Using old Primes on modern DSLR and Mirrorless: On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an old M42 f2.0 Pentax screw mount lens on my Canon 90d. Yesterday I obtained a Pentax MX...

taxslave

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an old M42 f2.0 Pentax screw mount lens on my Canon 90d. Yesterday I obtained a Pentax MX film body with a 50mm f1.7 K mount lens, a Makinon f4.5 80-200 lens for a Pentax K mount, a Kenko KET16 teleconversion lens, a couple filters, and a tripod for the grand total of $50 on Craigslist. The older gentleman I bought them from said the last time they were used was on an African Safari. The K to EOS converter will cost another $10. You can find this stuff for cheap. But after using the M42 Pentax for a couple weeks now, I am questioning whether it is worth the exasperation of using these lenses no matter how cheap they are. It may be fine to use them on a tripod mounted body on a non moving subject. But if you buying them to take advantage of their large apertures and shallow depth of field, it is very difficult to get sharp focus with such shallow depth of field. Your margin of error is very tight. For instance at a subject distance of 5 feet with an f1.7 aperture I am in focus only an inch or two in front of and behind the point of focus according to the DOF scale on the lens. Even at f8 I am only in focus from approximately 4.4 ft to 5.6ft. If you have to use an f8 aperture you might as well use a modern automatic IS lens with a higher minimum aperture. These lenses are sharp. They are heavy and well built. They have very nice sweet spots. Remember though that you have absolutely no auto controls. You must focus manually and preset your aperture and shutter speed. Alternately you can choose Aperture priority and let the camera choose a shutter speed based on your ISO and aperture. You can also use focus peaking which helps to obtain sharp focus on some modern cameras. But even that has its limitations. I have seen YouTube videos saying these lenses are great for videography because of their smooth focus. I don’t do that so I cant confirm or deny. I am having fun playing with this old equipment but I really don’t think I would bring one of these lenses along to use on an important shoot. I grew up with this old equipment and I switched to newer modern equipment as it became available for a reason. I like it! I love it! I want some more of it!

Ourspolair

taxslave wrote:

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an old M42 f2.0 Pentax screw mount lens on my Canon 90d. Yesterday I obtained a Pentax MX film body with a 50mm f1.7 K mount lens, a Makinon f4.5 80-200 lens for a Pentax K mount, a Kenko KET16 teleconversion lens, a couple filters, and a tripod for the grand total of $50 on Craigslist. The older gentleman I bought them from said the last time they were used was on an African Safari. The K to EOS converter will cost another $10. You can find this stuff for cheap. But after using the M42 Pentax for a couple weeks now, I am questioning whether it is worth the exasperation of using these lenses no matter how cheap they are. It may be fine to use them on a tripod mounted body on a non moving subject. But if you buying them to take advantage of their large apertures and shallow depth of field, it is very difficult to get sharp focus with such shallow depth of field. Your margin of error is very tight. For instance at a subject distance of 5 feet with an f1.7 aperture I am in focus only an inch or two in front of and behind the point of focus according to the DOF scale on the lens. Even at f8 I am only in focus from approximately 4.4 ft to 5.6ft. If you have to use an f8 aperture you might as well use a modern automatic IS lens with a higher minimum aperture. These lenses are sharp. They are heavy and well built. They have very nice sweet spots. Remember though that you have absolutely no auto controls. You must focus manually and preset your aperture and shutter speed. Alternately you can choose Aperture priority and let the camera choose a shutter speed based on your ISO and aperture. You can also use focus peaking which helps to obtain sharp focus on some modern cameras. But even that has its limitations. I have seen YouTube videos saying these lenses are great for videography because of their smooth focus. I don’t do that so I cant confirm or deny. I am having fun playing with this old equipment but I really don’t think I would bring one of these lenses along to use on an important shoot. I grew up with this old equipment and I switched to newer modern equipment as it became available for a reason. I like it!

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an o... (show quote)

I am enjoying using the lenses from my Mamiya 645 on the A7c, which has ICIS, so this is saving me $$ until I (might) get some automatic lenses for it. I do have the 28-60 kit lens, but get a lot of pleasure out of using the Mamiya lenses.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

I regularly use, as you put it, old prime lenses on my digital cameras. I get quite good results.
--Bob

taxslave wrote:

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an old M42 f2.0 Pentax screw mount lens on my Canon 90d. Yesterday I obtained a Pentax MX film body with a 50mm f1.7 K mount lens, a Makinon f4.5 80-200 lens for a Pentax K mount, a Kenko KET16 teleconversion lens, a couple filters, and a tripod for the grand total of $50 on Craigslist. The older gentleman I bought them from said the last time they were used was on an African Safari. The K to EOS converter will cost another $10. You can find this stuff for cheap. But after using the M42 Pentax for a couple weeks now, I am questioning whether it is worth the exasperation of using these lenses no matter how cheap they are. It may be fine to use them on a tripod mounted body on a non moving subject. But if you buying them to take advantage of their large apertures and shallow depth of field, it is very difficult to get sharp focus with such shallow depth of field. Your margin of error is very tight. For instance at a subject distance of 5 feet with an f1.7 aperture I am in focus only an inch or two in front of and behind the point of focus according to the DOF scale on the lens. Even at f8 I am only in focus from approximately 4.4 ft to 5.6ft. If you have to use an f8 aperture you might as well use a modern automatic IS lens with a higher minimum aperture. These lenses are sharp. They are heavy and well built. They have very nice sweet spots. Remember though that you have absolutely no auto controls. You must focus manually and preset your aperture and shutter speed. Alternately you can choose Aperture priority and let the camera choose a shutter speed based on your ISO and aperture. You can also use focus peaking which helps to obtain sharp focus on some modern cameras. But even that has its limitations. I have seen YouTube videos saying these lenses are great for videography because of their smooth focus. I don’t do that so I cant confirm or deny. I am having fun playing with this old equipment but I really don’t think I would bring one of these lenses along to use on an important shoot. I grew up with this old equipment and I switched to newer modern equipment as it became available for a reason. I like it!

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an o... (show quote)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

As suggested in the replies to your prior post, get the proper adapter to a mirrorless body and leave AF-capable lenses to the DSLRs. It makes a world of difference. Just set the desired aperture on the lens, the desired shutterspeed on the mirrorless body with AUTO ISO (shoot in shutter priority), and then expend all your mental effort on the focus, made much more effective with the 10x zoom to the image details via the EVF. That mirrorless unique EVF is dynamically brightened to the actual exposure giving a what you see is what you get approach to this type of photography.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

taxslave wrote:

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an old M42 f2.0 Pentax screw mount lens on my Canon 90d. Yesterday I obtained a Pentax MX film body with a 50mm f1.7 K mount lens, a Makinon f4.5 80-200 lens for a Pentax K mount, a Kenko KET16 teleconversion lens, a couple filters, and a tripod for the grand total of $50 on Craigslist. The older gentleman I bought them from said the last time they were used was on an African Safari. The K to EOS converter will cost another $10. You can find this stuff for cheap. But after using the M42 Pentax for a couple weeks now, I am questioning whether it is worth the exasperation of using these lenses no matter how cheap they are. It may be fine to use them on a tripod mounted body on a non moving subject. But if you buying them to take advantage of their large apertures and shallow depth of field, it is very difficult to get sharp focus with such shallow depth of field. Your margin of error is very tight. For instance at a subject distance of 5 feet with an f1.7 aperture I am in focus only an inch or two in front of and behind the point of focus according to the DOF scale on the lens. Even at f8 I am only in focus from approximately 4.4 ft to 5.6ft. If you have to use an f8 aperture you might as well use a modern automatic IS lens with a higher minimum aperture. These lenses are sharp. They are heavy and well built. They have very nice sweet spots. Remember though that you have absolutely no auto controls. You must focus manually and preset your aperture and shutter speed. Alternately you can choose Aperture priority and let the camera choose a shutter speed based on your ISO and aperture. You can also use focus peaking which helps to obtain sharp focus on some modern cameras. But even that has its limitations. I have seen YouTube videos saying these lenses are great for videography because of their smooth focus. I don’t do that so I cant confirm or deny. I am having fun playing with this old equipment but I really don’t think I would bring one of these lenses along to use on an important shoot. I grew up with this old equipment and I switched to newer modern equipment as it became available for a reason. I like it!

On Jan 21 I wrote a column on UHH about using an o... (show quote)

I agree with you on all points. I have a Canon 650D, which has a crop-sensor, and several Takumar Pentax lenses with adapter. They are primes, so zoom is out of the question. They are sharp and have all-around beautiful rendition of color, etc. And the full frame lenses give a crop-sensor the sweetest part of the lens, which is especially good the wider the angle. The best Takumars were 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm, which came in better or best versions--even the best are cheap today; I also like the 200mm--virtually all distortion is cropped off.

To be sure, I did not get them for doing live macro in the field, nor for spontaneous decisive-moment shooting. I use them on a tripod, and wherever this is possible, this is the best way to shoot. And yes, even so, focus is not only harder than auto-focus--it is harder than the old 35mm cameras, because there are no focusing aids such as the split image or the bristling donut. However, Canon does have a button for exact focusing: it enlarges the image on the viewer so you can be more precise.

There are a number of ways the old photojournalists got sharp pictures with Speed Graphic cameras, without a tripod and careful focus.
1. Use the focus scale and set the distance. Prefocus on the most likely shooting distance, but quick approximation can be enough using the scale on the lens.
2. Use a wider than normal lens.
3. Use smaller apertures--newsmen said the import things are "F8 and be there."
4. Compose for a bit more distance. Ansel Adams had a platform atop his vehicle, making the ground much farther away, and therefore within the depth of field. Getting on something helps. Close-up shots are not ideal for this discussion--we are talking horseshoes and grenades, where "close enough" can be good enough.
5. Use higher ISO (lower if time allows for longer set-up).

I can shoot a scene across the street (over 60 or 80 feet) with a Takumar 200mm on tripod by just turning the focus ring back and forth for what seems right, and stopping down to f16 or more. Even F11 if softer background is wanted. (Aperture priority/manual.) But a bee at work is out of the question. I have a Canon macro for that, autofocus.

There is, however, the depth-of-field indicator for the aperture ring.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Charles 46277 wrote:

I agree with you on all points. I have a Canon 650D, which has a crop-sensor, and several Takumar Pentax lenses with adapter. They are primes, so zoom is out of the question. They are sharp and have all-around beautiful rendition of color, etc. And the full frame lenses give a crop-sensor the sweetest part of the lens, which is especially good the wider the angle. The best Takumars were 28mm, 50mm, and 135mm, which came in better or best versions--even the best are cheap today; I also like the 200mm--virtually all distortion is cropped off.

To be sure, I did not get them for doing live macro in the field, nor for spontaneous decisive-moment shooting. I use them on a tripod, and wherever this is possible, this is the best way to shoot. And yes, even so, focus is not only harder than auto-focus--it is harder than the old 35mm cameras, because there are no focusing aids such as the split image or the bristling donut. However, Canon does have a button for exact focusing: it enlarges the image on the viewer so you can be more precise.

There are a number of ways the old photojournalists got sharp pictures with Speed Graphic cameras, without a tripod and careful focus.
1. Use the focus scale and set the distance. Prefocus on the most likely shooting distance, but quick approximation can be enough using the scale on the lens.
2. Use a wider than normal lens.
3. Use smaller apertures--newsmen said the import things are "F8 and be there."
4. Compose for a bit more distance. Ansel Adams had a platform atop his vehicle, making the ground much farther away, and therefore within the depth of field. Getting on something helps. Close-up shots are not ideal for this discussion--we are talking horseshoes and grenades, where "close enough" can be good enough.
5. Use higher ISO (lower if time allows for longer set-up).

I can shoot a scene across the street (over 60 or 80 feet) with a Takumar 200mm on tripod by just turning the focus ring back and forth for what seems right, and stopping down to f16 or more. Even F11 if softer background is wanted. (Aperture priority/manual.) But a bee at work is out of the question. I have a Canon macro for that, autofocus.

There is, however, the depth-of-field indicator for the aperture ring.

I agree with you on all points. I have a Canon 650... (show quote)

On a mirrorless camera, hold the camera to your eye, peek the details, focus and shoot. Any aperture, any distance, and with the IBIS support, most any speed too.

taxslave

Yes thank you. But I am old, retired, on a fixed income, and could not afford a new mirrorless body AND lenses. So I opted for the 90d which is working just fine for me after having used a camera with a mirror for 50 years.

taxslave

CHG_CANON wrote:

As suggested in the replies to your prior post, ge... (show quote)

Yes thank you but I am old, retired, on a fixed income and could not afford both a new body and new lenses. So I got the 90d which is working just fine for me considering I have used a camera with a mirror for 50 years now.

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

taxslave wrote:

Yes thank you. But I am old, retired, on a fixed income, and could not afford a new mirrorless body AND lenses. So I opted for the 90d which is working just fine for me after having used a camera with a mirror for 50 years.

Me too on all the above. In a few years maybe we can afford mirrorless used.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

taxslave wrote:

Yes thank you. But I am old, retired, on a fixed income, and could not afford a new mirrorless body AND lenses. So I opted for the 90d which is working just fine for me after having used a camera with a mirror for 50 years.

I'm not trying to spend your money. Just coaching on what works best, given your interest in these lenses. Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (MILC) have been out for more than a decade. Sony has been the clear leader in mirrorless for most of this decade making the mount adapters readily available for all sorts of SLR lens mounts. As there's no electronics involved in a manual focus SLR lens, you're talking about a $5 to $20 piece of metal that sets the lens to the proper distance from the sensor to support infinity focus. You also have cropped vs full-frame MILC bodies to choose from, multiple brands and bodies in the used market.

taxslave

CHG_CANON wrote:

Interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras (MILC) have been out for more than a decade. Sony has been the clear leader in mirrorless for most of this decade making the mount adapters readily available.

You would make a great MILC salesman! Thanks again.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Achieving reasonably accurate manual focus consistently is doable, even at maximum aperture. But it takes dedicated practice to get to that level. Practice requires both concentrated effort and patience - something that is sadly lacking with many photographers (and most people in general) today. Everyone seems to want fantastic results immediately and effortlessly with minimal time investment.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why would you (anyone) settle for failure when mirrorless is an option?

Charles 46277 Loc: Fulton County, KY

rook2c4 wrote:

Achieving reasonably accurate manual focus consistently is doable, even at maximum aperture. But it takes dedicated practice to get to that level. Practice requires both concentrated effort and patience - something that is sadly lacking with many photographers (and most people in general) today. Everyone seems to want fantastic results immediately and effortlessly with minimal time investment.

Does anybody know if the traditional focusing ground glass screens can be installed on DSLR cameras? Could it interfere with digital autofocus?

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why would you settle for a DLSR when the mirrorless EVF is an option?