Using adapted 35mm film lenses on APS-C vs. FF

<p>One of the things that I love most about my NEX-5N is the ability to use adapted manual focus lenses. However, after a little over 3 years with this camera, I'm ready to move to something with an EVF. The obvious next choice would be either an a6000 or a7.</p>

<p>As frustrating as it is having to decide between these two, knowing there's an a6000 replacement around the corner, my real question is about the behavior of these old 35mm film lenses on APS-C vs FF.</p>

<p>It seems to me that FF would do better at preserving the real "draw"/"look" of the lens - but maybe APS-C is better since you're only using the (sharper) center of the frame, something that can be an issue with vintage lenses? </p>

Your only concern should be that it is hard to

get a vintage lens that will work as a wide

angle on an APS-C camera. Other than that I

wouldn't worry about it. If you don't like the

look of an old 35mm film lens on a full frame

digital camera then just crop the image to suit.

<p>Lenses that are sharp in the corners used on an APS-C may not be on a FF, because no adapter fits perfectly flat. So the greater the angle it has to cover, the greater the edge misalignment will be. </p>

<p>You can continue to use your current lenses with a mirrorless camera, but will eventually want to replace them with lenses better suited to that camera.</p>

<p>There are adapters for practically any lens to fit many mirrorless cameras. The flange to sensor distance on these cameras is less than on a Leica, much less an SLR. However, lenses designed for a smaller sensor are likely to work better on an APS-C camera than those designed for full frame or film. You also need much shorter focal lengths in order to achieve wide angle effects on a smaller sensor.</p>

<p>Fuji and Olympus have a comprehensive set of lenses along with a choice of bodies and features, which along with compact size, adds to the attractiveness of these APS-C cameras. That scene is changing, since both Sony and Zeiss are adding some extremely high performing lenses to go with the A7 - (literally) Leica quality at 1/4th the price, some with autofocus.</p>

<p>Leica (and similar) lenses, 50 mm or longer, do pretty well on the A7. However lenses 35mm or shorter tend to smear in the extreme corners due to the large angle of incidence. Wide-angle SLR lenses, such as Nikon, do much better in the corners since they have a long back focus distance, but aren't as sharp in the center as rangefinder lenses, and not nearly as sharp anywhere as the newer Zeiss lenses for that platform.</p>

<p>The future of mirrorless photography is probably closer to the full framed Sony A7 lineup than APS-C, and with electronic rather than optical viewfinders. Larger sensors lend themselves to more resolution and less noise. An EVF can do a lot for you, including providing real time information and manual focusing assistance (only native lenses are auto focus, with some exceptions). The old bugaboos about lag and blackout are gone, at least in the A7.</p>

<p>I have no experience with lenses adapted on other systems, but all my old(er) primes, some of which have a pretty distinct rendering, grew only better on full frame. Yes, they had more issues - vignetting, corner sharpness - but their unique rendering is mostly due to flaws, not despite flaws. Their characters just grew more outspoken.<br>

That said, most lenses aren't really all that distinctive, and then the extra flaws may be a nuisance rather than an asset. So - in my mind, it much comes down to how much character we're really talking.</p>

<p>If you don't mind the cost and don't have a set of APSC E-mount lenses, go full frame. Use the lenses as they were designed to be used - a 28mm is a wide angle, a 50 is a normal, a 100 is a portrait lens, etc.</p>

<p>Wouter - that is exactly what I was thinking. To me, most of the fun of adapted lenses comes from their defects - lower contrast, propensity to flare, weird bokeh. There's plenty of sterile, tack-sharp lenses out there, why not shoot a 70s Carl Zeiss that will be reasonably sharp in its own right, while adding its own beautiful character?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"no adapter fits perfectly flat" <strong>-&-</strong> "edge misalignment" <strong><em>Mike E.</em></strong></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Huh?<strong> Edward's</strong></em> phrase fits best here, <strong>"</strong><strong>old bugaboos"</strong>. <br /> Except for the "Lensbaby", anecdotally, no "<em>misalignment</em>" has been experienced with the many adapters I've purchased and tested (varying qualities included). <br /> Plus I see no evidence of this as an <strong>issue</strong> anywhere on the net (Like this, only groundless guesses & concerns).<br /> <br /> "<em>FF would do better at preserving the real "draw"/"look" of the lens</em>" <em><strong>Evan P.</strong></em><br /> This encapsulates what is so special about the full frame offerings.<br /> Among other things, you get the FULL dose of what the designers intended.</p>

<p>As others seem to have expressed, these early lenses and their unique character have been retained & are<br>

therefore being <strong>re-discovered</strong>; in general because of the introduction of mirrorless cameras...</p>

<p>There have been several reports (e.g., Steve Huff Photo) where adapters don't center or line up properly. An heavy SLR lens on a necessarily long (25 mm to 30 mm) adapter tube can sag, possibly even damage a lens mount. New Sony A7's have a metal frame and lens mount, but many cameras are largely plastic. I use Novoflex adapters, which are very sturdy and fit tightly (but not too tightly), as good as the original lens to body fit.</p>

<p>It's simple economics. If you put the same money into the design and construction of two lenses, the one with less coverage (APS-C) will probably be better in the center than one with full coverage. I haven't looked that closely at mirrorless lenses, but that is precisely my observation comparing Hasselblad lenses with Nikon and others - twice the coverage, about half the absolute resolution - net zero.</p>

<p>A Voigtlander Color Skopar 21/4 performs just fine on my APS-C Fuji X camera -- no corner problems to my eye. Also, an assortment of 38, 35, 40, and longer legacy primes. Much of my photostream consists of examples, tagged by lens, at <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/">Flickr</a> .<br>

I don't use them for flare and weird bokeh. They have an aspect of realism that modern lenses do not. My unproved hypothesis is that this is due to their more subtle aberrations, such as spherical, that modern computer-designed lenses do not have - but our eyes do.</p>

 

<p>This might help a little bit. Here are my old film lenses being used on my A7. https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013</p>

<p>And here are many of the same lenses being used on my NEX 7 (sometimes with a Speedbooster for the Yashica lenses). https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965</p>

<p>You will notice that for the most part the photos are pretty similar. Since I have developed my particular style of shooting it really doesn't matter which format I use to create images with. They will basically come out looking like they do. The main issue is really being able to use the correct focal length of the lens. I prefer full frame simply for the fact that if I mount a 50mm on it then it is a 50mm, as god intended. I shoot a lot of my images at 50mm so it is nice not to have to go searching in the 35mm focal length for a good fifty something after the crop factor is taken into consideration.</p>

<p>Now you can mitigate a lot of this on apsc by using a Speedbooster. Those little things are amazing and they work EXACTLY as advertised. At least the one by Metabones does, I recommend them over the others since they developed the concept for mirrorless cameras in conjunction with Brian Caldwell, a noted lens designer. After I purchased my Contax Yashica to NEX speedbooster it pretty much stayed on my camera.</p>

<p>My advice? Go full frame. It simply gives you more options. Unless you shoot a lot of telephoto then apsc will give you the added reach. Either way, just go make great images.</p>

<p>I own a NEX 7, which has a very nice EVF, but if I were in your position, I'd go with a full frame -- one of the new a7's if you can afford it. Mostly what I like about the new ones is the in-body OSS. The main reason why I would like an FF camera is so that my wides behave as wides. I'm seriously thinking about getting a Speedbooster until I can afford one of the new a7's.</p>