Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
What Vintage Lenses Are you Using?
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Dec 3, 2016 14:46:57   #
melueth Loc: Central Florida
 
kymarto wrote:
I have forty or fifty vintage lenses, all bought especially because of the bokeh they produce. Yes, I'm in the deep end where these lenses are concerned, but not the really deep end, where things like Dallmeyer Super Sixes and Meyer Kino Plasmats can go for 5 grand or ten times that.

I'm not going to list them all. They go from little cine lenses originally for 16mm use, to view camera lenses, to oscilloscope lenses, and several special industrial Nikkors originally made for printing circuits that under the right conditions can resolve over 400 lines/mm from corner to corner.

I have Russian lenses, and they are pleasant but nothing special. One great thing about them is that they are cheap--a good place to start. German Meyer lenses, such as the Domiplan, the Primoplan and the famous Trioplan, are an excellent place to go for nice bokeh. The Trioplan and Primoplan are very in demand and expensive these days, but you can still get Domiplans for under $100. Another great deal is the Primotar--both 135mm and 180mm f3.5. They are sharp and contrasty and have great edgy bokeh, very similar to the Trioplan.

Another place to explore is projector lenses, as these can often be had for $40-50 or less, and can produce spectacular results in terms of bokeh rendering.

One question that is important to consider is what your goal in using vintage lenses is. Generally speaking, for general photography you are much better off with cheap modern lenses than vintage lenses, even very expensive ones. If your aim is art, then the sky is the limit with vintage lenses.

I'll post a few examples so you can see what all the fuss about bokeh is about.
I have forty or fifty vintage lenses, all bought e... (show quote)


Wow, Wow, Wow!! Thank you for sharing these. Beautiful!!

ml

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 15:04:11   #
jaimeblackwell Loc: Lewiston, Maine
 
I Nikkor lenses . 2, 1960 era primes. a 28 and 50 mm non-ai that i have converted to fit my Nikon d720, a 1990 Nikkor 35-135 af zoom, Vivitar 135mm prime. and a Tokina 14-105 zoom Manual focus and a sigma 80-220 and Zikkor 80-200mm zooms. both found in the pawn shop for 1 Us dollar! All these lenses take beautiful pictures in one capacity or the other. The weakest is the sigma but it works well in Macro.

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 16:31:44   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
I have so many older manual focus lenses. I also use them with adapters on my Olympus mirrorless cameras. I have Pentax (both screw & bayonet), Konica, Minolta, Nikon, Canon, , Practika, Leica, Helios and others.... On mirrorless, I don't have to worry about losing infinity focus or have an adapter with a cheap quality lens to retain it.

Reply
 
 
Dec 3, 2016 18:12:21   #
kymarto Loc: Portland OR and Milan Italy
 
RWR wrote:
That has not been my experience. I have Fotodiox Nikon mounts on most of my Leica R lenses, from a 21 f/4.0 Super-Angulon-R to a 560 Telyt-R, and the only Nikkors that I’ve found to equal or better any of them are the top of the line ED lenses.


That's true of course with the good MF lenses. I have, for instance, an Apo Lanthar that beats any modern macro lens, including the Zeiss ones. I was speaking generally about middle-of-the-road glass.

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 19:25:51   #
repleo Loc: Boston
 
h2odog wrote:
I recently became interested after reading about and watching several YouTube videos on adapting vintage lenses to modern digital cameras. My goal was to find and adapt inexpensive vintage lenses to my micro four thirds bodies. Of course, these lenses will be only manual focus but since this is purely an exercise in having fun?


After I got my A6000 I was pleasantly surprised to find I could use the old Zuiko OM lenses that had been lying in a chest for 25 years on it. After that I went on a binge buying up old OM lenses that I could only have dreamed about in my film days. The Olympus lenses are very light and compact and sit very well on the A6000. I have gradually replaced these lenses with OEM lenses and have to admit the quality of the newer lenses is much better in most cases. I still use a 55mm Micro Nikkor P which is the nearest thing I have to a Macro lens, but I am looking for a modern replacement for that also.

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 21:30:16   #
RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA
 
kymarto wrote:
That's true of course with the good MF lenses. I was speaking generally about middle-of-the-road glass.

OK, can’t argue with that!
kymarto wrote:
I have, for instance, an Apo Lanthar that beats any modern macro lens, including the Zeiss ones.

Is yours the original German Voightlander version? (Was there an original German Voightlander version?) I bought a 90 F 3.5 APO Lanthar M39 rangefinder-coupled lens along with a Voightlander Bessa R when Cosina first introduced them, about 20 years or so ago. It’s definitely my sharpest rangefinder lens, maybe my best lens of all. It focuses to 1m, but being only f/3.5 should do well in the macro range. It’s on my agenda to try it with a Zeiss Ikon SW on a Visoflex bellows next time there are high winds in the mountains (that’s about the only time my Jeep will stay home!).

Reply
Dec 3, 2016 21:51:53   #
SharpShooter Loc: NorCal
 
I'm using a 600mm but I'll admit, I rarely use it. Shallow DoF lenses are very hard to use on new cameras, so I really don't have any use for them. For me, just not worth using on anything that's not completely static!
SS

Reply
 
 
Dec 4, 2016 05:43:49   #
sct198 Loc: West of Nathrop, Co
 
I can't believe that no one mentioned the Minolta 70-210 F4 beercan lens. These can be found for less than $100.00 all day long. This lens from the 80's will compete against any new 70-200 today which can cost 1000's.

Reply
Dec 4, 2016 06:56:21   #
Leitz Loc: Solms
 
sct198 wrote:
I can't believe that no one mentioned the Minolta 70-210 F4 beercan lens. These can be found for less than $100.00 all day long. This lens from the 80's will compete against any new 70-200 today which can cost 1000's.

Perhaps no one else shares your opinion?

Reply
Dec 4, 2016 15:48:33   #
asiafish Loc: Bakersfield, CA
 
I use a 1937 Carl Zeiss Jena 5cm f/1.5 Sonnar, and know one gentleman (the guy who rebuilt my lens) who uses one from 1934. Here are two shots with the Sonnar on my Leica M-E.


L1000241.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

L1000238.jpg by Andrew F, on Flickr

Reply
Dec 4, 2016 15:55:01   #
Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga
 
My most used vintage lens is my "Lester A Dine" 105 mm F 2.8 macro lens from the mid 1980's (I own 2 of them plus the Vivitar branded Series One as well). I use it for all of my macro shooting (my niche). It was made by Kino Precision for the Dine corp (purveyors to the dental profession & still in business). I have a total of 9 AF & MF macro lenses from 55 to 180 mm, but this one is my "go to" lens. Considered a "cult Classic". Only available on the used market anymore. Got mine from my Father In Law (a retired Dentist)

Reply
 
 
Dec 4, 2016 19:20:37   #
Norm Rosenberg
 
Mostly use vintage lenses on vintage lenses. Jupiter 50/f2 and Canon 135/f3.5 on Canon 7. Jupiter and Industar on Zorki 6. Have 39mm to NX for Samsung but not in love with most of these for the Samsung. Do often use Konica 57/f1.4 on the Samsung which is great for indoors.

Reply
Dec 4, 2016 22:59:26   #
tstar
 
Leitz, I have several of the later version of the 70-210 beercan, and they are also great lenses. There is a video on YouTube that compares the beer can with the Sony 70-210, and the Sony comes out better for the most part. But yours might be a better performer than the one tested.

Reply
Dec 5, 2016 02:23:24   #
therwol Loc: USA
 
Nikon 55mm f3.5 Micro circa 1969 on my Nikon D810. My father bought this lens new. This is the sharpest lens on the planet in the macro range out to about 3 feet, and it is a decent performer beyond that. Before the advent of the flatbed scanner, I used this on my film cameras to make flawless copies of pictures and documents. Although not as old (It has autofocus.) my Nikon 28-105mm AF-D zoom can go head to head with the newer similar zooms in terms of sharpness, especially in the center of the frame. It also has virtually zero distortion at all focal lengths, unlike newer zooms like the 24-120 and 24-85 which have serious distortion at the short end of their range. The main drawback is that it lacks vibration reduction and it is more prone to flare.

Reply
Dec 5, 2016 08:35:09   #
Leitz Loc: Solms
 
tstar wrote:
Leitz, I have several of the later version of the 70-210 beercan, and they are also great lenses. There is a video on YouTube that compares the beer can with the Sony 70-210, and the Sony comes out better for the most part. But yours might be a better performer than the one tested.

I was expressing my opinion that most everyone here overrates the necessity of super-sharp lenses for everything. Certainly the latest 70-210 zooms with low dispersion glass do exhibit superior image quality, but the main advantage I see is the f/2.8 speed. Nearly any 2 - 3X zoom since the 1980s is more than adequate for most purposes - there are more important factors for a fine photograph than lens resolution. Enjoy your beer cans - just because they're not the "best" doesn't mean they're bad!

Reply
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.