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

[Petrochemist]

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

Sorry it is a fairly local charity shop that has a permeant stock of photographic gear. £15 is about what they usually price similar M42 long primes at, so I think I managed to get better than usual bargains this time (I also grabbed a colour enlarger with lens & extras for £5 )

 

[Cagey75]

Sorry it is a fairly local charity shop that has a permeant stock of photographic gear. £15 is about what they usually price similar M42 long primes at, so I think I managed to get better than usual bargains this time (I also grabbed a colour enlarger with lens & extras for £5 )

I thought so, as ebay rices seem to have gone up recently - lucky you so wish there was a decent charity shop near me, I know I'd more readily buy old lenses regular if I could get my hands on them to examine first, especially at those prices

 

[DG Phototraining]

Well, that's been an interesting thread - thanks all

I certainly understand now why some of you like the 'look' that an older lens with all its faults may give you, its just not for me

I just couldn't accept having a wonderful subject captured in a less than optimal way when I can have the option to create a 'look' afterwards - but that's just me

Cheers again

Dave

 

[cambsno]

I dont understand why there is such a big market for old MF lenses, like the Nikon AI or AIS lenses. I understand if you have an FE or similar film camera, but often these can be more than the newer G lenses!

 

[StephenM]

I just couldn't accept having a wonderful subject captured in a less than optimal way when I can have the option to create a 'look' afterwards - but that's just me

And me

 

[woof woof]

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

And of course you get this to some extent with some modern lenses too, maybe not to the degree you get it with some old lenses but maybe you can at least see the start of it.

I don't have a lens that'll make a swirly a picture as the one above, I have a couple of Minolta Rokkor MC's that are getting there and maybe an old 85mm or two too. Having the bokeh go cats eye towards the edges maybe helps.

Modern lens, Sony 85mm f1.8.

Old lens.

I'm sceptical about this being successfully done post capture and I think that if going for this look I'd much rather do it with a lens than Adobe.

 

[woof woof]

Well, that's been an interesting thread - thanks all

I certainly understand now why some of you like the 'look' that an older lens with all its faults may give you, its just not for me

I just couldn't accept having a wonderful subject captured in a less than optimal way when I can have the option to create a 'look' afterwards - but that's just me

Cheers again

Dave

I think it's the difference between capturing reality and going for a look and I remain to be convinced that an old lens or even a characterful new lens look can be easily or successfully done post capture.

I remember the first picture I took with a digital camera and an old lens, it was my Panasonic G1 and a Minolta Rokkor 55mm f1.7 MC. I still look at that picture and I don't think that the look it can give can be easily or convincingly replicated post capture as there's just too much going on. It's a combination of the performance across the frame and into the corners and how it all falls away and how the bokeh is rendered and possibly more too

 

[GreenNinja67]

I've had a play with some old PK mount lenses and the quality can be quite surprising.

Chinon 50mm f1.9


[url=https://flic.kr/p/N5ikAW]Rosie Chinon 50mm f1.9 by Terence Rees, on Flickr[/URL]

 

[Deleted member 49428]

Well, that's been an interesting thread - thanks all

I certainly understand now why some of you like the 'look' that an older lens with all its faults may give you, its just not for me

I just couldn't accept having a wonderful subject captured in a less than optimal way when I can have the option to create a 'look' afterwards - but that's just me

Cheers again

Dave

You really need to make certain we are on common grounds on the definition when using such words

 

[Mr Badger]

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

No obvious signs of lenticular highlights in the bokeh though, which is one of the signatures of the genre, and the lens effect is usually less pronounced and far more subtle in the foreground, so I'm afraid it's only going to get a 6/10 from me.

 

[LongLensPhotography]

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

You have to be fair and start with a pretty defocused background at wider apertures
Of course you could try and apply "lens blur" first...

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Old lens.

I'm sceptical about this being successfully done post capture and I think that if going for this look I'd much rather do it with a lens than Adobe.

This is much harder to replicate, but I wouldn't be surprised it is technically possible. Why would you want to do that is another question.

I've had a play with some old PK mount lenses and the quality can be quite surprising.

Chinon 50mm f1.9


Rosie Chinon 50mm f1.9 by Terence Rees, on Flickr

OK, that looks perfectly standard so why not start with a pretty inexpensive modern autofocus 50mm f/1.8 and have it the easy way?

 

[LongLensPhotography]

hy would you not just use the cheap vintage lens to begin with?

If I ever did this it would be once in a lifetime, so it's better than the hassle of researching and buying the lens, the adapters, etc.

 

[Ste_S]

I dont understand why there is such a big market for old MF lenses, like the Nikon AI or AIS lenses. I understand if you have an FE or similar film camera, but often these can be more than the newer G lenses!

See also collectors who buy them for film cameras, where a G lens is as useful as chocolate tea pot.
The common stuff is still cheap - 50mm f1.8, 135mm f3.5 etc

 

[DG Phototraining]

Why would you want to do that is another question.

I think this pretty much SUMS UP why I posted this thread

Dave

 

[sk66]

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.

For the general effect, sure.
But I think that particular image would be significantly more difficult, unless you're particularly good at masking individual strands of hair against a low contrast BG.

 

[woof woof]

This is much harder to replicate, but I wouldn't be surprised it is technically possible. Why would you want to do that is another question.

Why is because it's different to pointing a high quality camera and lens at a subject and capturing it accurately, efficiently and arguably clinically.

And I still remain to be convinced that it's technically possible without spending an inordinate amount of time and expertise on it to the point that anyone trying to do it post capture should really have just gone out and bought an old lens.

One thing that piqued my interest years ago was the photos we sometimes see in museums, not photography related museums but just general museums where we may see photos that have been blown up way beyond anything sensible or are very low or high contrast, blown to bits highlights, blacks blocked etc or a general old or interesting look. I often go for a different look, to replicate that sort of picture or just make something different which doesn't look like it was taken with a modern camera and a top end lens.

Things like the above are easy and are just about the same throughout the frame but when you get into the stuff that varies throughout the frame that has to make it much more difficult to replicate either well or convincingly.

 

[woof woof]

Another and perhaps more sensible reason to use old lenses is that they're relatively cheap.

Some of my old lenses are like two lenses in one. At wide apertures they can be all funky but stopped down they're just nice lenses and I'm pretty sure it'd be difficult for many people to consistently pick old lens pictures out from a mix of old and new. I think old lenses that give a pretty neutral look are great filler lenses if you don't use a focal length all that much, for example an old 50mm f1.4 may be £30-60 but a good new one could be several hundred or over a thousand but if you only use one a few times a year and mostly intend to use it stopped down the cheap old lens could make a lot of sense. A macro lens even more so

 

[Cagey75]

I think this pretty much SUMS UP why I posted this thread

Dave

The short answer is 'why not'? It's not like those of us who like a dabble in some vintage don't also have good quality modern AF lenses too. As someone put it - it's a hobby within a hobby, and I don't even get why anyone questions it.

 

[DG Phototraining]

The short answer is 'why not'? It's not like those of us who like a dabble in some vintage don't also have good quality modern AF lenses too. As someone put it - it's a hobby within a hobby, and I don't even get why anyone questions it.

Maybe its the hobby element, for several months before I posted this thread I've discussed this sometimes with a few of my Pro mates. It seems we all know of people buying top end mirrorless or DSLRs and then using vintage lenses to capture lower quality or distorted images, and frankly we all think its a bit absurd

As a hobbyist though, especially wanting to create an arty twist in a modern 'clinical' era it makes more sense and I appreciate that. There is no doubt a whole host of pros making a good living selling images taken deliberately to be less sharp or with distortion, flare, etc. on older poorer lenses - (as opposed to older great ones). In my main field though, I don't see it and nor do my mates, which I guess is why it seems odd to some of us

Many MANY ways to skin this photography cat

Dave

 

[StephenM]

If anyone cares to, search out Paul Lipscombe's book "The use of historic lenses in contemporary photography".

Health warning - it's large format lenses. I found it very interesting and informative, but then as the book I'm enjoying at the moment is Rudolf Kingslake's "History of the photographic lens" what I find a fun read might not be your idea

 

[Cagey75]

Maybe its the hobby element, for several months before I posted this thread I've discussed this sometimes with a few of my Pro mates. It seems we all know of people buying top end mirrorless or DSLRs and then using vintage lenses to capture lower quality or distorted images, and frankly we all think its a bit absurd

As a hobbyist though, especially wanting to create an arty twist in a modern 'clinical' era it makes more sense and I appreciate that. There is no doubt a whole host of pros making a good living selling images taken deliberately to be less sharp or with distortion, flare, etc. on older poorer lenses - (as opposed to older great ones). In my main field though, I don't see it and nor do my mates, which I guess is why it seems odd to some of us

Many MANY ways to skin this photography cat

Dave

Well I'd agree on some of that, I wouldn't spend £2K+ on a FFML camera just to use vintage glass adapted to it. But once I already had it I might like to

 

[Petrochemist]

Well I'd agree on some of that, I wouldn't spend £2K+ on a FFML camera just to use vintage glass adapted to it. But once I already had it I might like to

I wouldn't spend £2K on a FFML camera.
I got one for around a quarter of that
So far I've only used it on adapted glass, but if a native telephoto becomes available for under £1k I may well add that to my options. There may well be a few third party lenses that tempt me in the future too, but so far adapted lenses do everything I'd need at shorter focal lengths.

 

[nandbytes]

Well I'd agree on some of that, I wouldn't spend £2K+ on a FFML camera just to use vintage glass adapted to it. But once I already had it I might like to

You can get one for £350-400 these days

 

[Petrochemist]

You can get one for £350-400 these days

I thought the extra £200 for the MK2 was worthwhile, but going for the later models was just too much for me.

 

[Cagey75]

I wouldn't spend £2K on a FFML camera.
I got one for around a quarter of that
So far I've only used it on adapted glass, but if a native telephoto becomes available for under £1k I may well add that to my options. There may well be a few third party lenses that tempt me in the future too, but so far adapted lenses do everything I'd need at shorter focal lengths.

But the point here that DG was making is that some do, and then they only adapt old cheap MF lenses. I wouldn't spend that on one either even if I had it spare. But I would spend over a grand if it covered all bases [that suit me]

 

[nandbytes]

I thought the extra £200 for the MK2 was worthwhile, but going for the later models was just too much for me.

Not in my opinion unless you really care about IBIS. I would personally go with A7R for £200 extra if the main aim was to use it with manual lenses.

 

[Cagey75]

Not in my opinion unless you really care about IBIS. I would personally go with A7R for £200 extra if the main aim was to use it with manual lenses.

I would choose IBIS over higher res for MF lenses every time.

 

[nandbytes]

I would choose IBIS over higher res for MF lenses every time.

I would never choose IBIS. Personally would prefer smaller bodies without it. I would kill for a Sony body with latest sensor and capabilities but with small original body.

 

[Cagey75]

I would never choose IBIS. Personally would prefer smaller bodies without it. I would kill for a Sony body with latest sensor and capabilities but with small original body.

Try framing a tight shot using an old 200mm MF lens with and without IBIS. I know that's not your bag, but this is why the IBIS thing is my preference, because it would be mine. I also don't like small body cameras

 

[nandbytes]

Try framing a tight shot using an old 200mm MF lens with and without IBIS. I know that's not your bag, but this is why the IBIS thing is my preference, because it would be mine. I also don't like small body cameras

Used to use 70-400mm mostly at 400mm on my A7. The combo didn't have any stabilisation. Didn't have any issues.

 

[Cagey75]

Used to use 70-400mm mostly at 400mm on my A7. The combo didn't have any stabilisation. Didn't have any issues.

I used to own a Nikon 300mm F4 and used it on a 1.7x TC, no OIS or IBIS and ddn't have issues either, doesn't make any difference to now. Post used-to-IBIS era. Much rather have than not. But I know it's not 'essential' just nice to have, like higher res. The only reason I'd need that is to crop the bejaysis out of images and pretend I had more reach

 

[Petrochemist]

Not in my opinion unless you really care about IBIS. I would personally go with A7R for £200 extra if the main aim was to use it with manual lenses.

I do appreciate IBIS it's something I lost when going to mirrorless & wanted it back. I also wanted support for the TAP to AF my lenses. Extra resolution is only of limited use to me. There may well have been issues with the cost of IR conversion for me to consider as well...

 

[Mr Badger]

Snip:

Many MANY ways to skin this photography cat

Dave

And there's also the option to leave it as a live, fully functioning cat, and just appreciate it for what it is and the joy that can bring some people.

There's a lot of things I don't see the point of, but it would be a dull world if everyone was a landsc…. I mean liked the same thing.

 

[nandbytes]

I do appreciate IBIS it's something I lost when going to mirrorless & wanted it back. I also wanted support for the TAP to AF my lenses. Extra resolution is only of limited use to me. There may well have been issues with the cost of IR conversion for me to consider as well...

Converted my A7 to IR long back, no issues there.

If you are using TAP might help to get A7III when it goes down in price if you are not willing to pay its current prices. Makes a noticeable difference in speed and accuracy.

Had a whole set old Oly OM lenses I used on TAP from 16mm fisheye to 100mm f2.8 and lot else in between

 

[frod]

Maybe its the hobby element, for several months before I posted this thread I've discussed this sometimes with a few of my Pro mates. It seems we all know of people buying top end mirrorless or DSLRs and then using vintage lenses to capture lower quality or distorted images, and frankly we all think its a bit absurd

Quite often the modern lenses are the ones with the distortion, it's just corrected by the camera even in the RAW image.

Equally older lenses are of higher quality than you seem to assume. Many of the measurebating test sites never retest old lenses on modern equipment so any statistics you see will be from old sensors. If it makes you feel better about the money you've spent, so be it.

Just because they have character is no reason for you and your photo-dawg pro buddies to justify derision of people who prefer to use them. I just don't buy into the 'dpreview comment thread expert' line of thinking that the only way to enjoy this hobby is with as many clinical megapixels as possible.

Some of us don't want to spunk hundreds of pounds on 1kg monster lenses when we get perfectly enjoyable images from old lenses. Aren't we allowed to enjoy the better light gathering capabilities and faster operation of the modern bodies too?

I have a bookshelf of monographs made by masters with old lenses that I didn't stop enjoying when the latest Sony sensor came out. Get over yourself.

 

[GreenNinja67]

OK, that looks perfectly standard so why not start with a pretty inexpensive modern autofocus 50mm f/1.8 and have it the easy way?

Just to see what it was like.

 

[woof woof]

Maybe its the hobby element, for several months before I posted this thread I've discussed this sometimes with a few of my Pro mates. It seems we all know of people buying top end mirrorless or DSLRs and then using vintage lenses to capture lower quality or distorted images, and frankly we all think its a bit absurd

As a hobbyist though, especially wanting to create an arty twist in a modern 'clinical' era it makes more sense and I appreciate that. There is no doubt a whole host of pros making a good living selling images taken deliberately to be less sharp or with distortion, flare, etc. on older poorer lenses - (as opposed to older great ones). In my main field though, I don't see it and nor do my mates, which I guess is why it seems odd to some of us

Many MANY ways to skin this photography cat

Dave

It depends how far you take the chase for quality. One could argue, for example, that anyone using a Canon DSLR is on the wrong track as these days Nikon and Sony have much better sensors and then there's the focus issues with DSLR's so if all of your lenses aren't MA'd to your camera body at every distance you're at a disadvantage plus whilst a good number of Canon lenses are solid B+ lenses there are probably better lenses on the market and anyone not buying the best must be making too many compromises or why not bypass 35mm and go for a larger format for better quality?

Mass market old manual lenses may not be the best choice for a demanding professional wanting a modern more accurate look especially at wide apertures (but stop down a decent old lens and many people wont be able to tell the difference between it and a modern lens) but I don't think any fan of these lenses would even think about claiming that.

 

[AndrewFlannigan]

This discussion begins to sound like "angels on a pinhead" when no-one's really sure there are angels and they can't agree on which pin to use. Isn't it just the case that different people take different things from photography?

 

[StephenM]

Certainly, we all have our our own viewpoints and perspectives. But what I think Dave was trying to do was to find out what the motivation was to use old lenses; and there's nothing inherently wrong in making an attempt to understand a viewpoint that we don't share.