Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Old vs. new glass
Page <<first <prev 3 of 4 next>
Jul 5, 2014 08:12:49   #
wingclui44 Loc: CT USA
 
kanap wrote:
After a long respite I have returned to photography. We all covet new glass, so please help me with this good old glass vs. new lens decision.

I have an old Nikon 35-70 2.8D (small and built like a tank) and a 80-200 2.8D (1988-1992) AF (just a tank). Both profession builds at the time and in perfect condition. I also have the new 16-35 f/4 VR and the kit 24-85 and 70-300VR's. My current "full" bag holds the 16-35, 35-70 and 70-300 plus D600 and D7100.

1. Will the IQ of the old 80-200 equal a new 70-200VRII? If so, can I just live without IS and use the 70-300 lens when IS is needed? 2. I like the 7100/70-300 combo for BIF and wonder how much my IQ would improve with the VR II 3. Will the 35-70 2.8D equal the middle range of the new 24-70?

I shoot - wildlife, BIF, landscapes, some street. (Yeah, I know you'll say just buy the $2400 lens - but look forward to strong reasoning as well) Thanks
Jerry from SW FL.
After a long respite I have returned to photograph... (show quote)


If I were you, I will keep all but the 70-300, then get a 50mm prime and a true macro. You will all set. If you need longer reach later on, get a long zoom than the 70-300mm you had.

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 08:24:47   #
lukan Loc: Chicago, IL
 
CHOLLY wrote:
Jerry, read amehta's reply.

Then consider the following. I too have a few older Minolta lenses, some from the mid 1980's. Their performance in terms of Flare and Ghosting DO NOT match modern lenses, but I have at least one that is sharper than anything else in my arsenal, and ALL my older lenses offer different color rendition giving a classic "film" cast to digital images, sometimes to great effect.

Don't throw them away or sell them. If nothing else, they can be used for your landscapes. :thumbup:
Jerry, read amehta's reply. br br Then consider t... (show quote)


^^^ My ex-wife (and dear friend) uses older Canon glass on her 6D with similar "filmlike" effect, and it is beautiful. The colors seem a little more full, vivid, saturated, etc., and the images have "dimension". If they were quality then, they're probably still quality today. :-D

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 08:52:45   #
wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN
 
I agree with one of the other comments that the advancement of technology makes the new lenses much better. I recently sold my canon 600 mm prime to buy the new 600 prime. and the improvement is significant. focuses faster and I get a much higher rate of in focus photos, not to mention 5 lbs lighter.
I shoot BIF and while I did not like the price to upgrade, I get better photos. Be sure that you micro focus all your lenses, as almost none are dead on out of the box. See birdsasart.com for info on that

Reply
 
 
Jul 5, 2014 09:32:52   #
George II Loc: Fayetteville, Georgia
 
kanap wrote:
I have posted this (twice) as a new topic but it doesn't appear as a new topic. What's up?


Probably because you said "glass" and someone thought you were talking about patio doors or windows..Just sayin

George

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 09:49:03   #
RKL349 Loc: Connecticut
 
SharpShooter wrote:
But mostly permanently!! :lol:
SS


Sad, but true! :)

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 11:39:17   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
My thoughts are that IQ is as much the photographer as the lens. I am no lens expert. I have a few old Pentax lenses that I have used with an older Pentax dslr, and a canon dslr with an adapter. Results have been mixed as far as IQ in my opinion.
Have seen arguments that older glass is better. Not sure if they are talking about the glass itself or overall lens build. I do think newer lenses have superior coatings. Some of the older lenses, though built like a tank (pre-plastic days) had some major flare issues.
I like both. It's part of the both the learning process, frustration, and fun of photography.

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 11:52:52   #
amehta Loc: Boston
 
sirlensalot wrote:
My thoughts are that IQ is as much the photographer as the lens. I am no lens expert. I have a few old Pentax lenses that I have used with an older Pentax dslr, and a canon dslr with an adapter. Results have been mixed as far as IQ in my opinion.
Have seen arguments that older glass is better. Not sure if they are talking about the glass itself or overall lens build. I do think newer lenses have superior coatings. Some of the older lenses, though built like a tank (pre-plastic days) had some major flare issues.
I like both. It's part of the both the learning process, frustration, and fun of photography.
My thoughts are that IQ is as much the photographe... (show quote)

Yes, I would say that the photographer, camera, and lens all factor into the IQ. But for a single photographer, better equipment will generally result in better IQ.

Reply
 
 
Jul 5, 2014 12:34:37   #
sirlensalot Loc: Arizona
 
amehta wrote:
Yes, I would say that the photographer, camera, and lens all factor into the IQ. But for a single photographer, better equipment will generally result in better IQ.



In general, I agree, but the bugaboo is what is "better". Is newer better? Is using one brand of lens on a different brand camera produce "better" results? Other than a few particular features, is one brand of camera " or lens better?
My opinion is equipment should fit the user like an expensive suit, dress, or pair of shoes. It should be comfortable and promote confidence, and skill in it's use. Some of us achieve that fit while others continue the quest. I think I am more the latter than the former. Lol
As an aside I think more and more, photographers move into the art as much as the technical aspects of photography as PP programs evolve.
Now we have a new player, a camera with a lens that alleges to close-focus sharply even with objects touching the glass. Exciting times for sure.

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 13:54:31   #
wotsmith Loc: Nashville TN
 
I have a suggestion. get out a test pattern for lenses, and shoot some frames with your favorite lenses at different apertures and zoom settings (if a zoom lens) and look at your results.

I shoot Canon stuff, but I have done the above and the test photos from the Canon "L" series are superior to the prosumer lenses. The results of some consumer zoom lenses that I had (past tense) were appalling, but not noticeable if just shooting family photos. The build quality in "pro" lenses is a bunch better as well. Pro level lenses are a big investment, but those lenses hold their value as well, so the money is not lost, just tied up.

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 14:26:37   #
houdel Loc: Chase, Michigan USA
 
Acountry330 wrote:
the new glass is light years better than the old stuff.


davidheald1942 wrote:
wrong
:thumbdown: :thumbdown: :| :| :thumbdown: :thumbdown:


:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Some of the old glass was quite outstanding. Yes there are improvements incorporated into newer lenses but few newer lenses, if any, are "Heads and Shoulders" above the older better lenses. As far as I am concerned, most of the "improvements", with the exception of VR/IS are 95% hype to sucker people into buying new lenses, and 5% (or less) actual improvement.

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 19:11:31   #
cntry Loc: Colorado
 
CHOLLY wrote:
Ronny, I hope the OP forgives me for posting pictures in his thread without permission.

Here is an example of what I was talking about.

Both of these pictures were taken, seconds apart, with a tripod mounted Sony A77. White balance and color balance was set prior to taking the pictures.

The first image was taken with the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and the second with the Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens. There was NO post processing done; these are JPEGs straight out of camera*. If you look carefully, you will see a difference in the color rendition. The Minolta gives a warmer, richer cast to the image, while the Sony has slightly better resolution, but is cooler and more sterile.

Make sure you check the download. ENJOY!

*The original files were too large to upload so I reduced them in Lightroom to 600 X 800 and 200KB size. NO other image manipulation was done.
Ronny, I hope the OP forgives me for posting pictu... (show quote)


The Minolta lens looks better IMO...sometimes "technically" perfect isn't the best. The Minolta shot looks more "real"...
Nice shots by the way...

Reply
 
 
Jul 5, 2014 19:16:39   #
Erik_H Loc: Denham Springs, Louisiana
 
CHOLLY wrote:
Ronny, I hope the OP forgives me for posting pictures in his thread without permission.

Here is an example of what I was talking about.

Both of these pictures were taken, seconds apart, with a tripod mounted Sony A77. White balance and color balance was set prior to taking the pictures.

The first image was taken with the Minolta 50mm f/1.7 and the second with the Sony 50mm f/1.8 lens. There was NO post processing done; these are JPEGs straight out of camera*. If you look carefully, you will see a difference in the color rendition. The Minolta gives a warmer, richer cast to the image, while the Sony has slightly better resolution, but is cooler and more sterile.

Make sure you check the download. ENJOY!

*The original files were too large to upload so I reduced them in Lightroom to 600 X 800 and 200KB size. NO other image manipulation was done.
Ronny, I hope the OP forgives me for posting pictu... (show quote)


I actually prefer the one shot with the Minolta.

Reply
Jul 5, 2014 20:35:15   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
kanap wrote:
After a long respite I have returned to photography. We all covet new glass, so please help me with this good old glass vs. new lens decision.

I have an old Nikon 35-70 2.8D (small and built like a tank) and a 80-200 2.8D (1988-1992) AF (just a tank). Both profession builds at the time and in perfect condition. I also have the new 16-35 f/4 VR and the kit 24-85 and 70-300VR's. My current "full" bag holds the 16-35, 35-70 and 70-300 plus D600 and D7100.

1. Will the IQ of the old 80-200 equal a new 70-200VRII? If so, can I just live without IS and use the 70-300 lens when IS is needed? 2. I like the 7100/70-300 combo for BIF and wonder how much my IQ would improve with the VR II 3. Will the 35-70 2.8D equal the middle range of the new 24-70?

I shoot - wildlife, BIF, landscapes, some street. (Yeah, I know you'll say just buy the $2400 lens - but look forward to strong reasoning as well) Thanks
Jerry from SW FL.
After a long respite I have returned to photograph... (show quote)


Jerry, I own that AF-D 80-200. Borrowed the 70-200 VR II from Nikon - was not enough of an improvement in image quality to warrant the extra money - I suppose I will face the same dilemma when the AF/MF ring finally breaks - (they all do eventually), but I suspect that I will end up either with a newer AF-D, or the AF-S. I do lots of birds in flight - and the 80-200 was fast enough to grab common terns and oyster catchers in flight earlier today. I used a D800, and if it had any major flaws, it would be pretty obvious.

These are roughly 2500x1800 crops from 7360x4912 original images, slightly downsampled to 2000 max dimension.


(Download)


(Download)

Reply
Jul 6, 2014 12:57:20   #
wj cody Loc: springfield illinois
 
not necesarily better, but different. it all depends on what the user of lenses is trying to accomplish in the final image.
one real improvement is the outer surface coatings of the glass are harder; but, if you are careful with your older lenses, they will last forever - thank goodness!

Reply
Jul 6, 2014 13:00:51   #
Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)
 
wj cody wrote:
not necesarily better, but different. it all depends on what the user of lenses is trying to accomplish in the final image.
one real improvement is the outer surface coatings of the glass are harder; but, if you are careful with your older lenses, they will last forever - thank goodness!


Only thing to be careful of with older lenses is that the manufacturers drop support on them after 5-10 years. Which means that the only way one can get a lens repaired is going through the independents repair places and hoping that they can source (or make) the parts you need. Often they will get a piece that they keep around just for that exact purpose - kind of like a camera and lens junkyard.

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
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.