Some Nikkor lenses are better than others ...

It has been MY understanding that the 135mm f2.8 Nikkor lens was sharper than the 135mm f3.5 Nikkor ... with the slower lens possibly being an older optical design.

Also, it could be a situation where YOU need to use a tripod for the longer focal length ...

... Certainly, you should use a tripod if-or-when you are attempting to perform comparative testing where you will be judging what a lens can-or-cannot do on its own vs. how it performs when you-or-I might be impacting its performance by how well the lens is focused/etc. ...

... The lighting on the subject may also impact how the lens performs BECAUSE of how well YOU can focus it ...

Regardless, one thing I 'discovered' is that some of the hollow tube lens adapters are NOT perfectly machined (this can be easily remedied) so that setting a manual lens at infinity without checking the focus may not result in the best possible image.

THAT is not to say that your Sony isn't sharper than the 135mm f3.5 Nikkor lens you were using ...

ONLY, that as you described the situation it is not clear that you were optimizing the capabilities of one of Nikon's lesser lenses AND if you were to test a multitude of vintage lenses then you might realize that there may be one which is suitable for your landscapes ...

FYI. Presuming a high level of quality control where there is consistency between each lens that came off a specific production line, I can tell you that my Olympus OM Zuiko 24mm f2.8 lens (I don't think it is a one-off anomaly) can produce remarkably sharp images as long as it is properly focused and the camera is well stabilized.

A 50mm lens on either a 4/3 or m4/3 is equivalent to a 100mm lens on a Full Frame camera ...

The OM Zuiko lenses are great; but, a vintage Canon FD, Nikon/Nikkor lens, or Pentax Takumar lens can also be used on a 4/3 or m4/3 body with the appropriate adapter.

BTW. If you (jertrap) don't already have-or-use a tripod, then you will find that using a tripod will be very beneficial for most close up photography.

Yes ...

While the multiplication factor is obviously something to be aware of with "normal" and telephoto lens focal lengths, it may-or-may-not become more relevant for your consideration if-or-when you decide you want WIDER fields of view AND if you are aware of the equivalent fields of view produced by a particular focal length on a Full Frame (35mm) film camera ...

For example, I have a 17mm rectilinear ultra wide angle lens which becomes the FF equivalent of a ~24mm lens on a DX camera body, and ~35mm on an m4/3 camera body ...

... A person would need an 8mm lens to achieve the same field of view with an m4/3 camera body -- I'm under the impression that ALL (?) of the 8mm lenses are "fisheye" types.

There are ZOOM lenses which have the equivalent of ultra wide fields of view for most cameras AND alternatively many people like to stitch multiple images together to achieve wide angle images; so, capturing wide angle images mostly becomes an issue for your wallet and/or how you may want to achieve a wide angle image ... if that ever occurs.

If you're talking about film cameras AND you want to continue to use rangefinder cameras, then I think that your only options are possibly the FINAL ITERATION of the CONTAX which I believe uses Leica M-mount lenses OR to opt for a used LTM camera + a set of equivalent focal length LTM lenses that you currently prefer to use ...

I only handled an M3 about 50 years ago, so my memory of its viewfinder is limited ... if memory serves me (and, it probably doesn't), the image seemed 'small' ...

I have several older Leica bodies including a III, a couple of IIIc bodies (clearly, I'm a glutton for punishment), a couple of IIIf bodies (obviously, no real difference compared to the IIIc), and a IIIg (what was I thinking?) ...

I have Canon P and Canon 7 bodies -- both have foil shutters (a good thing) ...

And, several Russian LTM bodies!

If you are willing to get lenses which have the LEICA THREAD MOUNT and if you can live without the framelines, then the ZORKI 4 probably has the best rangefinder as far as viewfinder size & rangefinder 'spot' contrast ...

The Zorki 4 is kind of fugly ... the Zorki 4K has a lever advance & eschews the separate take-up spool.

Unfortunately, it's a catch-as-catch-can situation with Russian camera bodies ... so, you have to rely on the seller's description of the condition of the camera ... some have been CLA'd.

Of course, using an auxiliary optical viewfinder resolves the issue of the lack of frame lines.

The Canon P and Canon 7 bodies are LTM bodies. Their viewfinders are large & the rangefinder 'dots' also have good contrast. The Canon P has "fixed" framelines ... the bulky Canon 7 has selectable frame lines.

So, that begs the question: Have you considered that the rangefinder mechanism on your Leicas simply need to be (re-)adjusted?

And, Are you using a tripod?

Although your specific question is about DOF ...

ONE reason that the pictures may not have the look you want is simply because of the lens you are using ...

I believe that there are manual (hollow "tube") adapters which will allow either a vintage Nikon/Nikkor or a Pentax/Takumar lens to fit on your Canon ... you can save money if you buy the adapter through eBay directly from a Chinese vendor.

Before you buy an adapter, be sure it will allow the lens to focus-at-infinity.

Check this site for potential film-to-flange compatibility ... http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html

Most vintage 50mm lenses are affordable; and, THAT can be your starting point.

THANKS for the clarification ...


FWIW. My preference is for almost any Bok over most Lagers.

BTW. That was quite an ending to yesterday's Match against Sweden ... tough luck for Sweden, of course.

THANKS for the reminder!

... Ich kann ein wenig Deutsch und ein kleines Jiddisch sprechen, aber welche Sprache ist DAS Wort "aschweik"?

And, to whom were you addressing your comment?!?

OY VEY!

... Just another set of trolling remarks from the bully-on-the-block ...

Keep it up!

Well ...

... Oh, is THAT prefatory remark an attack?!?

Do you REALLY consider this opening to be an attack?:

WOW!?!

Everyone ELSE must be so far removed from the days when they shot film WITHOUT a Zoom lens that they just don't remember what's what about some of the basics of photography ...

OR, is that opening an attack because YOU were the first-in-line with a lazy reply?!?

If you take the time to re-read the posts in this thread (for example) which preceded mine which may-or-may-not have been well-intentioned and which were hopefully meant to be meaningful replies to the OP BUT which which were clearly wrong & misleading DESPITE the declarations of the posters then I don't think it is fair to say that calling out the emperor-for-not-wearing-any-clothes can be considered as an attack ...

Unless the well meaning cognoscenti are all "Snowflakes" ...

Is THAT the case?

Your pal was among those who ALSO provided an unequivocally wrong reply ...

... His subsequently flip reply to my post was meaningless & inaccurate ... and, it was gratuitous and therefore a trolling remark.

... His flip reply to the subsequent post by nicksr1125 was MORE of a trolling remark, IMO. Just because your pal declared himself to be too lazy (in so many words) to do the math did not warrant his gratuitous remark to the how-to BECAUSE nicksr1125 was replying directly to the OP's query by indicating that a technical methodology can be employed to determine the focal length of a lens used to take a photograph.

Perhaps, YOU should re-read the OP's original post and nicksr1125's reply.

BTW. Calling YOU out as a Troll is just an observation ...

Now, if my memory serves me, I believe that the reason that I specifically mentioned the PRE-SET Spiratone lens (a friend gave me the lens a few years ago) is to ensure that anyone who might be interested that it wasn't necessary to spend a lot of money for a reasonably good optic ...

But, I would say that by the way that YOU referred to that lens that YOU are an equipment snob ...

.. Nothing wrong with that if that's where you choose to come from.

And, I guess you NEITHER liked the image NOR could appreciate the technical component in taking it ...

That's life!

Well, why don't YOU -- with whatever fancy-schamncy equipment you use -- see if you can replicate it.

Did you REALLY read ALL of my posts?!? Could you catalog all my "unsupported opinions" OR were you just having a "snowflake" moment when you read them and were you subsequently shooting-from-the-lip?

HMmmm. Who knew that a Troll (i.e., YOU) could be an apparent "Snowflake" (i.e., again YOU) could be a bully, too? After all, YOU are trying to bully me into not posting, n'est-ce pas?.

Yeah, it is YOU who should look in the mirror.

Fascinating ...

Really, two Trolls for-the-price-of-one!

Okay, I'll reply to you, too ...

Your pal, Longshadow, did not reply to the OP's query ...

Then, he made the fairly ridiculous remark: "I think you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between two zooms that do 70mm, or a fixed 70 and a zoom at 70."

... I believe that it is safe to say that few vintage Zoom lenses (which is what the OP has) compare with most Prime lenses.

You pal immediately follows with an almost unintelligible: "WAY not worth the trouble for me."

I believe that IF you were to reflect on Longshadow's posts in THIS thread then you would necessarily conclude that he was clearly trolling with his replies.

If you want to defend his inarticulate remarks, well, more power to the two of you ...

And so, you have provided us with yet another unfortunate example of what is wrong with America in the 21st Century.

OMG!

An individual who wallows in his ignorance and laziness ...

An unfortunate example of what is wrong with America in the 21st Century.

Did you REALLY not understand the original question posed by the OP?

Did you intentionally miss the point that it is possible to determine which lens took which picture OR are you trolling?

BTW. If a person has a Prime 70mm (it must be the new Leica lens unless you know of another 70mm lens!?!) then I suspect that it is very possible to tell the difference between the image captured with it and either a vintage 28-70 Zoom lens or vintage 70-210 Zoom lens ...

And, while YOU may not be able to tell the difference in the picture taken with the two Zoom lenses (at the same theoretical focal length), I suspect that a person with a only a moderately discerning eye could tell the difference if s/he was familiar with "both" lenses.

WOW!?!

Everyone ELSE must be so far removed from the days when they shot film WITHOUT a Zoom lens that they just don't remember what's what about some of the basics of photography ...

Determination will be easiest if whatever you took pictures of was somewhere nearby to where you currently are AND can simply attach the various lenses to the camera and look through to see how the image in the camera looks compared to the "prints" you have...

Posting pics would probably help ...

Regardless, because there is some overlap in the focal lengths due to the Zoom lenses you acquired, there will be some uncertainty, but since there are only three lenses, once you sort out some aspects of the images, you may-or-should be able to recall which lens was probably used since you didn't have an assistant changing the lenses who then handing the camera to you ...

Based on the background in the images, YOU can readily determine which one was used for which image BECAUSE the background will appear to fall away at different rates ...

With items in the background of the pics taken with a Wide Angle lens appearing to be comparatively smaller than objects the background on the "normal" 50mm lens ...

The overlap of the 28mm-70mm with the 50mm lens complicates this a little ... so YOU will have to try to recall how much fiddling you were doing with the lens's Zoom capability ...

Pics taken with the telephoto Zoom lens will generally have a compressed background and/or shallower depth of field.

If you are asking WHERE in a Zoom's range the picture was taken ... again, retracing your steps is the key ...

BTW. You can use your recently acquired Minolta-mount lenses with ANY mirroless camera body.

Beyond learning more about YOUR specific camera ...

WHAT is the purpose of the club?

I presume that when you were in "art school" that you probably took a TOOLS-AND-MATERIAL class for painting ...

It's not that different for other media -- "What do I need to create this-or-that image or object?"

Many people are interested in wildlife ... some people are more interested in candid "street" photography ... some want to capture architectural photos ... others may be interested in still lifes ... et cetera.

Just as oil paint may be better than acrylic or tempera or watercolor for differerent types of images, it is also true that different equpment may be better to capture-or-create different types of photographic images ... and, that is something you can discuss with your students.

Cell phones have remarkable lenses, but they limitations ... and, that can be demonstrated by using different Prime lenses or Zoom lenses with different ranges ... similarly, while stepping forward or back may allow you to frame the principle object differently, the background may change in a signifcant or insignificant way.

While you don't want to be completely ignorant of your own camera's capabilities, you can use your lack of knowledge as a springboard to demonstrate how some things which cannot be done with a cell phone's camera may be possible with a "real" camera ... and, what you don't know, you can have someone read in the user manual and then you can walk through the process with your students to see how it is done ...

BTW. GRAPHIS is a publication with which you may already familiar which often has some pretty remarkable photographic images which can be springboards for discussion about the how-it-was-shot ...

The same is true for OTHER publications, of course.