Vintage lenses - what's this trend all about???

Cheapness £20 To £40 for a focal length that would cost you hundreds as a modern lens. With the cost of some of the lenses would make me scared to take the thing out.
Plus I just like the materials/build quality of the old lenses and the effort you have to make to set them up right, for me cameras just seem to have become point and press devices.
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
Cheapness £20 To £40 for a focal length that would cost you hundreds as a modern lens. With the cost of some of the lenses would make me scared to take the thing out.
Click to expand...

This is usually a major factor for me, plus the research mentioned earlier to get the best 'bang per buck' in whatever price range I'm aiming for. Right now I'm looking about for a sweet mechanical MF macro lens below £100. A £600+ modern AF macro lens has zero benefit in this case, in fact the old cheap mech lens has advantages in that I only ever MF for macro, and as we discussed earlier, lenses specifically designed for this purpose are always going to feel nicer in use. You just don't get the kudos that come with buying a monster, over priced AF macro lens.
 
Cagey75 said:
That's great, always wanted giant hands swirled around my images :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
They do say you should always be ready to give others a hand... :wave: :LOL:
 
nandbytes said:
can't help you with the emoticon but can help you with an alternative i.e. ASCII art

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Click to expand...


Ah, that's the shot! :D I know that some forums I visited in the past had an actual shrugging one, but that's a good sub (y)
 
swanseamale47 said:
Some of the old lens are probably better than some of todays lens. The Zeiss planer was I believe the best lens ever tested for decades. The old Tamron SP90 was so good it was used on optical benches to test other optics. Just because something is old doesn't mean it's rubbish.
Look at me I'm old and I'm not.... errrr. Ok bad analogy... ;)
Click to expand...

I think you've missed my point Wayne, I wasn't talking about good lenses, but those we all knew at the time 20-30-40 years ago that weren't considered good as they weren't sharp and had inherent faults, the 'look' of those being 'wrong' is what I was getting at :)

Dave
 
Cagey75 said:
This is usually a major factor for me, plus the research mentioned earlier to get the best 'bang per buck' in whatever price range I'm aiming for. Right now I'm looking about for a sweet mechanical MF macro lens below £100. A £600+ modern AF macro lens has zero benefit in this case, in fact the old cheap mech lens has advantages in that I only ever MF for macro, and as we discussed earlier, lenses specifically designed for this purpose are always going to feel nicer in use. You just don't get the kudos that come with buying a monster, over priced AF macro lens.
Click to expand...

actually in the market for one myself.... but I'd like a small one and most small 50mm-ish macros only do 0.5x :(
 
nandbytes said:
actually in the market for one myself.... but I'd like a small one and most small 50mm-ish macros only do 0.5x :(
Click to expand...

Yeah it's tough tracking down decent ones that do 1:1 without add-ons. The Canon FD 50 3.5 I had was a lovely little lens, but only 1:2. I'm looking more at 90-105mm, as I just got a new 50mm for the Fuji and would like to have a macro that can serve as a mid tele on side where needed. Have you looked into the Vivitar 55mm 2.8? I think it also comes under Komine, that one is 1:1 https://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-55mm-f2-8-1-1-macro.html Pretty sure it comes in other mounts like M42 and Canon FD also but might be harder find

I don't think it's really small, but it seems to be highly rated around MF forums

[edit] nice looking condition copy in FD mount: https://www.ebay.ie/itm/Vivitar-55m...295452?hash=item547496d75c:g:JWcAAOSw36tdXbP0
 
Last edited:
DG Phototraining said:
TFFT - that is NOT a preset I'd want lol

Dave
Click to expand...
It's the difference between technical qualities and artistic intent... and they always come at some sort of tradeoff. I.e. you might choose to instead trade off the qualities of sharpness/detail/contrast/clarity/etc in the BG by using a really shallow DOF to blur it into nothing. It's more common/accepted, but it's still an artistic choice. And artistic choices are always subjective.
My issue with a lens like this is very similar to my issue with using only a single prime lens; you are limited w/in the confines of what you can create with that lens. I certainly wouldn't want every image I took to have a swirly background...
 
Last edited:
sk66 said:
My issue with a lens like this is very similar to my issue with using only a single prime lens; you are limited w/in the confines of what you can create with that lens. I certainly wouldn't want every image I took to have a swirly background...
Click to expand...
That's the trouble with novelties, & I'd include Lensbaby products in that description.
Cagey75 said:
You just don't get the kudos that come with buying a monster, over priced AF macro lens.
Click to expand...
Kudos, Keith? You must be mixing with the wrong type of people!
 
It depends on what you want from photography. It's a very broad church (rather than being just one denomination, as previously suggested ;)), and I think that's a good thing as it makes for an interesting hobby. Some people have a job to do and a product to deliver and want to use the most effective and least time-consuming methods to achieve that, whilst others participate purely for enjoyment and have the time to 'stand and stare'.

I don't use 'vintage' lenses on modern AF cameras, mainly as I go the full hog and use them on vintage and classic cameras and film. That's because, in addition to enjoying my attempts to produce good looking photographs, I also enjoy the physical process of taking those photos. I'm not so fond of post processing though, so will try to match the camera and lens (and film) to produce the desired 'look'. However, some people will be just the opposite and prefer PP and/or using the most optically accurate lenses to achieve pixel-peeping perfection (although, at the risk of upsetting people, nothing is ever actually perfect! ;)).

As for effects, such as the swirly background a stopped down vintage Zeiss style triplet lens can produce, it's down to personal taste and one man's meat is another man's lava lamp. I don't generally use 'gimmicky' effects but, when I do, I like that effect to compliment the subject.

Time tunnel anyone? (and yes, I know I missed critical focus on the eyes - down to me not the lens!) Taken with a 1964 Yashica 635 TLR with fixed Yashikor triplet type lens shot wide open.

 
Last edited:
Ste_S said:
I wish more people had @DG Phototraining 's disdain for mf lenses. It would stop prices skyrocketing for us people who want stick them on their native film bodies.
Click to expand...

Maybe you purist lot should stop selling them for peanuts thrown in with film bodies . . . Oh wait no, keep doing that :ROFLMAO:
 
Cagey75 said:
Maybe you purist lot should stop selling them for peanuts thrown in with film bodies . . . Oh wait no, keep doing that :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll keep doing it.... You see, it's so difficult to resist selling something you've paid a £1 for when someone is offering you £150 for it! ;)
 
I tried a well known vintage 105mm Nikon prime lens but no AF killed it for me.

I think it is people looking for new things in old things if that makes sense.
 
Mr Badger said:
Don't worry, I'm sure they'll keep doing it.... You see, it's so difficult to resist selling something you've paid a £1 for when someone is offering you £150 for it! ;)
Click to expand...

And when the lens is actually selling for £300 separately that's fine by me ;)
 
I tried a lot of soviet lens from my dad' cameras at the beginning. By since my camera did not have EVF (Olympus Pen E-PL8), it was pretty hard to focus. So, I sold them all: Jupiter 8, Jupiter 9, Tair 11, Helios 44-2, 44-6, Industar 50-2 and so on. From these lenses I could recommend Helios 44-2 and Jupiter 8.

Couple of photos.

E-PL8 + Helios 44-2

girl and dog by Pomo, on Flickr

E-PL8 + Jupiter 8

night bus by Pomo, on Flickr
 
Mr Badger said:
£300? I don't know where you're buying your Helios 44s from, but... ;)
Click to expand...

I paid £35 I think for a Helios a few years back and sold it for £50. Not seen them go with a body tbh, but I have seen some more exotic lenses get snapped up this way.

Speaking of the Helios, I had the 44-2 and used it as a cheapo macro option on side

Eye to Fly by K G, on Flickr
 
nandbytes said:
actually in the market for one myself.... but I'd like a small one and most small 50mm-ish macros only do 0.5x :(
Click to expand...

I think my Sigma 50mm f2.8 which does 1:1 cost about £60. Mine is in Minolta mount but I've seen them in Nikon too. Might be worth a look.
 
LeeRatters said:
I paid £15 for a Helios 44-2, 44M and a Pantacon 50/1.8 :)

Still have the 44-2 but can't remember when I last used it!
Click to expand...

I have seen them go for about same, the one I had was in excellent condition though, not a mark on it. Whereas I've seen some on the likes of ebay that looked like the Ruskis were using them as hockey pucks
 
sk66 said:
I recently saw this image taken with an adapted old projector lens and I thought it was pretty cool.

projector-lens.jpg.optimal.jpg


Sure, you could fake it in post, but it would take a fair bit of work; nothing a preset could do.
Click to expand...

Probably 2 min in photoshop to be honest.... It's cool effect at first but it makes me dizzy by looking at it. I am certainly not against it. I guess it is art to use these tools for a desired effect. I fear it is being done as a way to show off in more cases. Better that than the stupid branded shoes or baseball caps for £1200.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Probably 2 min in photoshop to be honest.... It's cool effect at first but it makes me dizzy by looking at it. I am certainly not against it. I guess it is art to use these tools for a desired effect. I fear it is being done as a way to show off in more cases. Better that than the stupid branded shoes or baseball caps for £1200.
Click to expand...

Well there's a challenge. Can you do it?
 
woof woof said:
Well there's a challenge. Can you do it?
Click to expand...

Filter - blur - radial blur (2-3) then mask out the centre and subject with a very diffuse large brush. I hardly see any point doing that though.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Filter - blur - radial blur (2-3) then mask out the centre and subject with a very diffuse large brush. I hardly see any point doing that though.
Click to expand...

Well, the challenge is to see if it can be done.

My post capture skills are next to non existent so I'll leave it to you to show me how it's done. I'm interested to see if a modern lens picture once processed post capture looks better or worse than an old swirly lens shot.

I have a couple of lenses that approach the swirly look but nothing like that shot above and it'll be interesting to see if it can be done well post capture.
 
woof woof said:
Well, the challenge is to see if it can be done.

My post capture skills are next to non existent so I'll leave it to you to show me how it's done. I'm interested to see if a modern lens picture once processed post capture looks better or worse than an old swirly lens shot.

I have a couple of lenses that approach the swirly look but nothing like that shot above and it'll be interesting to see if it can be done well post capture.
Click to expand...

I really don't photograph anything like this, no point trying on landscape or some interior. Our understanding of good or bad may be quite different. I see lots of softness there and these white highlights that I really would go to great lengths to avoid. The swirliness while fun is again not something I would aim to do intentionally.

Have a go with that filter in PS and see what you get, as our understanding of desired effect may diverge too far. I'm more than happy with 70-200mm portrait and ideally without white bits; 135mm f/2 is next level, but them I'm usually happy with clinical look of 100mm macro L.
 
I'm sure you can find a shot with someone pretty central in the frame. Any snap shot will do as the background doesn't really matter as it's just an exercise in seeing if post capture processing can replicate or exceed what an old lens can do, for better or worse.
 
My two latest cameras are a Nex6 & a A7ii, but I don't have any native e-mount lenses.
I can use just about any of my existing lenses on either (~10% may not cover the full sensor of the A7ii).

The lenses I tend to use are fun & give great results if I don't mess up. Some of those I've tried have been disapointing but not that many.
I've hardly ever put a zoom on either - IIRC only once with a MFT telephoto on the Nex, more to see if the focus was going to be as bad as I expected than for any other reason.

When I shoot IR the old lenses are often better than the new ones - the coatings on my Panasonic lenses cut the transmitted IR significantly...

FWIW I do have native lenses for both my MFT system & my DSLRs but that hasn't stopped me adapting lenses on both of those systems as well. Something I've been doing for nearly 10 years on digital & to a much lesser extent on film for ~20 years prior to that. If it's becoming a 'trend' I can cope with that - it should make adapters even easier to source :)
 
Last edited:
BADGER.BRAD said:
Cheapness £20 To £40 for a focal length that would cost you hundreds as a modern lens. With the cost of some of the lenses would make me scared to take the thing out.
Plus I just like the materials/build quality of the old lenses and the effort you have to make to set them up right, for me cameras just seem to have become point and press devices.
Click to expand...
That much!
The 400mm/5.6 I got at the weekend was only £15, and it's in good condition with working AF...
Last time I calculated it the average price of all my lenses was ~£30, and that's including the modern native digital lenses (but also including too many legacy zooms I have no plans to use)
 
I shoot film mostly and have a bunch of lenses for my Olympus OM film bodies. I bought an adapter so I can use them with my Lumix M43 camera. Lack of autofocus is a pain for certain subjects, but for landscapes it's fine as manual focus is no problem. My £3-from-a-market-stall Tamron 80-210mm gives me a handy 160-420mm range for isolating subjects with the 2x crop factor.
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure you can find a shot with someone pretty central in the frame. Any snap shot will do as the background doesn't really matter as it's just an exercise in seeing if post capture processing can replicate or exceed what an old lens can do, for better or worse.
Click to expand...

I think you will want to start with a pretty reasonable modern 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 shot. I have neither. My 100mm will blend everything into near uniform green, which I actually much prefer. I am not suggesting starting from iphone level shot and doing computational photography all the way, as that would take quite a bit more than 2min, but still possible. This will certainly involve making a pretty good selection of the subject. Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is not. However transforming a clean simple boheh into swirly one is not that difficult and will avoid the worst part of the ps work.
 
Petrochemist said:
That much!
The 400mm/5.6 I got at the weekend was only £15, and it's in good condition with working AF...
Last time I calculated it the average price of all my lenses was ~£30, and that's including the modern native digital lenses (but also including too many legacy zooms I have no plans to use)
Click to expand...

Where are you buying them though? No good to rest of us if it's in your local charity shop.

LongLensPhotography said:
Filter - blur - radial blur (2-3) then mask out the centre and subject with a very diffuse large brush. I hardly see any point doing that though.
Click to expand...

This won't look anything like the natural effect from a vintage lens with optical flaws [which is what causes it to begin with] and even if you can get close, it was put that you cannot replicate this with a preset - and it's true. Without some fiddly work in post with filters and brushes and more often than not ending up with an image obviously processed this way, why would you not just use the cheap vintage lens to begin with?
 
LongLensPhotography said:
I think you will want to start with a pretty reasonable modern 50mm f/1.8 or 1.4 shot. I have neither. My 100mm will blend everything into near uniform green, which I actually much prefer. I am not suggesting starting from iphone level shot and doing computational photography all the way, as that would take quite a bit more than 2min, but still possible. This will certainly involve making a pretty good selection of the subject. Sometimes it is easy and sometimes it is not. However transforming a clean simple boheh into swirly one is not that difficult and will avoid the worst part of the ps work.
Click to expand...

I don't think you need to start with a specific lens or focal length as this is more about the ability to replicate something on the pc than it's about perspective or depth of field and I'm sure you know that it'll be perfectly possible to take a shot with your 100mm and not end up with everything being uniform green.

Anyway, I've asked you a couple of times to have a go at this as you're the one saying this can be done on a pc but so far you're avoiding having a crack at it.

I'm not going to try as I just can't be bothered and don't really like fiddling on the pc too much :D but I do suspect that doing this post capture and doing it convincingly post capture may not be all that easy but I remain open to the idea and I'd like to see you or someone else try... just to see how easy it is and how the results compare.
 
OK. I picked a photo almost at random with a centre subject. Into Photoshop CS2, select the centre, select inverse, radial blur (value 2) and reduced the size to post here.

BlurDSC01755.jpg
 
StephenM said:
OK. I picked a photo almost at random with a centre subject. Into Photoshop CS2, select the centre, select inverse, radial blur (value 2) and reduced the size to post here.

View attachment 255417
Click to expand...

Pretty obvious where the radial blur abruptly ends and the whirl is OTT. Also the whirls only occurs when you focus on a subject in closer and they are a certain distance from the backdrop. You can take perfectly normal, non swirly images using these lenses too. The scene you show wouldn't have much if any swirling

Here's one from the Helios 44-2 from a couple years back, the effect is much more subtle and not so uniform, check the snow flakes
Irish winter weather report 2017 by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top