LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

I could go two directions on their being undervalued.

One is that they were better built, a plastic lens element was almost unheard of, fewer elelements and shorter zoom ranges ... plus many/most were primes ... gave greater color and sharpness.

The other direction is the plethora of modern electronics has raised up a large number of photographers who have never learned proper hand holding and focusing skills which has limited the market and value of older glass.

pecohen Loc: Central Maine

It would not surprise me if improvements were mostly in the area of improved profits.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

That is the nature of all business and it isn’t wrong.

The reasons lie with the end consumer.

Up until the 1970’s photo year was marketed as sharpness and bulletproof reliabilities of the provstuff put into the hands of the consumer.

Starting circa 1975 it changed to marketing electronics ... AE, AF, VR etc ... as being able to turn the consumer into a great photographer without ever really learning the underhood mechanics of photography.

BebuLamar

I wouldn't know as my newest lens bought in 2002 and it wasn't a high end lens. The 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 AF-S non VR version.

Largobob

I'm guessing, the formulation of the glass and coatings have changed over time as well. Seems to me (opinion here, no data to back it up) that some of the older lenses....even dating back to the old bellows and large format cameras, produced more "contrast" in their images. Contrast is visually perceived as sharpness. Some manufacturers/cameras (Zeiss, Leica, Rolliflex, Hasselblad, etc) have always been known to produce extraordinarily sharp, contrasty images. Build quality aside, changing the formulation of what's in the glass....and changing the quantity/quality of the coatings...can and do effect image quality. We need to remember that modern lenses are PRIMARILY being designed for digital sensors....which have far different properties than those of film.

As an aside, when I was about 14 years old, my dad gave me his trusty 4x5 Speed Graphic camera....equipped with a 3.25" x 4.25" film back (hummm, I guess that was an ancestor of a crop sensor at the time)....and a pre-war Carl Zeiss lens. That lens and camera combination "could resolve two adjacent eyelashes on a tick at 50 yards." What was different? I'm thinking the glass was different.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I've noticed that my 50 year old Zeiss lenses produce some very beautiful image when coupled with my D700 or D800.
--Bob

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

I am a Nikon user, I have been for more than 45 years and when I started using Nikon bodies and lenses (I started with the Nikon F of 1963 and a 50mm f1.4 Nikkor) we only had prime lenses. I used those lenses for many years till zooms began to be accepted by photographers. Even those zooms had apertures in the barrel and many of them a depth of field scale. Everything was made of metal those days so those lenses were heavy...but I was a lad then.
Of course that I got used to those lenses. I can only say that they are "different." When I use them with my old Nikon F everything is done manually. It is thrilling to me to use a hand held exposure meter for the exposures while setting manually shutter speeds in camera and the apertures in the lens. It is quite a feeling difficult for me to describe but I know you understand what I am saying.
Using the Nikon F with the old lenses and a hand held meter is quite an experience even today and brings back memories.

dragonking Loc: North Yorkshire, UK

I have several old lenses and some are 50years old. I have to admit I bought them all from new.
I remember that some of them produced really sharp photographs and I still have the proof in negatives and prints.
I kept them so I could use them on any camera I bought with the same results.
This was true until I bought my first DSLR.
You see all of my previous lenses had M20 thread or were Tamron Adaptall.
The Adaptall (Original) fitting system adapters stopped being produced shortly after I bought the lens.
Now the bad part.
Without looking into the use of old lenses I opted for a Nikon DSLR, this was a mistake.
I like the camera and have no complaints with the results with the Nikkor lenses I bought.
I have since found out that the distance from the lens mount to the focal plane of the camera is smaller in Nikon cameras compared with other cameras.
This means that although old Nikkor lenses can be used on it with no problems, Practika or M20 lenses have to have an adapter with an auxiliary lens incorporated into it to allow for the shallower body if focus at infinity is required. Not many people don't want to focus at infinty!
Another lens behind the main lens unfortunately degrades the image and they are much softer than I remember and have proof of.
I have bought cheap and middle price range adapters and there isn't much difference between them.
I haven't used the expensive ones as I might as well buy a new lens.
The only lens I couldn't use at all was my Helios 50mm which came with my first SLR a Zenit B as the back elements of the lens go into the camera body when focusing.
It hits the auxiliary lens before full travel and I am worried about it hitting the mirror if used without the adapter.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I so tire of the "is this sharp enough?" conversation that permeates camera discussion sites. I use ONLY old lenses because my cameras are all 40+ years old! :)

You'd think that the only thing that anyone cares about is sharpness to the nth degree. My favorite photos from my families archives, my own, and of pro photogs of the past aren't sharp at all.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Old Minolta, Nikon!!

ksmmike

I picked up the Nikon 105 2.5 and the 135 3.5 manual focus lenses about a year ago. They compare nicely in color and contrast with a newer Nikon lenses, though yes they are heavy, better constructed and manual focus. My older 80-200mm AF compares in color and sharpness to the latest Nikon 300mm F4 Fresnel. I will admit however that the latest Nikon 20mm 1.8 AF is hard to beat for overall image quality. If you don't mind manual focus, there are plenty of deals out there for older lenses that offer quality images. I still think the Voigtlander 58mm 1.4 beats them all though as long as you can get used to its pinpoint accuracy in the manual focusing. The problem with it all is that your average viewer can't tell the difference when printing out an 8x10 or 11x14 image anyway and a small jpg on Facebook or anyplace else, forget it. You can't tell any difference in what lens you used, so it's really dependent on what your shooting and why. I used the 20mm AF while traveling to Europe since I was on a moving boat or was walking with people and didn't have time to stop and really set up a shot. When I was walking alone or with my wife, I used the 20mm and the Voigtlander because I had time to take my time and focus properly. Since I no longer shoot sports as often, I think if someone told me I could only have 3 lenses, I would pick the Nikon 20mm AF, the Voigtlander 58mm manual focus and either the older Nikon 80-2000 AF or the Nikon 135 3.5 manual focus. I love the Nikon 16-35 AF but its pretty heavy to lug around while on vacation. If someone told me I only had $1,000 to spend on lenses, I could easily get older lenses and make it difficult for anyone to tell the difference in image quality. Just my opinion of course, :)

radiojohn

A guy I knew bought some mirrorless camera so he could adapt his beloved Olympus OM-1 lenses to it. At the company Christmas party be took the group shot and it wasn't quite in focus. The lack of focusing aids and his 40 years added since his OM-1 days didn't help.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Yes, I have a few of those, the old Takumar 50mm f/1.4 used glass with Thorium Oxide which is radio active, as the Thorium breaks down the lens will yellow, some feel this gives the lens very unique color properties but it can be cleared by UV light, living in Florida they can be placed on aluminum foil and left in the sun for 4 or 5 days and the lenses will clear.

https://petapixel.com/2013/05/03/decades-old-lenses-may-be-radioactive-especially-if-theyre-made-by-kodak/

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

I have two of the PF 58 1.4's just been too lazy to sand down the spacing ring at the mount to make it register with a M42 adapter to my EOS systems. They are beautiful lenses though, big fat front element, a much larger lens than their Pentax counterparts.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

And available for well north of $300 per copy! While the 58mm f1.4 is readily available for considerably under $100. Does .2 f-stop and one additional element make that much difference in bokeh and image quality? Inquiring minds want to know! In viewing images on YouTube to compare the the two, my eye could see no perceptible difference. Of course, my eye is probably not as discriminating as most on this forum.

Stan