brokeweb Loc: Philadelphia

I think that using older-used, manual lenses is more cost effective then going out and buying the newest-best lens. Yes they are heavy, bulky, and require you to use your skills. You can fork over 1K for a new lens, or you can pay less than $100 for the lens and adapter and get the same results.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Perhaps with static subjects but doubtful for general photography or anything that requires fast responses.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

That is a thesis that can be challenged quite easily, mainly because you have not provided enough information about your chosen brand of digital camera body, nor about the lenses that you are considering.

Give us a few details, and possibly a worthwhile discussion can result, otherwise, this is just a waste of bandwidth.

Put some of your own skin in the game if you want a serious response.

Dan L Loc: Wisconsin

Back in early summer of 2012 I shot flying seagulls with D70 and latter a D700 with a manual focusing 300mm 4.5f with some good results but it is easierl using the auto focus zoom lens. Using a manual lens shooting flying seagulls requires practice and can be done with good results.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

This is probably about 70% true for STATIC subjects only .....

cntry Loc: Colorado

If you use a Sony a-mount camera you can have both...reasonable prices on great lenses and all the bells and whistles you paid for on your new camera.

MW

I recall shooting birds in flight and kids athletic events back in the late 70's / early 80's with a Konica TC (manual everything) My eyesight was better then. Film was cheaper and one accepted something like a 1 in 4 success rate.

I think the degrees of rotation to go from closest focus to infinity was greater on the older manual focus lenses which made it easier to get a correct focus.

brokeweb Loc: Philadelphia

What difference does it make?

Captain Crab

That's an interesting paradigm. I have heard arguments that propose the non-AF (computer driven) lenses aren't designed for maximum optical performance with digital sensors etc. Even if the 'older' lenses are high quality, high end glass. However, I have never seen any real proof of such claims.
As to the speed of use and only for still life shooting. I remind all that award winning action photography was taken for decades before auto focus was the norm. Even before motor drives were common place.
I have several prime high end Nikon lenses that a use on my D700 with great results. They are from my film days and a Nikon F2AS, that I still have. I also have three AF lenses, two zooms and a prime 50 mm.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

I guess you can say the same for older cameras to a degree.
As a hobbyist, I say have fun with any & all manual lenses you can find for bargain prices. I do not think that way if you have to make some money with them, where the latest and best technology prevails. Just the way I see it. No right or wrong really.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Quite a lot of difference depending upon the brand of camera, the lenses etc. as to what can be achieved.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Recently came across a gentleman who is a mechanical engineer in the photo and film biz who adapted some old film lenses to modern DSLR cameras. He said he actually sold or rented one to a production company. They looked like he had a lot of time and money invested in them. I just found the use of "hybrid" technology interesting.

MW

I have read that as well but am skeptical. On either case the objective is a good image projected on to a flat surface inside the camera. If anything, I would expect the requirements for digital to be lower since the ability to compensate for le s weaknesses is greater than is was with film.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

There is a theory that the surface of sensors is much more reflective than that of unexposed film, such that modern lens designs / coatings are formulated a little differently to accommodate those considerations.

That does not mean that old glass is not useful on DSLRs, just that there may be some subtle differences between older lenses and modern designs, notwithstanding engineering design and materials science advances.

brokeweb Loc: Philadelphia

In my experiences, you will not know until you actually mount an old lens on your new camera and take some pictures. I think that experience is the best knowledge. You can read all about a topic, but until I actually experience it, your reading is meaningless.

It is also, my experience that a manufacturer will build on it's previous products, therefore, in some cases, provide a backwards compatibility. Most cases the manufacturer will improve the ease of using their products with each year's releases. Peterff answered that the brand of camera is important to their legacy products since the newer products are an improvement from their older products.

So why did I start this thread? For one thing: The manufacturers are attempting to automate all of the the parts of our art in the name of increasing sales of their products. "If it's easier, then it's worth the extra expense". Where is the extra expense coming from? From all those little micro motors and computer chips installed in our new lenses and the reduction of the quality of glass.

My whole point in this conversation is that we have become too dependent on the technology that makes our art easier to the point that we ourselves are taking the art out of our art form.