Apophasis Loc: L.A., CA

I still shoot 95% film. In 35mm, I shoot Nikon, Canon, and Leica. Some of the old best lenses from these manufacturers still seem great to me, but I do not know the other side. Those of you that have used the best of the manual lenses mounted on digital cameras, how do they compare? I would be especially interested reports on the cheaper old lens that are surprisingly great (IMHO): Nikon E AIS 50mm 1.8, Nikon 135mm 3.5 AIS etc.

Thanks.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

You're sure to get any number of responses. Some may be useful, others may be (perhaps) less so, and a certain segment of whatever replies you get will be so far off-topic that you'll wonder 'whut???'. In any event, if and when you do reply or respond in kind (okay, maybe not exactly 'in kind' per se, but....), make sure to use the 'quote reply' applet rather than the 'reply' applet so people will know who (and what that 'who' wrote) you're replying/responding to. Otherwise, however you've replied and/or whatever you've written may (likely) be misconstrued, mis-interpreted, or misconbobulated entirely.

I sometimes use my (antique-ish [40's-50's] screw-mount) Leica lenses on my modern (mirrorless) Fuji. The corresponding Fuji lenses are every bit as good, but the Leica lenses I sometimes use do have a decidedly different 'character' than the Fujinons. Similarly, I sometimes stick one of the various even more antique-ish 39mm LTM mount (used with a cheapie LTM-to-Fuji adapter, 'cuz a more expensive adapter wouldn't do anything the cheapie won't do) lenses from the 20's, 30's or 50's (Feds, Zorkis, Orions, etc.) generally, but I do have an old 50mm Canon from the late 40's that's sorta nifty, too). Now and then --when I get bored and want to actually 'work' (pardon the curse word, but....) at photogrifty, I might stick (using an appropriately cheap-y adaptor) one or another of my panoply of Nikkors or Kievs or Pentaxs on the Fuji, and see what those'll do (as if I didn't already know). But the Fuji is digital, and you're asking about film-ish cameras. Right?

Regardless, you asked about a couple of specific lenses, and what I wrote above hasn't pertained in the slightest to the question you actually asked. So:

Uh huh. Any of the E series Nikkors --and probably all of the AIS series Nikkors-- can in one way or another be put on some/most/all/and/or none of whatever film body Nikon (or Nikons) you may be using. The 'E' series lenses aren't dogs, exactly, but if I had to choose (and I can) between an E series 50mm Nikkor and a f1.4 or f1.8 normal (NAI/Ai/AIS/etc etc etc on up into the Digital Era lenses) 50mm Nikkor, I would NOT opt for the E series lens. Unless I was feeling masochistic or weird or weirdly retro or something.

Apart from that, I rarely do, but I certainly have, used an AIS 135mm Nikkor on various of my antique (F's, F2's, the F4, my couple of N90's, etc.) film body Nikons as well as on one or another of my 'modern' digital Nikon bodies. Great lens, essentially. Is it as good or better (or worse) than a modern AFD or newer digital equivalent. Sorta depends, I guess.

The 180mm AI Nikkor I have, on the other hand, is absolutely killer. On a full frame digital Nikon. Much the same as it is on a film body Nikon.

Lastly, I am of the HUMBLE opinion that the F3 Nikon is the greatest (film body) Nikon that Nikon ever produced. But that doesn't mean I'd actually opt to use one of the two (used to be three, but I sold the one that had the non-HP finder) I have rather than use one of my digital Nikon bodies.

Orphoto Loc: Oregon

Another vote for the nikon 180mm 2.8 ED. Used at 5.6 it holds it own against the best of the top shelf newer designs. Cant speak for the 50mm e, but the long nose 50mm ai 1.8 is very capable.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

For the most part, today's general purpose digital lenses are better than most of the best film era lenses. They're designed better, using computer-aided technology. They're manufactured to tighter specifications.

But, the best of the old film lenses hold up well today on mirrorless digital bodies.

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

And the old legacy lenses are actually fun to use. I love that feel of manual focus that just doesn't feel the same on modern lenses.

Apophasis Loc: L.A., CA

Thank you.

For me, the feel of the older all metal lenses is great. I mentioned the 50E because they sell for nothing (I got one on an ugly body for 5$!!) and in my test it was a great test. I did not ask about say the Leica 50mm 2.0 or 35mm 2.8 because they are pricey. However, I have purchased a Nikon 28/2.8 and 105/2.5 for under 100$ each which seem nearly flawless.

However, since I do not shot digital I cannot tell how much better modern digital lenses are than these old stars.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

For the top modern lenses, especially the widest-aperture models, they're far, far sharper wide open than the film era designs. Those differences are visually striking, easily seen in comparison image results. Lenses in the f/1 to f/2 ranges.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

The digital mirrorless tools make these old MF lenses even better. Being able to zoom the view finder to the 10x details, you can focus the lens far, far better than ever. Then, stabilization of the camera / lens combo. A bit of practice and patience and you can get results with no material difference against AF lenses, especially if you'll shoot in digital-bursts and pick out the best of the images later.

Harry02 Loc: Gardena, CA

Exactamundo.
Our memory of what was "good" 50 years ago was relative to the choices we had then.

I still have that old 70-210 trombone I used to love. but
the new replacement is half the size, half the weight, and half the wait!
An sharper all the way around!
Do we not remember that soft corners and edges used to be a "good" thing?
My D200 works really good with the "kit" 55-200.
The slight vignette looks kinda retro.
I used to believe if you didn't have rabbit ears you had crap.
Still happens.
BUT! Since most of us have crop sensors, ye oldje but gud FF lenses are nice too.
Pick them up cheap, and you're shooting thru the "sweet" spot.
I am playing with my collection of Nikon "silver" lenses, and my D3300 luvs them.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

If your using these lenses on a MIRRORLESS camera you will be manual focusing directly onto the sensor, which (depending on your skill) should produce a sharp image. I am not sure if eye focus would kick in with these older AIS lenses. That would be a good question for someone who has used these AIS lenses on a Nikon Z body.
These older AIS lenses would be OK for landscapes, I would not suggest them for anything that moves faster than a sloth though cause of the manual focusing of the AIS lenses.
Personally I would always use a mirrorless lens on a mirrorless lens.

Rab-Eye Loc: Indiana

I’m partial to the Carl Zeiss Jena vintage lenses. My favorite is the 50mm f/1.8 Pancolar.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Old film lenses CAN be adapted to modern mirrorless and dSLR cameras. HOWEVER, new lenses made SPECIFICALLY FOR digital bodies have improvements in many areas:

> Dust sealing — dust is the bane of digital sensors. Old film lenses leak dust into the camera and onto the sensor.

> Electronics — Now we have communications between the lens and body. Autofocus and aperture control rely on this, while image stabilization control, focal length, and focus distance can be other important factors in making exposures. Other information such as serial number and optical characteristics are often communicated, so firmware can apply corrections for chromatic aberration and other lens flaws.

> Better optical formulae — High res digital sensors are MUCH higher resolution than almost all 35mm films. New lenses will bring out the best in new digital bodies. If you use a mirrorless camera, the shorter flange-to-sensor distance allows wide angle lenses to be designed with much greater optical precision and performance.

You also get the benefits of decades of small refinements in manufacturing techniques and tolerance, and especially the coatings on lens surfaces that reduce flare and improve contrast and refractive qualities. ALL of these improvements are real, and add up in some cases to dramatically improved technical image quality. Of course, you have to know how to use the tools to get the best from them, whether using an old film camera or the latest digital gear. But given good knowledge, experience, and technique, I know I can get better images out of my humble digital camera from 2015 than I could from my Nikon F3 and Nikkor lenses from the 1980s!

When I got my Lumix GH4 in 2015, I immediately bought adapters for the Canon and Nikon film glass I had. I was sorely disappointed with the results. So I bought native Lumix lenses — Initially, I got a pair of zooms and a macro. All were sharper than the film primes!

I would strongly urge buyers to take the whole plunge and get at least a mirrorless body and a couple of good native zooms in the 24-70 and 70-200mm (full frame equivalent field of view) range. Performance is shockingly good compared with film era gear. All the brands are highly competitive now, for what's left of the market after the smartphone revolution.

NOTE: Digital is a whole new rabbit hole of technology. You will need a good monitor, powerful computer, monitor calibration kit, post-processing software to take advantage of raw files, and the knowledge to operate it (which can be had with daily study and use of your whole system).

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

I have regularly posted photos using very old manual film lenses. Mostly I do not say that they are.
So far no complaints or people saying, "Gee, that is obviously and old film lens". Most better quality old lenses do amazingly well and in NORMAL viewing no one can tell.
Besides they are interesting to use and for those looking for the "Cool" factor give most all cameras a retro look.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

To That!

Sometimes I will post the lens used.... usually not - Never had anyone say/write: "That sure would'a been better if you used the lens that 'sposed to be on that camera!"

The "Fun" factor and the "Artistic Avenue" are goals for me!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If the image is compelling, no one cares what you used to make it. However, quality is a "basic given" in 2023. What flew as acceptable to me in 1973 still looks like it was acceptable in 1973. It may or may not be up to today's expectations.

I found that the very good results I got with film cameras looked a bit disappointing when I started comparing them with digital output. The effects of image stabilization, better lenses, good autofocus, and precise control over exposure, color, and tonality were enough to convince me to switch.

I'm really glad I did. Eight years later, I'm going to replace my Lumix GH4 with a G9 II. The technology is nine years newer, which is an eon in the photo industry. Will it make my images more compelling? NO. Will it enable me to make compelling images more easily? MOST PROBABLY. More importantly for me, is the fun factor of working with better tools.