I adapted a rear projection TV lens to my 5x4 monorail, I'm now working on a way to shoot the image on the ground glass with my digital cameras as I'd like to try a 150mm f/1.2 without the hassle of getting the exposure right without a shutter... I should be ready to try out this hybrid approach within a couple of weeks (the biggest delay might be getting my heavy duty tripod back from my son's video mob).

Here's the insane lens on my Toyo
A challenging lens by Mike Kanssen, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Musicman said:
FWIW I'm reasonably capable of photographing fairly fast moving vehicles with manual focus lenses. It's a skill I acquired in the early 80s when there were no other options - prefocus at a distance where you think you will want to release the shutter and off you go. I'm also quite handy at photographing live music in low light and nailing focus where things are slightly less predictable, but the principles are much the same.

I never got on well with Canon's implementation of AF on the 300D and 5D (I constantly had to second-guess on what and where the camera was going to choose to focus). A lot of the rest of my photography is buildings, which (usually!) don't move very much at all and autofocus is frankly often more a distraction. For my purposes at least, manual focus was at least as reliable as Canon AF of fifteen years ago, and possibly more so.

Over the last couple of years, though, I dipped my toes back into using AF lenses with modern Sony mirrorless bodies, and you are right, it's so much better that it's like witchcraft. I am certainly learning to use and appreciate autofocus much more.
Click to expand...
I shot rally cars in the 80’s and 90’s with manual focus. Like most photography in those days I was happy if I got 4 or 5 shots I was happy with per 36exp roll.

Autofocus on the 300d was a massive improvement on that. Not perfect but usually 1 in 3 shots in focus.

I’ll not go through all the iterations, but by the time I’m at the R6 I can shoot a rounders player from pulling back for a swing, through the swing (including the ball) and the run to first base, and of those 20-30 shots, maybe 3 will be slightly OoF. If I was manually focussing, and I was good, I wouldn’t get 10% of those shots.
 
I think, being realistic about my own (in)abilities...

I'm a bit of a spray and pray shooter. And with Digital, I just take tonnes and cull them later. Whereas when I used to shoot film* (whether SLR or Point-and-shoot) I did the culling before taking the shots. Mostly because for a two-week holiday, I might have only taken two rolls of film. And still when I got back I had to fire off three or four shots of the cat to use them up.

It might do me some good to be forced into being more considered. To stop and have to focus etc.

Or, it might be too complicated to do with the lenses I have and the camera I have. Especially as I still have the film cameras those lenses go on and I don't want to modify them permanently. In particular, the Minolta lenses as they're very nice lenses. (the 50, not so much).

Maybe, once (if) I make the move to mirrorless, it might then become a possibility.

*I realise this makes it sound like I knew what I was doing, I only mean I had film cameras and hadn't moved to digital yet.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
I think, being realistic about my own (in)abilities...

I'm a bit of a spray and pray shooter. And with Digital, I just take tonnes and cull them later. Whereas when I used to shoot film* (whether SLR or Point-and-shoot) I did the culling before taking the shots. Mostly because for a two-week holiday, I might have only taken two rolls of film. And still when I got back I had to fire off three or four shots of the cat to use them up.

It might do me some good to be forced into being more considered. To stop and have to focus etc.

Or, it might be too complicated to do with the lenses I have and the camera I have. Especially as I still have the film cameras those lenses go on and I don't want to modify them permanently. In particular, the Minolta lenses as they're very nice lenses. (the 50, not so much).

Maybe, once (if) I make the move to mirrorless, it might then become a possibility.

*I realise this makes it sound like I knew what I was doing, I only mean I had film cameras and hadn't moved to digital yet.
Click to expand...

I found that I carried my film shooting habits over to digital. Even now I'm not prolific with what I shoot.
 
Plain Nev said:
I found that I carried my film shooting habits over to digital. Even now I'm not prolific with what I shoot.
Click to expand...

I did to begin with. Because back in 2003, when I got my first digital camera, memory cards were really expensive and not very big. Pretty sure it was around £1 per MB.

My first memory card was a 64MB and only held about 30 photos. So I still had to be selective, as I couldn't download them till I got back.
 
I have a couple of old M42 mount Japanese lenses but I've never really enjoyed using them on my Fuji mirrorless body, once you add in the adapter the camera becomes very lens heavy and unbalanced, the image quality always comes out a bit 'meh' too...

Nice to experiment with as a bit of fun, but that's about it.
 
I think the current bias towards using vintage lenses is that most digital cameras are offering images so perfect that the SOOC "look" just isn't one any more. "Buy this and your images will be great" gets likes, which is what many YouTubers are after. After trying to flog presets, the 'how do you take great photos' brigade has to try something different. A modern digital 50mm f/1.8 is going to be damn bloody good compared to something made in 1975, but the older lens has "character".

I use vintage lenses for size (compare any manual focus 50mm f/1.8 to it's full-frame digital counterpart for comparison), expense (I can't afford the digital counterpart) and for the ability to zone focus (because most AF lenses I've tried are crap at it with the exception of the GR3). A 28mm manually focussed at f/8 set to 2m - infinity will focus faster than anything because... well... it doesn't need to focus. I also use them when I'm using vintage cameras alongside them. I have a Canon R6 and the RF lenses are big and expensive, but I've ditched all my manual focus 135mm lenses because as Phil mentioned, eye-AF is too good to turn down. I have an FD - RF adapter, a Leica M - RF adapter and an EF - RF adapter and will choose the lens based on what I'm doing. Street photography? R6 + Adapter + 28mm 'cron. Landscape where I'm not sure what I'm going to face? R6 + RF 14-35 f/4. Want to have fun? R6 + Adapter + Zeiss Sonnar 50mm f/1.5. And portraits? R6 + RF 100mm f/2.8 (or the Voigtlander 50mm f/1 if light is a serious issue and I want a bit more than just a head).

People have been using vintage lenses since they were modern. Today, with such perfection in modern lens design, they are "photoshop without photoshop". Nowt to be lost by giving it a whirl as you'll likely get your money back if it's not for you.
 
You usually don't need to modify lenses in any way unless there is some special circumstance.

What you usually need is a dumb lens to body adapter, in that order. For example in my case Minolta to Sony. These things are just a mount adapter and spacer to get the lens to mount and to place the lens at the correct distance. The price of these varies from maybe between £10-£20 up to about £100 or more. I have several cheap ones and also three Novoflex ones which are about £100 each but to be honest if you buy a cheap one and it works why would you need to pay £100? Some adapters also feature a helicoid to allow close focusing.
 
I sometimes use my old Nikkor 135mm f/2.8 manual focus lens on my Nikon D750 body. For its age it gives fantastic photos though I do have to be very careful about the focus. Its a solid lens though.
 
Kell said:
I did order a Pentax adapter.

But none of the lenses work with the 5D.
Click to expand...
All M42 lenses should work with EF mount. I suspect the issue was with the camera.

By default most digital cameras will only shoot if the can communicate with the lens. Many have a option in the menu to 'shoot without lens', but some require a chipped adapter to fool the camera into thinking it has communication.

My nikon J2 requires one of these chipped adapters, for focus assist & metering but otherwise works with manual lenses. Sadly the only chipped adapter I've been able to source for the N1 mount is to Nikon F - a mount I have few lenses in & hardly any of my lenses can adapt to. :(

Chipped adapters for EF are far more common, I've even got one despite not having an EF camera (and a couple unchipped variants). I use EF as an interim mount for special adapters like my focal reducer. I can then add many different lens types to the adapter & don't have to pay for the optics in every mount.
 
Petrochemist said:
All M42 lenses should work with EF mount.
Click to expand...
Some m42 wide angles will protrude past the adapter back and you get mirror strike on FF ef bodies. Not so much a problem with ef-s bodies. A rubber 39mm id o-ring between the adapter and lens should pull the lens forward just enough to stop that while still allowing infinity focus providing the o-ring isn't too thick. I have a couple adapted like that with 2mm thick ones but the o-ring thickness will depend on how far back the element protrudes.
 
woof woof said:
What's the problem?
Click to expand...

Fouls the mirror.

I did manage to get a couple of shots from the 35-70 lens, but only at macro distances. Anything longer, the mirror gets stuck then it gives the ERR 20 message.

It also wouldn't give me an image through the viewfinder - only live view, for some reason.

Didn't really want to push it TBH. Some Pentax lenses do work, but I didn't want to buy more kit to do this, it was more about adapting what I had.
 
Last edited:
I always had Nikon film SLRs so when I finally got a digital body, it was also Nikon & I used the same lenses on it - the Nikon F mount was uniform. In SLR days, I deprecated focus aids & much preferred a plain focussing screen. I always composed precisely in camera, & didn't want gubbins like microprisms or split image circles in the middle of the view. Focussing wasn't a problem, it was just something that you did naturally.

With a digital body, I just carried on in the same fashion, and that worked well.

But subjects were almost always static, which no doubt has a strong bearing.

With mirrorless, the field is blown wide open & you can more or less adapt anything to anything, unless you want specific attributes (autofocus, eye recognition ...).

Are the images produced with the most hi-tech assistance available more meaningful than before, though, to their perpetrators or the public at large? I doubt it. We just inhabit the age we happen to live in, along with its zeitgeist.

It's fun, for a while ...
 
Kell said:
Fouls the mirror.

I did manage to get a couple of shots from the 35-70 lens, but only at macro distances. Anything longer, the mirror gets stuck then it gives the ERR 20 message.

It also wouldn't give me an image through the viewfinder - only live view, for some reason.

Didn't really want to push it TBH. Some Pentax lenses do work, but I didn't want to buy more kit to do this, it was more about adapting what I had.
Click to expand...

Sadly you've hit a problem which can most easily be solved by stopping using that lens and using something else instead. Such a shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top