Vintage Lenses

Cagey75 said:
I guess it could be deemed 'vintage' as nothing has changed optics-wise since 1986, just the outer shell really. Looking forward to it, apparently it went to shipping about an hour after I ordered, but I wouldn't expect to see it arrive until at least next Thurs. That would be the usual from most areas within the EU to Ireland.
Click to expand...

Mine arrived today and was as described, fortunately. Stunning lens. The crinkle finish on the AF-ED lenses was very resilient so if they were treated with even a little respect they stayed like new.
 
Plain Nev said:
Do they actually allow the mount to rotate? I thought they were more of a height thing.
Click to expand...
They can be used to adjust registration, but their main use is for rotation. To adjust registration shims are needed which can be placed between inner & outer parts. Without the addition of a shim the inner portion is force tight against the outer when the grub screw is tightened.
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Mine arrived today and was as described, fortunately. Stunning lens. The crinkle finish on the AF-ED lenses was very resilient so if they were treated with even a little respect they stayed like new.
Click to expand...


I've no doubt the outer casing on the Crinkle finish versions is a bit tougher, but going on a couple side by side IQ comparisons I came across, the AIS is ever so slightly sharper, not sure how! Must have been a slight change in coating somewhere along te line, but you'd be nit-picking between them tbh. The AIS was more attractive for being MF only, and I think it looks a bit cooler :D but ... I'll not knock the AF, I could have had the shiney black plastic coated version for a chunk cheaper but the teensy focus ring put me off
 
Plain Nev said:
I don't suppose M42 adaptors will ever be that precise. When I use an M42 lens they either seem to fall one side or the other. Not that it makes any difference, I find.
Click to expand...

It's just annoying having paid so much and the lenses not lining up and I do find the lens not lining up annoys me. I'll give a cheap one a go and if it's off I may try one with a screw.
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
Yes. Purely rotational to allow the scale to face upwards.
Click to expand...

Well you learn something new every day. My understanding of it stems from reading that the Helios lenses sometimes did not sit flatly on the mount and that you could adjust it by either lowering or raising the collar. I didn't realise that you could alter the rotation as well. Good to know.
 
woof woof said:
It's just annoying having paid so much and the lenses not lining up and I do find the lens not lining up annoys me. I'll give a cheap one a go and if it's off I may try one with a screw.
Click to expand...
In the early days of adapters, when mirrorless first starting using legacy lenses, the M42 ones didn't have the screws. Nowadays I've not seen one which doesn't. I've never had a problem with needing to fit shims to adjust infinity, but I suppose it can and does happen.
 
Has anybody ever adapted Contax G lenses to digital? I’m mostly shooting film at the moment but there are times when digital would be handy. I considered having a swap round from Nikon FF to mirrorless and buying more G lenses at the same time to use more on the G1 but if adapted to mirrorless it would make some good sense to use them on both. I know the adapters have focus rings on them but was wondering if anyone had any first hand experience and which camera you used. I like the Fuji range but would get FoV differences, whereas adapting to Sony would mean maintaining FF :) any thoughts? For all I know the Fuji’s are better for manual focusing etc, the change in FoV wouldn’t be a deal breaker!
 
andy1868 said:
Has anybody ever adapted Contax G lenses to digital? I’m mostly shooting film at the moment but there are times when digital would be handy. I considered having a swap round from Nikon FF to mirrorless and buying more G lenses at the same time to use more on the G1 but if adapted to mirrorless it would make some good sense to use them on both. I know the adapters have focus rings on them but was wondering if anyone had any first hand experience and which camera you used. I like the Fuji range but would get FoV differences, whereas adapting to Sony would mean maintaining FF :) any thoughts? For all I know the Fuji’s are better for manual focusing etc, the change in FoV wouldn’t be a deal breaker!
Click to expand...

I may be picking you up wrong, but adapters don't have focus rings, all focusing is still done by the lens itself, the adapter is merely a spacer to allow for the missing space between the sensor and lens elements. And of course, it changes the mount to allow the lens to fit. Unless you mean aperture rings? For Nikon G type lenses you can get adapters that allow change in aperture, though you don't get official markings, you are guesstimating the aperture. You can pretty much set aperture by opening and closing but outside of wide open or fully stopped down you are guessing where you're at. Shouldn't be any different for Contax to say, Fuji than it is for Nikon or Canon to Fuji. Different adapters for each is all
 
I've used adapted lenses on MFT and FF and I much prefer them at their intended FoV on FF.

If starting from scratch for something to use manual lenses on I think the original Sony A7 is probably worth a look as they were AFAIK or maybe still are the cheapest FF mirrorless camera and of course you wont need the fancy focusing systems of more recent cameras.
 
Cagey75 said:
I may be picking you up wrong, but adapters don't have focus rings, all focusing is still done by the lens itself, the adapter is merely a spacer to allow for the missing space between the sensor and lens elements. And of course, it changes the mount to allow the lens to fit. Unless you mean aperture rings? For Nikon G type lenses you can get adapters that allow change in aperture, though you don't get official markings, you are guesstimating the aperture. You can pretty much set aperture by opening and closing but outside of wide open or fully stopped down you are guessing where you're at. Shouldn't be any different for Contax to say, Fuji than it is for Nikon or Canon to Fuji. Different adapters for each is all
Click to expand...

The Contax G lenses don’t have manual focus rings, they’re AF lenses really. The G bodies focus them through a screw drive like the Nikon D lenses, to manually focus them there is a dial on the body which then adjusts the focus through its AF screw. The adapters I’ve seen have a manual ring which adjusts the lenses focus through the lenses AF screw. I hope that makes sense, I don’t know if I’ve explained it very well :LOL:
 
woof woof said:
I've used adapted lenses on MFT and FF and I much prefer them at their intended FoV on FF.

If starting from scratch for something to use manual lenses on I think the original Sony A7 is probably worth a look as they were AFAIK or maybe still are the cheapest FF mirrorless camera and of course you wont need the fancy focusing systems of more recent cameras.
Click to expand...

That was pretty much my thinking, with the A7 being relatively cheap now too, although the likes of the X-T1 can be had very cheaply but I would obviously have the crop factor to take into account. Am I correct in assuming that most mirrorless have focus peaking these days? :D
 
Last edited:
andy1868 said:
That was pretty much my thinking, with the A7 being relatively cheap now too, am I correct in assuming that most mirrorless have focus peaking these days? :D
Click to expand...

I think so. The focus peaking on the Nikon Z cameras is excellent. So much so that I now only have two AF lenses and around 15 MF vintage/legacy lenses.
 
Yes, the A7 has peaking and you can change the colour and amount.

I find peaking useful at wide apertures as next to nothing peaks so it does get you there or there abouts pretty well but at smaller apertures there's a lot of peaking which could lead to a picture which may look ok as a whole picture but your subject could look out of focus if looking closely. Of course you can focus at wide aperture with not much peaking and then stop down if that's a way you'd like to do it. As you adjust the focus you'll see the peaking move.

I sometimes rely just on peaking but I use the magnified view a lot and sometimes hyperfocal, zone or pre focus. I have the magnified view assigned to the centre button, one press calls up the focus box and a second push magnifies the view with a third press providing more magnification.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
Yes, the A7 has peaking and you can change the colour and amount.

I find peaking useful at wide apertures as next to nothing peaks so it does get you there or there abouts pretty well but at smaller apertures there's a lot of peaking which could lead to a picture which may look ok as a whole picture but your subject could look out of focus if looking closely. Of course you can focus at wide aperture with not much peaking and then stop down if that's a way you'd like to do it. As you adjust the focus you'll see the peaking move.

I sometimes rely just on peaking but I use the magnified view a lot and sometimes hyperfocal, zone or pre focus. I have the magnified view assigned to the centre button, one press calls up the focus box and a second push magnified the view with a third press providing more magnification.
Click to expand...


Okay that sounds pretty good then, is that on the original A7 is it?

I’m just trying to decide if it’s me finding excuses to buy more lenses for my Contax yet. But having one set of ace lenses would be pretty cool for film and digital, at least in my mind :LOL: I also fancy a bit of a change on the digital side anyway so this may prompt me into action!
 
Yes. I have the original A7.

Actually if you have the time to MF I think that MF with a mirrorless camera is the most accurate way to focus as AF does get you there a lot quicker but may not necessarily focus on the exact detail you would have picked as the point of focus.

If you don't have time to MF very accurately you can use peaking or go zone/hyperfocal etc.
 
andy1868 said:
The Contax G lenses don’t have manual focus rings, they’re AF lenses really. The G bodies focus them through a screw drive like the Nikon D lenses, to manually focus them there is a dial on the body which then adjusts the focus through its AF screw. The adapters I’ve seen have a manual ring which adjusts the lenses focus through the lenses AF screw. I hope that makes sense, I don’t know if I’ve explained it very well :LOL:
Click to expand...

Ah, I think I got ya (y) Like Nikon G lenses have no aperture ring, but they do have focus ring, the CG lenses are focused from the body? or in this case specialised adapters? I've never used a Contax G lens, clearly :D but that's interesting to note.
 
I like APSC for adapting, not so much concern about soft corners as all the junky edges on not-so-great lenses is cropped away. Otherwise I notice no real difference, I guess you'll get nicer DOF for shorter lenses, but I'm more into adapting longer FL, like the juicy 180mm 2.8 I have on the way. I think for longer lenses like this APSC has some advantages, for what I intend to use it for at least. FF would be sweeter if you planned to use it more for portraiture. But I hope to use it for some casual, close up wildlife, also for macro [with some rings] and the crop helps in both cases. I will try it for portraits too, I'll have to walk end of the road from the subject though :ROFLMAO:
 
I picked up a multipower lens kit today.
Here's a quick test shot with it in 35mm/5.6 mode (on an unfiltered full spectrum camera)
35mm-5.6 fullspectrum.jpg
and another from a bit further back reconfigured to 2x TC mode (& with a 100mm macro added)
2x TC with cosina macro at infinity..jpg
I've not yet tried it in extension tube mode as the optics aren't relevant for that :)
 
Cagey75 said:
Ah, I think I got ya (y) Like Nikon G lenses have no aperture ring, but they do have focus ring, the CG lenses are focused from the body? or in this case specialised adapters? I've never used a Contax G lens, clearly :D but that's interesting to note.
Click to expand...

That’s correct! They don’t have focus rings but do have a manual aperture ring :) Reading around it seems that they can be a little finicky because of variation of adapters, I’m still really interested in trying it though, if nothing more than just messing about! All the G lenses were built by Zeiss and supposedly enjoy good reputations, I can speak personally for the 28mm f2.8 and 45mm f2, but apparently the 21mm is really nice :D
 
Cagey75 said:
I like APSC for adapting, not so much concern about soft corners as all the junky edges on not-so-great lenses is cropped away. Otherwise I notice no real difference, I guess you'll get nicer DOF for shorter lenses, but I'm more into adapting longer FL, like the juicy 180mm 2.8 I have on the way. I think for longer lenses like this APSC has some advantages, for what I intend to use it for at least. FF would be sweeter if you planned to use it more for portraiture. But I hope to use it for some casual, close up wildlife, also for macro [with some rings] and the crop helps in both cases. I will try it for portraits too, I'll have to walk end of the road from the subject though :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

True! I think I was looking more at going for the wider lenses so would make more use on a FF camera. That said, a 21mm, 28mm, 45mm and 90mm would equate to some nice focal lengths on a crop sensor too if I wasn’t worried about anything too wide on digital :)
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Am just a little excited! Managed to bag a lens I've been after for a long time! A Pentax SMC 50mm f/1.2! REALLY looking forward to trying this one out!
Click to expand...
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Yes, f/2.8, 1/50 sec, handheld, ISO 100, pattern metering.
Click to expand...


Nice! can't beat finally tracking down and grabbing that one lens you really desired :) The 180mm was one of my 'must have' lenses for years if I'm honest, since I shot Nikon - never was brave enough to go for one even though I've owned some nice lenses in or around that FL [have owned both the 80-200 2.8 and 70-200 VRII] - I thought it would be too limited, but then I mostly shot the zooms at the longer end ... and apparently the 70-200 is really only about 180mm at it's longest due to focus breathing
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
Nice! can't beat finally tracking down and grabbing that one lens you really desired :) The 180mm was one of my 'must have' lenses for years if I'm honest, since I shot Nikon - never was brave enough to go for one even though I've owned some nice lenses in or around that FL [have owned both the 80-200 2.8 and 70-200 VRII and numerous old 200F4 lenses] - I thought it would be too limited, but then I mostly shot the zooms at the longer end ....
Click to expand...

Me too. One lens that's titillating me is the 300mm AF-S f/4. There are a few with bust AF motors that can be had around £250 but obviously only used in MF mode. I just have a thing about using an AF lens in MF only. It would probably bug my autistic nature eventually. Plus that's not an easy lens to handhold and I'm told the tripod collar sucks.
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
Me too. One lens that's titillating me is the 300mm AF-S f/4. There are a few with bust AF motors that can be had around £250 but obviously only used in MF mode. I just have a thing about using an AF lens in MF only. It would probably bug my autistic nature eventually. Plus that's not an easy lens to handhold and I'm told the tripod collar sucks.
Click to expand...

I owned that one too :) just didn't include as I see it as a different range completely, I had the original AF-S one [there's been a few updates since I think?] also had a TC 1.4x at the time

Not even sure what they go for now but looking through my old sold adverts I sold mine for €900, that was 6yrs ago

I would definitely take one even with AF busted, so long as MF was fine, for £250 I would jump at a good con one

Just because, while I was searching back, this is one of the photos I posted when selling - I remember barely ever using the collar, often used it hand held

300F4.jpg
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I owned that one too :) just didn't include as I see it as a different range completely, I had the original AF-S one [there's been a few updates since I think?] also had a TC 1.4x at the time

Not even sure what they go for now but looking through my old sold adverts I sold mine for €900, that was 6yrs ago

I would definitely take one even with AF busted, so long as MF was fine, for £250 I would jump at a good con one

Just because, while I was searching back, this is one of the photos I posted when selling - I remember barely ever using the collar, often used it hand held

View attachment 320456
Click to expand...

That's the one!! On a slightly shorter note, I picked up a mint Konica 40mm Hexanon AR 40mm f/1.8 this evening. Going to stop now. :oops: :$ :ROFLMAO:
 
THIRTYFIVEMILL said:
That's the one!! On a slightly shorter note, I picked up a mint Konica 40mm Hexanon AR 40mm f/1.8 this evening. Going to stop now. :oops: :$ :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I've looked at that lens in tha past, tidy, even when adapted. I was shooting M43 at the time though, so you're looking at 80mm which changes it completely. I already had a 25mm and 60mm at the time but something about it intrigued
 
@THIRTYFIVEMILL Not a wonderful example here, but just looking at some of my old 300F4 images, I didn't upload many back then though I took a bunch more offline - here's a good look at the bokeh at F4, lovely cat's eye :D tbh, I kinda like that, perfection is never my desire

October by K G, on Flickr
 
Petrochemist said:
If I had a lens for everytime I said that I wouldn't be able to move for them. ;)
Click to expand...

lol, aye some of you go OTT on the ol' lenses :D Me, I'm more a lens stalker, I hang out in the backdrop researching for months and debate with myself whether I 'need' it or not before ever clicking 'buy'! But then I go buy a lens that costs more than 5x the one I initially started out looking at :ROFLMAO:
 
Hah! Sometimes I've been known to buy them simply because I lost out on another I was bidding on. A case of stick that in your pipe and smoke it. :D
 
Cagey75 said:
lol, aye some of you go OTT on the ol' lenses :D Me, I'm more a lens stalker, I hang out in the backdrop researching for months and debate with myself whether I 'need' it or not before ever clicking 'buy'! But then I go buy a lens that costs more than 5x the one I initially started out looking at :ROFLMAO:
Click to expand...

I end up paying 5x what I intended, but I do it after just reading about a lens 5 minutes before and buying it on an impulse. If there's only one for sale and it just listed on eBay with no BIN I suffer terribly for 10 days and all but require counselling once I've won it. :oops: :$:ROFLMAO:
 
woof woof said:
The thing is if you stop buying old lenses you might start buying new ones, and that's a lot more expensive.

So buying old cheap lenses is actually a saving, really.
Click to expand...
Now that's an excuse I need to remember :) I'm not quite sure how much I've spent on lenses, somewhere in the region of £4k I suspect. I know there are a few new ones that come to far more on their own!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top