w00dy4012 Loc: Thalia, East Virginia

"No as I said: a film camera--a Konica Minotla Maxxum 650si.
Sony inherited the A-mount from KM, which used it on
both film and digital cameras. Sony acquired KM's digital
lens and camera product lines (only -- not the company and
not the A-mount film line)."

My mistake. Although I've owned Minolta starting with the SRT-101 in 196, up through their end, I was unaware you could get adaptors for MC/MD to A mount.

LESTAHL Loc: Colorado

Nothing wrong with these photos. Gotta tell ya, when I bought my first dslr the salesman asked me what I was shooting. I told him a Pentax. He said, "buy a Pentax, you can use the lenses you already have." It didn't take long, I discovered the new lenses were lighter and had better glass. That was about a dozen years ago. I have since upgraded my camera to a Pentax K-5 II and am using Sigma and Pentax lenses. There is nothing wrong with the old lenses, I just wanted a little less weight and the automatic capabilities of the new lenses.

Lens Creep

I'm definitely on board with older and vintage glass. I still have a small collection of Takumars, komine, tokina, helios, etc...several of which are just stunning in their rendering.

User ID

I put a focusing screen in a Canon 5DII. It helps
somewhat, but it's not like the screens of some
years ago ... too brite and smooth, only a partial
solution. Don't know what other SLRs offer focus
screens, but OTOH only Canons can adapt to old
lenses with adding adapter optics to the path.

OTOOH, old manual focus lenses get a whole new
life on live view cameras, all of which feature the
very best manual focusing in the whole history of
photography ... no exaggeration. So don't discard
your old lenses. SLRs are already on their way to
the back burner.


`

Dennis833 Loc: Australia

I have used many older lenses on my Sony A7R with great results but I prefer to focus manually with the focus magnifier so there is no issues.

nikonbrain Loc: Crystal River Florida

I have a 55mm f1.2 , a 85mm 1.8 both manual focus from the 1960's f1.2 was made in 1967 .has great bokeh...the 85mm f1.8 was first introduced in 1964 considered a potrait lens in the film days , this copy is from that time frame. I Also have a 180mm f2.8 introduced in 1970 mine is the next version and is Ai standard the next was ai-s with ED glass 1982 . I also have a 300 mm AF f/4 NIKKOR IF ED very sharp lens still using it also today , still on Ebay for around $ 500.00 . All still being used on my D810

DrJ

Bipod: Thanks for the informative history.
I have LBA, Lens Buying Addiction, and I'm embarassed to reveal how many MF lenses I own. I've used many primes and good zooms on EOS bodies and recently on 4 mirrorless bodies: SONY NEX-7. Olympus OM-D-E-M5, and Lumix G1 and G5. The focus assist and focus peaking on many mirrorless bodies make using MF lenses easy and fun. I have many very sharp specimens from Nikon, Canon, Tamron Adaptall, Pentax, Olympus, Konica, Minolta as well as Vivitar lenses made by Kiron, Komine and Tokina. I have a few Soligor lenses that are excellent (eg 180mm f3.5). I've found that old MF Bushnell and Tokina telephoto prime lenses are generally sharp, but contrast is a bit low compared with good newer lenses. I enjoy building my MF skills and shot an outdoor field hocky tournament with a Lumix G5 and a Tamron Adaptall zoom just to see how well I could focus under pressure. I blurred a few shots, but most were good. In summary, legacy MF lenses are fun, some are very sharp, and often can be obtained at bargain prices. DrJ

DrJ

Screamin Scott: Seeing part of your lens collection reminds me of my own collection, which my wife is tired of looking at. I have just over 30 Nikon MF lenses. Some of the stellar perfomers are: 180/2.8 ED, 50/1.4 (don't recall vintage), 135/3.5, 105/2.8 micro and, believe it or not, an old 200/4. I recall testing a beat up Nikon 200/4 on a Canon EOS body (40D or 7D) and focused on a metal light pole at a soccer game. i could see the anodized grains on the surface from over hundred feet on the photo. DJ

DrJ

Kymarto: Real nice photos! I agree with your philosophy and have some nice portraits with an old Canon FD 55/1.2 on a SONY NEX-7. I also have used Tamron adaptalls for still life of leaves, acorns and samaras. DrJ

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Old glass from the distant past? OK- so I will never make it as a poet! But I do know quite a bit about some old lenses. It's not that I am an avid collector, or some kind of a optical guru. It's just that I am OLD and can actually remember usings some of the oldies when the were still newbies. When I started out in my career in photography, the studio that I first worked in was around much longer that I and some of the lenses from the 1930 and 40s were still in service.

I find that some old lenses are good performers, even by today's standards while some prominent brands and models that were considered top-of-the line, back in the day, can be comparatively disappointing. Some old lenses are what I like to call EXOTIC in that they produce a "look" or mood that are not obtainable with modern lenses. Oftentimes theses beautiful effects are the result of what we now consider shortcomings in lenses- aberrations, a propensity for lower contrast due to flare, or inimitable "bokeh" caused by strange aperture designs.

The adaptation of my old lenses to new cameras, for me, is somewhat problematic in that most of my work in the film era was done on medium and large format equipment. Even if mechanical linkages could be established with some of my current DSLRs, the focal lengths would be too long in most practical scenarios and in many cases the lenses themselves would be too heavy and cumbersome- perhaps bigger and weightier than the entire camera with regular issue lenses.

For many years, when 35mm gear was called for, I was a Nikon user and had some Leica rangefinder gear for certain jobs. I held on to my "classic" time-honored favorite Nikors for use with my first DSLR- the 24mm, 50mm, 60mm macro, and the 105mm. They performed well enough, however, frankly, the more modern versions form both Nikon and Canon tended to exceed in all over quality- I have experience with both. I don't want to get into a Nikon/Canon thing-all good! My point is that unless you are looking for a unique effect, some of the longing for old glass is false nostalgia.

So.. I am, however, into really OLD glass especially the lenses designed for large format portraiture. I still use my Rodenstock Imagon that I formally used on a 4x5 view camera, with a medium format adaptation to my Hasselblad and Mamiya film cameras. Currently I am using one on the Mamiya RZ67 with a digital back. There is also a Mamiya soft focus lens based on the Rodenstock formula in 150mm and 180mm versions. Theses lenses "suffer" from zonal spherical aberrations that "lives" on the edge of the lens so its soft focus effect diminishes at it is stopped down. The aperture disks look like black sink drain strainers The soft focus effect is quite unique in that is no set method and even the instruction sheet that accompanies the modern Imagons encourage experimentation with various combinations of regular diaphragm and aperture disc combinations. Each photographer has their own favorites. Theses effect are not obtainable with conventional diffusion filters or post processing actions. There is a Canon 135mm soft focus lens that I am looking to fine There is also a Minolta SF lens that I came into and them purchased an old Maxium 9 body just so I coud use the lens.

In my olden days, at my first studio job, we did have some classics- a 3000 mm Taylor, Hobson and Cooke variable soft focus lens- it could cover a 8x10 negative and with with it's brass barrel, weighed a ton- the soft focus adjustment ring looked like brass knuckles. For sharp imagery we had a Gortz Dagor, a Red-Dot Artar and a Commercial Ektar.

Nowadays, I don't think there are too many, if any, really bad lenses in current manufacture. Moreover, you gets what you pays for but I can't think of anything that would survive in the marketplace if it were really inferior. Back in the late 50 through the 70's there were some real lemons in the private store brands ad a few of the aftermarket issues. Companies like Tokina, Sigma, and Tamron kinda put an end to all of that with some decent glass for the money. In my professional work, I usually stuck with mainstream brands so I can't talks authoritatively about odd brands or strange stuff.

Now- all of the aforementioned information is strictly my own opinion based on my experience and not based on published reviews or "optical bench" testing. I never really gotten into lens resolution specification and nowadays, I don't really count pixels. If I can make a good 30x40 portrait or a billboard size commercial image- I'm happy.

Attached image- Portrait made with 30 year old Rodenstock Imagon

Bipod

In photography things tend to go in cycles. In the mid-20th century, as coatings became commonplace,
lenses got very contrasty. This peaked in the 1970s. Then in the 1980s, zoom lens starting taking over
the market -- and the number of elements and groups skyrocketed. Bye, bye contrast (as least in the
presence of bright highlights that can cause internal flare).

One current Canon zoom I know of has 20 elements in 15 groups: that's 30 surfaces. I don't care how good
the coatings are, you're going to get some internal flare. (Sales is about keeping up with the Jones. I've heard
there is a modern zoom out there with 30 elements! That's a bit silly.)

And sure enough, modern zooms are sharper (by comparison to 1980s zooms) but not as contrasty. And
of course, the focal ranges have gotten longer -- bad for image quality, good for convenience.)

A similar, but less extreme, proliferation of elements and groups has happened to normal and tele lenses,
so they have lost some contrast as well.

By buying both modern and old lenes, you can pick whatever tradeoff you want between convenience,
sharpness and contrast -- not to mention between all of the above and price.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Adaptations of old glass to newer cameras.

(Download)


(Download)

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

The only way to adapt MC/MD to A-mount is with an adapter that has glass, which in turn turns it into a teleconverter. Because of this, I don't use my beloved 50mm f1.4 Rokkor on my A-mount bodies. But it sure is nice on my E-mount bodies. Also have a collection of Pentax Takumars and also Minolta lenses. Love them!

Bipod

Don't ever sell that Imagon. That's softness and bokah that money can't buy, these days.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Depends on the lens. The adapter I mentioned in my earlier post for Leitz R lenses to focus at infinity on Nikons is glassless. I also have glassless adapters which allow infinity focus with L39 and LM Visoflex lenses. In addition to these, I have Leitz, Novoflex and Schacht lens heads from to 90-400mm, all of which will focus at infinity with no glass in the adapters. There are bound to be such adapters for other lenses and cameras as well.