Which lenses did you use with your 35mm film cameras?

Since there are a lot of you guys out there that are using or has been using 35mm film cameras, I was hoping that you would like to share which camera and lenses you prefer. And which focal length is your preferred focal length, i.e. the prime you use(d) the most?
The intention of the thread is to learn as much as possible about 35mm camera and lenses, and have it as a guidance for future gear shopping

 

As a sort of serious, casual shooter of landscapes and outdoor sports like climbing and backpacking, I carried around a Canon AE-1 with three lenses--a 28mm, a 50mm and a 135mm. Worked for me at the time. But, as I say, I wasn't nearly as "into" the photography thing as I am now.

 

Which one of those lenses did you use the most, Daniel? The 28mm?

 

35/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/2

Those three lenses accounted for the vast
majority of my photos in film.

 

I'm using a Nikon F3 with a 35mm f2 Zeiss lens. I shoot black and white street photography. I've always liked primes over zooms and this is the only lens I use.

 

So you don't feel the need for a wider lens for street photography?

 

Way back last century when I used film cameras, the "standard" lenses were the 28, 50 and 135. I had them all at one time, but what lenses one used (or used) depends upon what kind of photography one did. I accumulated other lenses, including 17, 24, 300, 70-210, 100-200, and probably others I forget.

 

After I went to Nikon mount, a long time ago, I used my Nikon 55mm f/1.2 to squeeze photons, a PC-Nikkor 35mm f/2.8 for architecture, a 20mm f/4 for wide angles. When I needed longer, I used a Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm (the original, not the current name-only version). I also had a 50mm f/2 available for places where photons were not an endangered species.
What got used depended on what I was doing. Obviously, I used telephoto on safari. When I was traveling, I liked to do night photography.

 

My current favourite is the 105mm f2.5 on my Nikon F.

 

My current favourite is the 105mm f2.5 on my Nikon F.

So you don't feel the need for a wider lens for street photography?​

It depends on the width of the street!

 

It depends on the width of the street!​

Aha, now I get it! I have to measure the streets first
What are you shooting with the 105mm f2.5, Steve?

 

I used my Nikon 55mm f/1.2 to squeeze photons​

JDM, what kind of motifs did you use it for? It must have been a very expensive lens at the time, wasn't it?

 

Ann,
My standard carry kit is a Nikon F2 ,24f/2.8 ,35f/2 ,Micro55 and 105f/2.5. I shoot mostly B&W nature/scenic.
If I'm after animals ,the kit would be 35f/2, 300f/4.5 and 500f/8cat.
Chris

 

Why restrict the discussion to primes? In film days many people used zooms for the convenience, particularly when shooting slides when you needed to get the framing right in the camera. I often used the Minolta 35-70 f3.5 on manual focus, and the 28-135 f3.5-4.5 on AF. Both give excellent image quality.

 

The lens that I purchased when I was shooting film with a Nikon F3HP camera were these:
1. Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-S
2. Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 AI-S
3. Nikkor 105mm f/1.8 AI-S

I used these lens for years until I purchased my first Nikon auto-focus 35mm camera (a Nikon N90s). After I bought the N90s I subsequently bought a Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D, Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8D and a Micro-Nikkor 70-180mm f/4.5-5.6D ED lens.
One of my favorite lens was the 28mm f/2.8 AI-S. This is a superb optic.

 

Nice set, Christopher. Do you bring the four primes with you on a regular basis?
John, I would like to know about the good zoom lenses as well. Many of the 35mm film cameras are sold with some kind of zoom lenses. They don't come along that often with primes.

 

Was a 105mm the portrait lens on a film body?

 

The 28/3.5 was a revelation early on
and has skewed my view of things ever
since. I keep a 28 always. The 20/3.5
was a favorite in my newspaper days. I
was in almost constant conflict with
one editor over it. The 55/1.2 and 135/
2.8 went everywhere. My favorite
zooms are the old 85-250 which I have
and 80-200/2.8 which I don't. The 300/
4.5 is still there and a 500/8 cat went
to many ball games. These lenses were
mostly used on F2's and F4's, the
greatest cameras ever made.

Rick H.

 

What are you shooting with the 105mm f2.5, Steve?​

Nothing in particular. I have always had the standard set of 28mm, 50mm and 135mm. Sometimes I like to go out with just one lens. If I have the 50mm it seems to wide and the 135mm seems too long but the 105mm seems just right.

I have only had this lens for a few months and haven't used it much but I think I will get a lot of use from it

 

I've been most into two systems: Minolta manual focus and Nikon autofocus. In Minolta, the 58mm f/1.4 is probably what I've used most, followed by the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and Minolta late MD 50/1.7. In Nikon, the 50/1.8 D and later G, the Tamron 28-75 (which has put in a lot of miles on my F100 and on digital) and more recently Tamron 70-300 VC. That lens has let me do stuff that just shouldn't work, like shooting landscapes on Reala 100 in overcast conditions at f/11 and 300mm then scanning at 5400 PPI and getting a sharp image.

 

I've been most into two systems: Minolta manual focus and Nikon autofocus. In Minolta, the 58mm f/1.4 is probably what I've used most, followed by the Vivitar Series 1 28-90 and Minolta late MD 50/1.7. In Nikon, the 50/1.8 D and later G, the Tamron 28-75 (which has put in a lot of miles on my F100 and on digital) and more recently Tamron 70-300 VC. That lens has let me do stuff that just shouldn't work, like shooting landscapes on Reala 100 in overcast conditions at f/11 and 300mm then scanning at 5400 PPI and getting a sharp image.

 

Which Minolta body were you using, Andy?

 

For the better part of 43 years, I used mostly a 35mm lens on my Leica RF, but leaned toward a 50-100mm on my SLR cameras. In the Canon FD world, I really liked the 28mm/f2.0, and to 50/3.5 macro. The Leica SLRs had a great 35mm Elmarit. I have a bunch of fixed lens RFs, most have about 43-45mm lenses. Exakta had a really enjoyable 20mm Flektagon. The Olympus OM series has lots of good choices, but as I critically look at results (pixel peeping) I'm seeing more CA than I ever noticed before.As far as the Nikons, I've been all over the place, in primes the 28/2.8 Ai is a favorite along with the 50/1.8 Series E. In the (film) Nikon zoom department, I used the first version of the 24-120 for several years...although not a top notch performer, it was a really handy lens to have with me. I recently got a Pentax Spotmatic(been lusting since the 1960s) with a 50/1.4 Super-Takumar which I'm still learning to get the best results from. I need to pare down the cameras I've accumulated...but what a lot of fun having choices based on my mood.

 

I need to pare down the cameras I've accumulated​

I keep telling myself that too.
Inheriting my father's collection effectively doubled the size of mine so that didn't help. It did give me access to a couple of Nikon Fs and some lenses of a similar period and four Mamiya TLRs with a good range of lenses so I have started to sell and give away some of the lesser examples from my own collection - especially where I now have duplicates.

 

I have a bunch of fixed lens RFs, most have about 43-45mm lenses.​

That is a focal length you don't see much of today, if any. I wonder why they chose those focal lengths.

The Olympus OM series has lots of good choices​

I would like to learn more about those lenses, too.

 

It was only in my later years did I have more than just the standard lens, 50mm on 35mm and 80mm on my Rollei etc.
I started shooting film [movies?] before stills and there the standard lens equated to about a 90mm on 35mm and only after some years did I get the equivalent of perhaps a 35mm.

 

As a street shooter the 24 and 35 were always my first choice. In my many years of wedding shooting, I found the 35-70 zoom to be the single most useful lens. the shots being 75% with the 35mm, about 20% at 50mm, the remaining 5% shot at 70mm.
As a travel hobby shooter, and sometime commercial shooter. I carried 20,24,35,50,85,105,200,300 with 1.4X TC. On a typical day of shooting 10-20 rolls of chromes, almost every lens would see some duty.
I always have loved both the 35mm and the 50mm. They always seemed the most natural to me.

 

As a street shooter the 24 and 35 were always my first choice​

May I ask which most recent camera and lenses those were, Steve L.?

 

I shot a 35mm with a 35mm F2.8 lens for most of my photojournalism use..shot a lot of tri-x
for the local newspaper and church news letters..

 

Nikon F100 with a 35-70mm D f/2.8 zoom lens; best 35mm film combination I ever got to use.

 

24 or 28mm, 50mm, and 105mm on my Nikon F cameras. This combo worked from 1968 to when I got a D70. The most used were the wide angles for general purpose stuff, and the 105 for portraits. You can see lots of examples in my 70's folder.

 

Ms. Overland and Gentlepersons:
From 1938 until about 1962 I lived with a 50mm Cooke type three-element F:4.5 lens on an Argus AF. Looking back it is amazing how well I could frame a shot simply by walking forward or backward. Of course, by the early 1950s I could have bought a nice Kodak Retina with a superior 50mm (F:2.0 to boot) six-element lens and by changing the front element group have 35mm and 80mm focal lengths as well. But, family came first. Even so, had I been a millionaire there were no convenient 28-300mm lenses that would fit in the palm of my hand.
There were also some beautiful shots I could have taken of Task Force escort ships while standing watch on the bridge in the early Pacific and South Pacific years of WWII with a long telephoto lens. On the other hand, what would I attach the lens to? My cheap Argus had been confiscated as I left for Hawaii just days after December 7, 1941 and was not returned until the U.S.S. Enterprise returned stateside in late 1943.
Boy, are we spoiled today or what? Fussy, fussy, fussy
A. T. Burke
P.S. Although the Argus had an F:Stop of 4.5, the T:Stop was really about 5.6 to 6.3 on that crude uncoated lens. Some of my Kodachromes were a little dark.

 

Honestly, I think this thread would have been much more interesting if it was titled:

"What photos did you make with your 35mm film cameras?"

 

Mr. Burke, that was a sweet little story. A piece of the history of your life. How the world has changed since then. For better and for worse. Thank you.

 

For the past 20+ years my film shooting has been done with a Contax RST-II. I carried Zeiss 28mm/2.8, 50mm/1.7 and 135mm/2.8 lenses. I guesstimate that about half of the shots were made with the 28mm and the remainder split between the two longer lenses. I also carried, from time to time, a Vivitar 2X Macro-Focusing Teleconverter which allowed me to take macro shots with the 50mm.

 

JDM, what kind of motifs did you use it for? It must have been a very expensive lens at the time, wasn't it?​

Durn tootin', but worth every penny - I still use it on my Canon cameras today. I've used it in dark caves, interior shots, and gadding about towns at night. My favorite low light film was the GAF 500 which had grain pretty much in the golf-ball range, but you could get shots that otherwise would have involved tripods, reciprocity and all the rest. Later on, there were much faster color films, but at the time, 500 was king.

 

Interesting. i started with a real camera in 1960 the argus c-3 and fujita classic IV
were fixed lens cameras. a few years ;latter I bought a SLR and was satisfired with the 50mm lens.
since it was a Miranda D other lenses were not easy to find. I bought a preset tepehoto ( 135)
but found it too long to be really useful.
Later buy luck found a 35mm . the camera required P A D lenses which were rare.
I really wanted something a "little long" and found a 80mm f/2.8
preset and used and enjoyes that for portraits and so as not to intrude
when taking "close ups" from farther back at weddings and social events. I could get natural effect photos which people likedn
later when I got a sensorex I could buy other lenses to wotk and fit properly.
the first one I bought was the 85mm f/1.7. by then film was faster and I did not need a flash to get natural looking close ups.
I think from the way I used my camera during those years either the 50 or 85 were the best lenses I used.
I had both 28 and 35 mm lenses and sometimes I used the 35mm lens as a normal
lens but rarely the 28mm. I once took a photo of a young woman with a slightly
large somewhat pointy nose. and the Bugle Snoot effect turned me off to the 28mm lens.
Now that I have more lenses than I can carry. I still prefer those two lenses.
if something happened to any of the others., I would only replace the 85mm.

 

I have had a lot of 35mm cameras but I prefer SLRs because of the viewfinder and the ability to focus manually. Canon F-1, Minolta X, and Nikon F systems are great but I do not love them. What I like most are the Pentax KX and Nikon FM with 50mm F1.4 lens. These two guys can be found for a reasonable price, even though the Pentax is very hard to find in mint condition without some personal inscription.
Among the common 35mm SLRs, I do not like : K1000, AE-1, A-1, OMs, Minolta X700

 

A very cool shot, JDM.

the GAF 500 which had grain pretty much in the golf-ball range​

That would not be much different from my D300 at higher ISO's. Golf-ball noise, that is ;-)

 

Among the common 35mm SLRs, I do not like : K1000, AE-1, A-1, OMs, Minolta X700​

John T, can you tell us something about why you don't like these cameras? Is it because they lack functions or because of poor 'durability' (if that is the right word)?

 

My 35mm and medium format film lenses were and still are the most ordinary types. Mainly whatever the "normal" focal length is for a given film format, particularly with medium format as I've only owned TLRs and folders with fixed lenses.
In 35mm film SLRs mostly 28mm, 35mm, 50mm and medium teles ranging from 85mm to 135mm. Nowadays I'm more likely to use the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor for my film Nikons since it covers my comfort zone pretty well.
If I had to choose one lens for everything - regardless of format, digital or film - it would be a fast equivalent to the 35mm focal length for 35mm film. For some reason I seem to see things that way, and there's a bump in the EXIF data to support it. Probably why there isn't much difference between my film and digital photos, other than efficiency in workflow.

 

I do mainly city/landscapes so with my Nikon F100 it's been the 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5 used a lot around the 18-20mm. When I shoot Nikon DX I use a Sigma 10-20mm and just go with the flow ... knowing the two will be different.
I know I don't have the best equip, but it does the job and pro's have used these ...

 

Nowadays I'm more likely to use the 35-70/2.8D AF Nikkor for my film Nikons since it covers my comfort zone pretty well.​

I already have this lens, but it doesn't do too well on my DX. I am looking forward to using it on some Nikon film cameras. Hopefully it will deliver on the FX format. It seems to be a popular lens.

If I had to choose one lens for everything - regardless of format, digital or film - it would be a fast equivalent to the 35mm focal length for 35mm film.​

I think that might be my choice too if I had to choose just one lens. I am seeing a lot of 50mm's for sale. There are not a lot of 35mm's to buy (sold by camera owners in a set with theirs cameras. On the bay and elsewhere you can find them, off course).

 

Among the common 35mm SLRs, I do not like : K1000, AE-1, A-1, OMs, Minolta X700
John T, can you tell us something about why you don't like these cameras? Is it because they lack functions or because of poor 'durability' (if that is the right word)?
I can't speak for John but I have the same dislike for those cameras.
1. The K1000 was supposed to be a cheap camera that could do the job. It's ok but seriously lack the finese of the better model like the KX or the MX. It's ok camera as long as it's cheap but when it's sold for more than the KX it's a bad deal.
2. Never owned the AE-1. I worked at a 1 hr photo shop back in the early 80's and met so many people with this camera. They all had underexposed film. They actually came back with better exposure when I told them to use the recommendation inside the film boxes. It's difficult to use in manual exposure mode.
3. The A1 is just to complex. Didn't use them much.
4. Heard lots of good things about the OM's until I actually own an OM-2. Many people would praise its meter but I really hate its meter. I don't like the 2 meter system, one for your eyes and one for the actual exposure.

 

Ann, I've had (and still have) several different Minoltas, but the ones that have had the most use are an SRT, and later an X700 and an XD11 that traveled together. The X700, while very good, wasn't doing it for me in the "feel" department so it got displaced by a second XD11.

 

Ann, I used to use a Nikor 28mm for my 35mm street shooting (I also use medium format in the street with both a standard lens and a 28mm equivalent) but when I decided to pick up a Zeiss lens, I went with 35mm for two reasons. One is that the distortion such as leaning buildings is less pronounced with a 35 over a wider lens. Second is I tend to favor vertical shots in the street over horizontal ones. With a 28, this leaved too much empty foreground space unless one is practically on top of their subjects. I print full frame so a 35 gives me a bit more breathing room. However, as the example below proves even with a 35, shooting vertical in the street requires close quarters. In this shot I stood still and made the picture as they walked toward me. They had to split and walk on either side of me; that is how close the proximity was. In the street, you want to be close, but not so close that people run into you.

 

My favourites are a Yashica FX-3 Super 2000 with the Yashical ML 28mm lens (Once had the 21mm ML lens, a fine performer, but sold it in a weak moment) and the M4-P Leica rangefinder with 35mm Summicron lens. I sold the 50mm Summicron lens and regret it, but bought down to a 50mm Elmar-M f2.8, which is small (collapsible) and virtually as good.
For large prints and better quality than 35mm film cameras, I prefer medium format (Mamiya and Fuji rangefinders)

 

The combination I like the most is the 40mm f/2.8 "pancake" lens on my Pentax MX. The small size of the body paired with the flat lens makes it fit comfortably under my coat. Also 40mm is just slightly wider than the usual 50mm I use on other bodies and is suited well for street shots as long as there's sufficient light for an f/2.8.

 

I shoot Olympus OM2N and OM4. I have 24, 28 and 35mm f/2.8 plus a 50 f/1.8. I love the 24mm, it's easily the best lens I have ever owned, the 28 is close, as is the 50. The 35 needs a CLA so no idea what that will be like yet

 

As a street shooter the 24 and 35 were always my first choice
""May I ask which most recent camera and lenses those were, Steve L.?""
Most recent cameras: Nikon 8008S and F100. The lenses for street shooting were the 24/f28 AI, and my favorite Nikkor ever: the 35/F2 AI.

 

I'm using a canon EOS-1, which uses all of my Canon EF lenses. I'm able to seamlessly move from digital to film and don't have to worry about extra lenses.
The only additional kit I've had to buy was the cable release and a couple of filters for shooting BW.

 

Peter, can it use both the FD and the EF lenses?

 

When I first started taking photography seriously, I had a couple of consumer grade AF Nikon bodies and used mainly the 24/2.8 and 50/1.8 af-d models. Now, when I shoot film, it's almost always with manual-focus gear. Typically 28/3.5, 35/2.8, 50/2 and 105/2.5. I also have a couple of longer lenses that get occasional use. Like some others here, I tend to prefer 35mm over 50mm for general walk-around stuff. However, the few times I've taken out my Minolta Hi-Matic 7, with a fixed 45mm lens, seems like all of the pictures come out framed just right. Guess the 45mm focal length seems to suit my eye. I'm now going to try to forget that Nikon does make a 45mm lens (I don't need another lens, I don't need another lens, I don't need another lens, I don't need another lens).

 

LOL!

 

My "go-to" SLR is an F3HP, with an F2 Photomic a close second. If I'm going for a womble with the kids, I'll take either body with an 85/2.0. If I'm traveling alone, and somewhere worth photographing, I'll take a body with a kit of 24/2.8, 50/1.8 and 105/2.5. I may add a 200/4.0 or a 180/2.8 if I think there may be a use for it. I have a similar kit (24/50/100/200) of SSC breechlock primes and an original model Canon F-1, but this doesn't really get the use it deserves. Before I switched to Nikon, I used OMs with a reasonable set of primes (28/2.8, 50/1.4, 50/3.5 macro, 85/2.0, 200/4.0, 600/8.0 Cat.) and zooms (35-70/3.6 and 65-200/4.0), but I'm seriously considering selling them off in the spring, rather than having them sit there, gathering dust. I may keep the OM-1 with a 50/1.4, for nostalgic reasons

 

In my newspaper days I carried a Nikon F2 and a Nikon FM with a 28 3.5 on one and a 105 2.5 on the other with a 50 2.0 and 200 4.0 in the bag along with a Vivitar 283, red and yellow filters and about 20 rolls of bulk loaded Tri-X. Would have preferred faster glass but couldn't afford it. The 28 was good for putting the subject in the foreground while showing a building or whatever in the background. Also good for things like a defendant being walked in or out of the courthouse when there was a gaggle of photographers on the sidewalk. The 105 was used for tons of headshots. The 50 was for when you needed the speed or wanted just a straight shot without the wide angle effects of the 28, and the 200 was good for sports or shooting a speech/news conference from the back of the room.

 

For SP with film, the 24, 28 and 35 focal lengths saw the most use. This on Nikon, Olympus, and Leica bodies. Somebody mentioned the humble 28/3.5 Nikkor. Cheap, slow, hard to focus, but a great lens.

 

The examples of how you can use the lenses is great for me. Thanks. Craig, that must have been some heavy load to carry around all day, sometimes running with it too, I guess.

 

Many of my 35mm film photos where taken with a 50mm lens, my second most used lens was my 70-200mm.

 

Since there are a lot of you guys out there that are using or has been using 35mm film cameras, I was hoping that you would like to share which camera and lenses you prefer. And which focal length is your preferred focal length, i.e. the prime you use(d) the most?
The intention of the thread is to learn as much as possible about 35mm camera and lenses, and have it as a guidance for future gear shopping ​

Why buy any lenses?! All I did was go on eprey and buy a 35mm SLR body and I just use the same lenses I use on my DSLR. Frankly it costs nothing for a serious DSLR shooter to get into film. I spent $100 on my body because I wanted something relatively recent, mint, sophisticated, and with one or two accessories. If you want to be cheap I am pretty sure you can get something decent for less than $30. A roll of film can be had for less than $5. And processing without prints is $1.50 at Sam's Club. You can easily get into film shooting for less than $40. And I'm sure there are plenty of people that got in for less than $20. Now if you made the mistake of buying a bunch of cropped sensor lenses then you may have problems.

 

That's how I ended up with the F100. Same lens compatibility as a Nikon DSLR. Of course, it made me wish the DSLRs felt as good in my hand as the F100. Why the heck can't they get that right.

 

Now if you made the mistake of buying a bunch of cropped sensor lenses then you may have problems.​

Good point, Jeff. I do have some, but they have been used a lot, and they will probably die with the camera in a short while. Or not be worth much if they outlive the D300.

It doesn't necessarily have to be cheap, but I am not buying the mint stuff unless I get a good deal. I want to use the cameras now and then. A little private film camera/lens/flash collection is what I want.

That's how I ended up with the F100. Same lens compatibility as a Nikon DSLR.​

That is very convenient. An advantage indeed, Andy.

 

It doesn't necessarily have to be cheap, but I am not buying the mint stuff unless I get a good deal.​

Well mint 35mm SLRs are cheap. There is no reason not to buy mint. Like I said I got my sophisticated up to date mint electronic wonder for a little less than $100. Cameras do not necessarily last forever. The great thing about getting a late model mint specimen is it will probably give you decades of trouble free operation. Keep in mind parts are probably not going to be available in the future so you don't want some reporter's old beater.

A little private film camera/lens/flash collection is what I want.​

Why? And if you want to collect wouldn't you want to buy mint?! Here's the deal. 35mm SLR bodies are dirt cheap. You don't have to worry about that. If you are not buying Leicas or a Canon EOS-1V you should be fine. When it comes to lenses at least on the Canon side the EF lenses are interchangeable between film and digital. So there is no special strategy for buying lenses for a film camera. As far as I know there are only two lens mounts in the modern Canon stable the EF and FD mounts. FD mount lenses were discontinued long ago and do not have autofocus and don't work on any camera made by Canon recently. Even though they are completely obsolete they still cost HUNDREDS of dollars for the good lenses in the line up. So you really have to wonder why people don't just spend a little more and get the EF lenses. Then they can use them on digital and analog cameras.

 

Why?​

Why not?

And if you want to collect wouldn't you want to buy mint?!​

It is not going to be a museum collection. If they were mint I wouldn't use them. Cameras get marks when I use them. If I can get them in mint condition at an affordable price, I will buy them.

So you really have to wonder why people don't just spend a little more and get the EF lenses.​

When the collection consists of film cameras and film camera lenses, you don't buy the digital lenses. They don't belong in that collection.

Each have their own criterias for their personal colletions.

 

If they were mint I wouldn't use them. Cameras get marks when I use them.​

Ann, please reread my post. I said one of the points of getting a mint camera is to ensure longevity. A mint camera is less likely to have a billion cycles on its shutter. Anyway it is a moot point. Mint cameras are out there for pennies on the dollar. It is not even worth discussing.

When the collection consists of film cameras and film camera lenses, you don't buy the digital lenses.​

Okay I see the problem here. The purpose of this thread baffled me but I figured out the problem. Ann the majority of the lenses in the Canon lineup were designed for FILM cameras. EF lenses are not "digital lenses." There are some cropped frame lenses called EF-S lenses but they are the minority and can be easily avoided. I already addressed this in another post. There is no difference between buying lenses for analog or digital. You figure out the perspective and field of view you like and you purchase accordingly. The lens you like on a 5D will behave exactly the same on an Elan 7NE and vice versa. There is nothing to discuss or think about.

 

When I used a film SLR it was a Minolta XD7 with the MD zoom 35-70 f3.5. This lens did most of the exposures plus I had a Sigma 24 f2.8 for the wide stuff. I later bought an old MC Tele Rokkor 100 f2.5 for portraits but never actually used it a lot - though the quality was very good. When I pick up this kit now, I realize how much more weight we used to carry.

 

Jeff, this might come as a surprise to you: I do not have the same preferences as you do. Not even close......

 

Those of you that have been using zoom lenses both on film and digital, are the zoom lenses much better today, or were they just as good back in the film days?

 

They're better today, for the most part. There are exceptions. On film the differences are harder to notice - most people don't do anything equivalent to viewing at 100%. Also, you need to distinguish "the film days" - are we talking about pre-AF SLR lenses? A lot of lenses carried through from film AF SLRs and are still being used. A lot of others got dropped since the entry level DSLRs are all crop-format, so the need for cheap kit zooms that cover 24x36 isn't what it used to be. You can't give away a lot of those lenses these days. Try selling a 3rd party kit zoom for a 35mm AF camera on eBay, you'd be lucky to get any bids at all.

 

Also, you need to distinguish "the film days" - are we talking about pre-AF SLR lenses?​

I was thinking of both manual and AF lenses, Andy. By the way, when looking at cameras and lenses for 35mm film, they often forget to mention whether they were made for manual focusing or AF.

 

You mean on eBay? Most of the individuals who are selling are selling something they or a family member have had in a closet for years. You'd be lucky if you can identify anything about the camera, and it doesn't occur to them that the lenses are important. You have to identify what you're looking at from the pictures - but most companies changed the designs enough when going to AF that you can tell right away.

 

You mean on eBay?​

No, actually I was thinking of those sites that are giving us detailed information about the cameras/lenses.

....it doesn't occur to them that the lenses are important.​

You can say that again! Even if you ask them about what is written on the front of the lens, they can't seem to be able to write that down for you. You are lucky if they get the maker right.

 

Jeff, this might come as a surprise to you: I do not have the same preferences as you do. Not even close......​

That's an odd thing to say... considering you have no idea what my preferences are. And this has nothing to do with my personal preferences. Again you will notice that I said you should see what focal lengths YOU like on your digital SLR and buy the 1:1 equivalent or the 1.6 crop factor adjusted lenses for your film camera depending on your setup. This isn't rocket science... or mind blowing new information. I don't see what the point is of polling a bunch of photographers in 2012. Aren't there a billion landscape, macro, portrait, astrophotography, etc lens threads on here?!

By the way, when looking at cameras and lenses for 35mm film, they often forget to mention whether they were made for manual focusing or AF.​

If you can't ascertain instantly or within a matter of seconds whether a lens is an autofocus lens or all manual either you have no business buying photographic equipment of any kind or the advertisement you are looking at is exceedingly poor. Either way you shouldn't be making a purchase. Even after thoroughly researching a purchase I have been burned by individuals and photography stores on multiple occasions. And there have been other times I've gotten killer deals... all of them from individuals. A lot of the time the best deals are from people who do not fully understand what they have on their hands. If they have good photos of their lens and say that it is works and is free of scratches, excessive dust, and fungus I am usually down to give it a try.
Just recently I thoroughly researched some enlarger lenses and finally settled on a particular model. I searched all the usual places looking for a deal and decided to skip eprey and instead pay a little more and get the lens from a camera store. The box arrived and looked great. It was like buying a new lens. There was a brochure and warranty card. There were lens caps and a case. Well when I opened the case I found an older model lens from the same line. Now there are some people who would not have noticed this little problem. But I did. My point being is you better know your stuff cold before even thinking about buying from an individual or a supposedly reputable store. The idea that you would depend on a written description to tell you whether a lens is autofocus or not is crazy. The picture should say it all in most cases. There are so many subtleties when it comes to buying lenses that if that is what trips you up you are 100% guaranteed to have issues if you buy enough lenses.

Even if you ask them about what is written on the front of the lens, they can't seem to be able to write that down for you.​

If you can't read what is written on the front of the lens then how can you make any kind of assessment of the condition of the lens?! There are hundreds of thousands of used lenses out there. Why even bother messing around with an advertisement that has poor pictures and a scant description?! The majority of my medium format lenses were bought from individuals on an auction site. There were no problems telling instantly which lens was which. Frankly I skip the title and description sometimes because people on occasion deliberately spam the eprey search engine by including nomenclature for a more recent or more desirable lens/camera. If I can't look at the picture and tell what model I'm getting I move on. You are really setting yourself up to get burned.

 

Also, you need to distinguish "the film days"​

For many of us, that refers to the past, present and future.

 

"Those of you that have been using zoom lenses both on film and digital, are the zoom lenses much better today, or were they just as good back in the film days?"​

Zooms in general are much better now than in the film-only days.
While MTF charts and other methods testing "sharpness" reveal many older lenses that seemed to compare favorably with the best contemporary lenses, there are subjective factors that don't account for the improvements in recent lenses.
One of the most commonly used, misused and abused subjective concepts is bokeh. This specific term, and the entire concept in general of describing out of focus characteristics, was rarely if ever discussed before the late 1990s. The first time I noticed subjective differences in out of focus characteristics was during the early 1980s as a college newspaper editor. I could tell which photos came from which photographers because the OOF characteristics of Nikon and Canon lenses were, to me, distinctive. To my eye Nikkor OOF characteristics seemed a bit harsh, with doubling or multiple repetitions of hard edges rather than soft, gradual blurring. Others said they saw no significant differences.
Other improvements include flare resistance from multicoatings and aspherical elements included even in inexpensive kit zooms. Even a single molded plastic aspherical element in an affordable kit zoom may offer a significant advantage over previous generations of middle tier and high end lenses.
The popular 18-70/3.5-4.5 DX Nikkor and 10-30/3.5-5.6 Nikon 1 kit zoom are remarkable accomplishments and fairly typical of contemporary affordable zooms. Both are far "sharper" - subjectively - than previous generation kit zooms like the 28-85/3.5-4.5 AF Nikkor included with cameras like the N6006. Better resistance to veiling and ghosting flare, so contrast and saturation appear more intense. Better edge and corner resolution, and fewer problems with coma.
The only significant flaws I see consistently in contemporary kit zooms - including those digicams with non-interchangeable zooms - are barrel distortion and light falloff. Some cameras correct these flaws automagically with internal processing at the JPEG (and sometimes raw) level. Others don't but the flaws are easily corrected in editors like Lightroom. The goal of making zooms smaller and lighter, especially for APS and smaller sensors, comes with some compromises.

 

Lex, thank you!

 

Zooms in general are much better now than in the film-only days.​

Anyone with half a brain who has made over 1500 posts should be able to use the search engine and read any one of a billion primes vs zooms threads and get this information for themselves.
modern zooms are very good, to the extent where the alleged superiority of primes may not be evident
Many modern zooms are better than the primes in their range.
If you shoot the same cameras with high end, modern zooms, the results will also be excellent.
I've tried a vast number of all kinds of lens brands just for the fun of it.The fact is that older prime lenses are generally low in contrast compared to modern primes OR zooms
whats the modern thinking on prime lenses vs. zoom? specifically wide angle lenses. example: 17-35 2.8 17, 18, 20 prime...
I am sure that the new crop of f/2.8 zooms are every bit as sharp as the prime lenses that they replicate
Back in the 1970's and 1980's, you might need primes to get excellent qulity. Today's zooms are very good now.
I agree with Shun that a modern zoom will probably equal the IQ of most available primes at like apertures, and be slightly more versatile and cost-effective.
Ten minutes on the forum search engine. I didn't stop quoting because I ran out of quotes. There were dozens more. I stopped because it got nauseating reading the same question over and over again and reading the same answer over and over again.
There is nothing in this thread that hasn't been stated multiple times elsewhere in the forum in a much more indepth and useful manner. I can't for the life of me figure out what the point is.
On a certain level I feel like we are the subjects of a psychological experiment. Perhaps to see how many questions we will answer. Even the way the question is phrased makes me think the person knew what the answer was prior to asking.

"Those of you that have been using zoom lenses both on film and digital, are the zoom lenses much better today, or were they just as good back in the film days?"​

I mean why even ask that? Most neophytes simply asks why get a prime vs a zoom. The question asked here is so specific and the answer so predictable (and easily found) I just have to wonder why it was asked.

 

I didn't ask about zooms versus primes, Jeff. Lex gave me very good help and answered my question.

 

I didn't ask about zooms versus primes, Jeff.​

Ann, that is obviously immaterial. Every single one of those quotes has two words in it "modern zoom." Obviously there is a reason for that and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out why. And for the slow witted this quote spells everything out.
Back in the 1970's and 1980's, you might need primes to get excellent qulity. Today's zooms are very good now.
In your time here making over 1500 posts you mean to say you NEVER came across a thread discussing the improvement in zoom lenses over the years?! Not even when you used the search engine?

 

I didn't ask about zooms versus primes, Jeff.​

Sorry I didn't have time to add this to my previous post but I have never met anyone who asks about modern zooms vs old zooms in isolation. That would be a very odd question. What thought process would even lead someone to ask a question like that?!

 

You don't understand my question, Jeff. Just let it go. Lex understood the question. I got a very good answer from him.

 

You are in a thread about 35mm analog film cameras and lenses, Jeff.

 

You are in a thread about 35mm analog film cameras and lenses, Jeff.​

No Ann. They are called lenses. They are not "analog film lenses." Just because someone brought a DSLR to market doesn't mean it transformed all the preexisting lenses into "analog film lenses." That is an artificial and erroneous designation that you made up to prolong this thread. All the lenses I use on my DSLR I use on my 35mm film camera. They are not "analog film lenses."
It's statements like yours that spread misinformation and confuse neophytes trying to figure all this stuff out.

 

I did not write analog film lenses, Jeff. You did.

 

Duplicate

 

I got this zoom lens today, with the OM-10.

 

Among SLRs I like Nikons because they're rugged and the Nikkor lenses are excellent. I use a 24/2.8, a 35/3.5 PC (shift lens), great for urban landscape, a 50/1.4, a 105/2.5 and a 180/2.8. All have their purposes but the 24mm for some reason is a favorite. For street shooting I use a Leica rangefinder with a 35/2 lens, sometimes a 21/4 -- compact, light, inconspicuous and a fast shooter.

 

Fred, which Nikon SLR camera do you prefer to use?

 

It's the job i've been given, so here goes once again: unless you put them in front of or behind another lens to change what that other lens does, zoom lenses are prime lenses. There therefor is no 'prime vs zoom'.<br>Now, as you were!

 

Ann, I am the original and still owner of a Nikon photomic FTN. During its active years I had a 28-90 F2.8-3.5 Vivitar series I on it most of the time. Worked pretty well for most pictures but was a bit heavy.

 

I wonder if you all had to use tripods more often when shooting film at ISO 100 and 200 and having no VR lenses. How did you all cope with those limitations? I have noticed that the OM-10 I just bough is about ready to jump off the table or out of my hands whenever I fire the shutter. That mirror movement is not exactly subtle!

 

Ann, had the same thought so I checked out when the noise (slap bang) was happening on my yashica FX3. If I used the self timer, the mirror would go up long before the shutter fired and if I braced myself I could take pictures down to 1/15 sec. The Nikon was so heavy that the weight fairly well damped mirror vibrations and camera movement but I rarely tried to go below 1/30 hand held. I think there are charts of camera vibration levels vs shutter opening on the web. Of course being braced is sort of like using a tripod but even in the dark ages we had high speed (Acufine) developer that would give an extra 2-3 stops to B&W film letting the shutter be moved up. Check out your Oly at slow shutter speeds and you may be surprised at its sharpness.

Cheers,
Randyc

 

Nikkor; 35-70 & 70-210 on my 8008 and sometimes a SB 22, and TMax. Still do still use it, with or without my D7000.

 

Randy, I was thinking that I have to use the self timer quite a lot, both with and without a tripod.
That is the beauty of it, Duane, that the Nikon film cameras and the Nikon digital cameras share the same lens mount.