Will these lenses work on any modern DSLRs?

[kezia]

I have two favourite lenses that I use on an old Karl Zeiss Jenaflex camera.

The first is a Zeiss Jena 50 mm lens with a bayonet style mount (Practika?).

The second is a Meyer-Optik 30 mm with a screw-in mount that I use with an

adapter. I want to buy a DSLR and though it won't be the deciding factor in my

decision as to which camera to buy, and I do understand that they won't be 30

and 50 mm on a DSLR, it would be nice to know before buying whether either of

these lenses can be used with any modern DSLRs.

[alex macphee]

If the Meyer-Optik is an M42 screw fit, you should be able to use it, though it may depend on the DSLR you have in mind. The key factor is the 'register' of the lens mount, that is, the distance between the lens mount and the focal plane. Canon SLRs have a shorter register than other SLRs, so an adapter can fit between the lens and the camera so spaced to ensure that the lens focuses on the focal plane and not behind the camera. This table may be of help:

 

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mounts.htm

 

I can mount M42 lenses on my Canon EOS bodies, and I can also mount Contax/Yashica lenses too, just by putting an appropriate adapter on the lens.

 

As you can see from this table, the register for Canon EOS is 44mm, and the register for M42 (Praktica/Pentax) is 45.46mm, so this will work, as will Contax/Yashica at 45.5mm. On the other hand, Nikon's register is 46.5, which is larger than the M42 lens register, so you can't bring infinity to focus on a Nikon camera with an M42 lens (unless the adapter has glass elements to alter the effective focal length).

 

If you know your intended DSLR and can find your lens mounts on this table, you can work out easily, using the examples above, if they'll match. All this depends, of course, on whether adapters are readily available for the intended pairing.

[davepearman]

There's no commercial adapter for using Praktica Bayonet lenses on any DSLR, unfortunately. A Google search finds a couple of home made adapters for Canon EOS, and Olympus should also be possible, but nobody seems to make one. You could have one made, but it would cost many times what the Carl Zeiss Jena 50mm is worth, and this approach would only really be worthwhile if you had a large collection of PB lenses.

 

The Meyer-Optik (Lydith?) 30mm is much easier, if it's M42 Praktica/Pentax screw fitting. Simple adapters are available for Canon EOS, Konica Minolta, Olympus, Panasonic, Pentax, Samsung and Sony. The adapters for Nikon won't focus to infinity. All these adapters are quite cheap, but probably still worth more than the 30mm lens... ;-)

 

Have fun!

[john falkenstine]

I think that you won't be happy with a DSLR. Newer cameras place greater demands on lens performance. What was good before 1970 and made you very happy in terms of image quality might turn out to be a performance dog when attached to newer equipment.

[gary_turner1]

The most classic lens adaptable DSLR seems to be Canon EOS and to a lesser extent, Pentax. Several adapters are available for the wide throat EOS whereas the Pentax PK mount is readily adaptable to M42. The Nikon system seems to have more restrictions on adapters. I'm happy with my Pentax *ist DS and have no complaints about lens performance from the plentiful & affordable higher quality PK & classic M42 lenses. I really don't miss what I don't have with the lenses designed specifically for digital cameras (i.e. auto focus convenience). Some Nikon lenses actually work too on the Pentax in a 'careful round-about way' without an adapter. With the classic lenses on a DSLR, you will be shooting the old fashioned way; manual focus and usually at pre-set apertures although Pentax preserves auto aperture with the older PK mount auto lenses. I guess one can pay a premium to get the most out of DSLR prime lenses but I can say I'm impressed with the older lenses in comparison to the 'pretty lame' kit zooms that digitals typically come equipped with. Here's one nice website featuring classic era lens capabilities with DSLR:http://galactinus.net/vilva/retro/index.html and this site makes some general comments: http://www.dpcorner.com/topics/lenses.shtml I'm sure this particular topic is upsetting for some folks but all I can say is it's a convenient and affordable way to try out various old classic lenses without film processing.

[john falkenstine]

For me, its important that any camera I use works immediately when I want to use it, regardless of age. The gyrations many people go through to attach older lenses to newer cameras strike me as techno-exercises, similar to wanting to put cross ply tires on narrow rims on a newer car. True, many cheaper consumer lenses "might" be inferior to some older lenses, but Nikon for instance, offers an excellent kit lens with their D80, that more than likely works better than the vast majority of older lenses. DSLRs with their reflective sensors often need lenses with more sophisticated internal coatings to reduce ghosting. In the end its all about what rings your bell; playing with the camera itself, or actually using it to take pictures. To me, buying an expensive DSLR and then hanging an obsolete lens on the unit is just "not logical, Captain"

[gary_turner1]

Goodness....and I always thought I was taking & saving decent images with my DSLR that cost me all of $399 via close-out. Everyone has and is entitled to an opinion. Enough said.

[bueh]

Old manual focus lenses I use for special applications on my EOS 20D:

<p>

Super-fast 55mm f/1.2 lens (M42)

<br>Stellar Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 macro (Nikon F)

<br>Dirt-cheap "Hanimar" 300mm f/5.6 tele (M42)

<br>f/0.75 TV-Heligon in a custom EOS mount (non-focusing and macro-only)

<p>

I simply cannot and don't want to spend literally tons of money to get the EF lens equivalents. But for regular shooting, I agree, that modern autofocus lenses make more sense. The crop-factor <abbr title="digital single-lens reflex cameras">dSLRs</abbr>' viewfinders are not that great for critical manual focusing.

[alex macphee]

I don't go through any gyrations to attach my non-Canon lenses to my EOS. Neither do I consider my Zeiss Distagons, Sonnars, and Planars to be "obsolete". I have an adapter for each lens, and once the adapter is attached to the lens, it is mounted and used in exactly the same way as my Canon lenses. The adapted lenses are used in the traditional way since they are not autofocus lenses, however, my adapters are chipped and activate all the focus indicators on my Canon 10D and Canon EOS 5 (A2) so that I know when the subject is in focus exactly as I do when using a native Canon lens. There is no gyration involved. This is not a techno exercise, it is a way of using a fabulous range of lenses on more than one camera. My older lenses, such as Zeiss M42 lenses and my Pentax Takumars, can be used with perfect ease on my digital bodies using inexpensive chipped M42 adapters, and allow me to do exactly what these lenses were made for -- taking pictures. My digital camera may have been expensive, but the lenses hanging on it cost more than the DSLR.

[john falkenstine]

To each his own fer sure, but the initial cost of lens does not strike me a a lever to keep using it. I have some really nice older lenses as well, but I keep them matched to the original equipment or I just park them. Certainly for me, my favorite lenses are those fantastic Canon FD primes (even admitted by Leica as being as good or better than theirs) attached to my T90, but that's where they're going to stay. (BTW: shhhh, its after 1970, my morning shoot was done with my Olympus C8080 digital whose lens is absolutely terrific and firmly and permanently attached) :)

[alex macphee]

I'd agree with that, the cost of a lens is not a convincing rationale for keeping it. I've heard it said that the definition of quality is when you have long forgotten the cost, and remember only the value. I get superb results with a 50/1.4 Zeiss Planar attached to my 10D, and the P50 is an expensive lens, to be sure. I also get superb results from a CZ Jena 135mm Sonnar, which cost me GBP 10. The only justification for putting any lens, on any body, regardless of digital/film/wet collodion, is whether it does the job, yes, that's indisputable.

 

I should add that although I routinely attach my C/Y and M42 lenses to my 10D, I am primarily a film photographer, not a digital photographer, and that's out of choice. It's also the case that autofocus is not important to the kind of photography I do, so in essence, mount adapters simply let me do what I've always done. The adapters let me pack a Canon film body (the EOS 5) paired with the digital, instead of taking a Contax and Canon body, and swapping over adapters. Kyocera missed a trick there, but that's another (and sorry) story!

[kezia]

Thanks everyone for your thoughtful comments. The discussion has clarified my thinking a lot and I am now fairly sure that I would not have the patience to deal with the complications of finding adapters etc. that is involved. I have decided to concentrate on finding the DSLR I am most comfortable with and keeping my old lenses on an old film body with some black-and-white film in it. Since I don't use many lenses I'll be spending most of my energy finding the one or two new ones that suit my purposes and that provide the look I want. Since the compactness of my old combination was something I valued I am considering the Olympus E-410 with the 14-54 zoom. I am tempted by the Pentax K10D (for its weather sealing since I live in a high-dust area) but feel it may be too large and heavy for my needs.

[JDMvW]

I think that your conclusion is probably right, given that older technology won't have the additional internal reflection prevention, etc. that characterize new, made for digital lenses. I do think some of the responses, correct as they are, have given you a false impression of difficulties. You WILL want new, autofocus lenses, but your old lenses may still serve you faithfully.

 

If you do buy into Canon, almost any lenses made can be adapted for easy, though manual, use (ironically except for Canon FD lenses). A few mounts, like the Praktica B, are very hard to find adapters for, but the screw-mount, Nikon, and many other lens adapters are simple to find and cheap to buy. I even have an Exakta converter for my EOS camera. I have a Nikon perspective control lens and an f/1.2 lens that work beautifully on my Canon. It would be nice to have the new Canon f/1.2 AF lens, but I seem to have inexplicably misplaced the $1,400 it would cost.

 

However, one caution, at least one person (me) has had a camera completely shorted out by a focus confirmation adapter, so I'd stick with the old eye ball, just to be safe. The focus confirmation adapters are jury-rigged kludges produced by home industries in China and such like places.

[kezia]

Thanks, JDM, for the suggestions and warning. If I go the Canon route I'll have to check out lenses, because I don't think I'll be satisfied with their kit lens. The further I go the more complicated it gets. Still, at least we are at the point now where image quality is not the issue among the cheaper DSLRs that it was a few years ago.

[alex macphee]

If you go the Canon route, you will have a fairly easy option for lens adapters. Although you can get away with just the one adapter, in practical terms, it's better to have two or three, and use them on a one-per-lens basis when loading up for a photo outing, depending on how many manuals you'll want to carry. A couple of my adapters are 'chipped', which means that when I mount one of my manual-focus lenses using them, the focus indicators in the Canon viewfinder light up and the camera beeps when the subject is in focus. These adapters also allow a choice of metering modes on the Canon instead of just averaging. Since manual lenses tend to be faster, too, another advantage is the practical ability to use tele lenses at f/2.8 or even faster. Two stops on a long lens can be very handy indeed.

[JDMvW]

Actually, the little kit lens (18-55mm) is often maligned, but is really a fair lens as measured more objectively in a review by Popular Photography. Even so, it is definitely true that Canon make better lenses, but that's true of all the kit lenses whose major criterion for being what they are is to not add too much to the final cost of the 'kit,' after all. All you have to do to find a better lens is to ask on these forums (fora?). Then you will discover how easy it all is. Many people will rise up to tell you that pretty much any lens over $1500 is at least decent, and that, like the recommenders, you will only be happy if you cough up x thousand dollars for lens y.

 

Seriously, though, the lens is a critical component in the system. Other major factors are the issues of pixel number, noise, and the size of the prints you will make. Take these altogether in making decisions about which lens to buy. Unless you have some very special needs, figure spending about the same or slightly more for the main lens as you did for the camera itself. However, this does not need to be done all at once. The kit lens on any of these cameras is just fine while you are learning how to use the camera, even the little 18-55mm Canon EF-S. For only a little more than $200 bucks you can get both the kit 18-55mm and the other bargain, the cheaper of the two 75-300mm telephotos. These are NOT L class lenses, to be sure, but they are decent and will yield excellent results, especially if not pushed to their limits (shooting wide open at 300mm, for example).

 

By the way, the Jenaflex (I have a AM-1) and the other bayonet-mount Prakticas (I have a Bx20, Bx20s, B200 and a set of lenses) are really the last gasp of European camera making. They were remarkably good cameras and deserved better than fate alloted them. They represented a rebirth of quality production in the DDR after the dark days of the Praktica IV and Meyer Domiplans. Alas, too late.<div></div>