the " mistique: of lenses

[walter_degroot]

<p>There have been a few posts on using lenses from Classic Manual Cameras on newer<br>

and Digital slr bodies. The posters can be forgiven if they are short on funds and just want to use the older lenses on their newer cameras.<br>

But I seem to detect an "undertone" that implies that there is something special about these older lenses on a certain brand. the truth is far from it.<br>

The quality of these loved lenses really varies very little from camera brand to camera brand.,<br>

some lenes by third party makers may be poor to fait to good and even excellent.<br>

there was a posting a long while ago abpout "converting a FD lens for use on an EOS<br>

by taking off the mount and replacing it Taking a fine lens and converting it to an old fashioned manual lens.<br>

yes it is your camera part and you can do what you want. But it seems like a great shame.<br>

All the folks who want to put a old lens on a new pc that requires an adapter with an optical element-- they can be forgiven.<br>

those that innocently think most camera lens mounts are the same, they also can be forgiven<br>

as they usually are just seeking answers. But besided lack of money to buy a new lens, makes folks so bound to make<br>

something incompatible work? Others may get angry, there is very little difference<br>

between Leica, Nikon, Canon, olympus,or Pentax 50mm lenses.<br>

and possibly also slight differences with Ricoh, Petri, Mamiya or Miranda; and other normal lenses.<br>

Some lenses may be Dogs, but thinking one camera and lens will give you much better photos is a MYTH<br>

Cameras? that is a different story. Some were made to a price, or QC was lacking.<br>

But as long as they keep working the photos will not suffer.</p>

 

[starvy]

<p>All opinion is subjective, so shall agree to disagree!</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>second response<br>

the bod about the trusth is far from,,, was not in the original<br>

AND yes opinion is subjective<br>

and YES ther are some very doggy lenses,<br>

made to a price or lacking in any QC.<br>

Surprisingly the Soviet lenses seem to be fairly good-at least mechanicly and quite good optically.<br>

Must have different QC departments. I read the original Vivitar was is " formula 1" or something like that. But later distributors "playen on the name" and later lenses were not as good.<br>

I read that some unknow lenses were made by responsible companies.<br>

Kiron and Tokina and othere made some excellent procusts.<br>

The current trend with newer cameras is that a f/3/5-=f/4.5 ;ens is "<br />good enough" and some KIT mid range zoom lenses are the standard.<br>

So natuarally folks thend to think of olden days with sharp slide film and slower B&W film.<br>

They want to use those older lenses that worked so well back than.<br>

But that was NOT my point. it was there is REALLY a;most NO difference between well made normal lenses. and even lesser brand often have very sharp lenses.<br>

the secondary point is why get so hung up on a good old Nikon canon pentax lens<br>

that you try to use it where it will not fit.<br>

True, only Nikon and Pentax lenses will fit both film and digital bodies.<br>

Read the whole post. don't pick on one line or phrase.</p>

 

[capitalq]

<p>sorry, walter, but i respectfully have to disagree with you. not all lenses are created equal and not every brand is the same. if that were true, i wouldn't keep coming back to read the myriad posts in this Forum. 'nuff said.</p>

<p>as for finding a "correct" fit for a dSLR, it's quite easy to mount m42 or nikon glass and get infinity focus. i shoot HD video using various Takumars and (not only do they instantly make my boring dSLR way cooler) pulling focus and manually controlling aperture is a lot easier (and quieter) than the plastic modern lenses of today. equal to or far better than any kit lenses. </p>

<p>and not to mention the fact that i recently found out that they make micro 4/3 adapters for hexanon lenses. so why buy new plastic lenses which cost an arm and a leg when i can use my huge collection of fast glass from the Golden Age without any loss of image quality? with a relatively modest investment of $30 for an aluminum adapter from china, i can now shoot SR, m42, FD, Nikon and Hexanon glass. and so will my young son. frankly, i see a bright future for 'classic lenses' -- even the ones we used to consider orphaned. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>There's plenty of evidence of a hard and scientific nature that all lenses are by no means created equal.<br>

Some 'classic' (as a time period) lenses are so classic (as a measure of quality) that they deserve to live on. Their characteristics can be demonstrated on various media. Examples: certain Zeiss lenses from both sides of the Anti-Fascism Defense Wall.</p>

<p>When the topic of the post is the <em>lens</em>, not a camera body, I don't see that it should be necessary to shoot on film, develop, and then scan merely to discuss or demonstrate the optics of the lens. I have posted here (admittedly apologetically) with a classic lens on a modern digital body. At the time, most participants here seemed to accept that as not being totally infra dignitatem. I think that vast numbers of digital cameras here would be undesirable, but occasionally and to a <em>manual</em> purpose, it surely can be tolerated.<br>

I consider that Classic Manual Cameras implicitly includes "Classic Manual Lenses".</p>

 

[jodys]

<p>Well for the most part I can't tell them apart. I enjoy using quite a range of lenses in all formats, but I'll be a monkey's uncle if I can tell the difference between a Canon, Nikkor, Asahi, Hexanon, Rokkor or Zuiko prime, by looking at the photos. Or between a Schneider or Zeiss, if I want to go back a few more years.</p>

<p>I certainly have 'dogs' that have character, are worn out, scratched, or just plain poor quality. But aside from quality-control issues and poor maintenance, all things being equal there is no real difference as far as I can tell. I like the 'sharpness' of Canon, I like the color rendition of a Hexanon, I like Pentax and Schneider for B&W, but if you did a double-blind randomized test with a stack of photos I know there is no way I could sort the pile correctly. You could throw in a few photos from good P&Ss in the pile too, or something from the plastic wonders of the 90s, I doubt if I could even pull those out.</p>

<p>That's not to say I won't use a classic manual lens on a newer dSLR, but that's only because I don't much care for dSLRs and like having at least some control over what I'm doing.</p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Walter, the use of various brand lenses is not new to me. I've owned one Oly Pen F or another for near 40 years and it's 28.95mm flange to film distance absolutely invites adapting all manner of optics. Last week I adapted a newly aquired Leica 90mm f4 elmar lens head to a bellows setup that will focus from infinity to 1:1 on the Pen. Can still use it on my M4-2 also. As for my 'modern' DSLR, well it came out in 2007 so in digital years it's practically ready for the landfill. Still works good with OM, Pentax thread mount, and T mount lenses so.....untill the electronics pack it in and render it a door stop I'll just keep useing it. I get really nice results with a 135mm f3.5 Super Takumar on the DSLR, and unless I paid a fortune for a top of the heap digital specific lens I can't imagine getting better results.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>As you all know very well and don't need me to say -- but I'm saying it anyway -- there are a host of reasons why a picture works, is sharp, has bite and character, has pleasing contrast, rich colors (if you shoot color, me not so much) etc etc etc -- and the lens used is unquestionably one of these reasons. Some lenses are fantastic in one exposure/lighting situation and not very good in another. Film is a huge issue. Development. Scanning. Original exposure, of course. Composition, Mind. And on and on. But when someone who is scrupulous and knows what he is doing and has training tests a lens and concludes how many lines per mm it can distinguish at a given aperture and tests another lens and determines a difference, we should believe him. (Yes, or her.) And some lenses by this and other credible measures are simply BETTER than other lenses.</p>

<p>Truly great lenses stand out -- for instance, I have never seen a pleasing picture that I know of from the new hyper-sharp Summicron 35 ASPH and never seen one I didn't admire the interior qualities of (colork, sharpness, bokeh, etc) by the Summicron 75 ASPH. The 35 is a jagged and disturbingly perfect lens, to my eye. The 75 is beautiful. I own neither, not being rich. But I have shot a lot of MF Nikon and MF Minolta and I can tell you, with a couple of well known exceptions, the Minolta glass has better contrast and qualities of light and Nikon makes much much better cameras.</p>

<p>But all that said, in support of Walter, a good 50mm lens for a 35mm camera -- the Rokkors, the Zuikos, the Nikkors, the Takumars in SLRs, and the Leicas, Voigtlanders (modern CV that is), and the Canon RF in rangefinders, oh, and the Rokkor 40/1.7 too, on the Hi-Matic, which all together covers the normal lenses I've used -- would be pretty hard to tell apart on color print film at f/8. It's at f/2 and larger, on transparencies and good black and white print film, that they're fighting it out. And if you want to put them on a micro4/3 that's cool but the Lumix 14-45 and the Lumix 20/1.7 will pretty much equal or often surpass any of them on that format. Those are some kickass modern lenses. </p>

[colin carron]

<p>In my experience classic lenses are not all the same. I have not tried fixing any older lenses to a DSLR but instead used them with the cameras they came in. Possibly the sharpest was a 1950's Zeiss Opton 75mm in an Ikoflex II but I have tried cameras wiith all grades of lenses downwards from that right down to the fairly hopeless.<br>

<br />As far as I can see quality has varied as much in the past as it does today with some lenses top of the class and others at the bottom. In fact I think if you include zoom lenses from the past you get an even wider spread as many classic age zooms were horrible.</p>

[k5083]

<p>If I understand Walter's OP correctly, he was not talking so much about the range in quality (good/bad) of classic versus modern lenses. His point was that although there are good old lenses, there are also good new ones. His further point was that the good old lenses do not have special qualities not found in newer lenses, so (assuming you have access to good newer lenses) there is no point in adapting them. That is where I think his assumptions may be questionable.</p>

<p>Start with the fundamentals of lens design. There are a lot of optical performance measures by which a lens can be evaluated, including but not limited to sharpness, contrast, color rendition, flare control, light falloff, sharpness falloff, and all of the above wide-open as opposed to stopped down, or focused at close distances as opposed to far. Some of these parameters probably are at odds with each other and even if they weren't, it would be cost-prohibitive to maximize all of them in one lens. So the legend goes that different manufacturers, and perhaps different countries, characteristically focused on some performance parameters more than others. Certainly there is literature suggesting that different basic designs (e.g. tessar versus planar) optimize different parameters. This must have aesthetic consequences, even though it may be difficult for us to pin down how the design contributes to a lens's characteristic "look".</p>

<p>Among classic lens buffs there is a feeling that modern lenses by the major manufacturers, both OEM and third-party, have become very uniform in optimizing certain parameters that are perceived to correspond to some notion of consumer taste. Older lenses, it is believed, had more interesting variety. And so photographers seek to adapt these to their digitals in the hope of achieving these different looks. Of course it's possible that they are deluding themselves. But it is also at least possible that they might not be. </p>

[bj_larsson]

<p>I'm not sure how to read the initial post, but if August is correct in the interpretation, I'd have to agree ... to a point.</p>

<p>For instance, I can not tell the difference between an old manual focus Nikkor 50mm f1.8 E series or the 'modern' 50mm f1.8 AF-D Nikkor. </p>

<p>But I wouldn't take that too far. For instance, I really enjoy the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 AIS lens. But I wouldn't say that all 105 mm lenses are equal :)</p>

[walter_degroot]

<p>first let me thank august horvath for understanding<br>

my sometimes "not perfectly clear postings"<br>

I know he got an A+ in reading. others vary in responses. but one phrase stands out.<br>

---------------<br>

it's possible that they are deluding themselves.<br>

But it is also at least possible that they might not be.<br>

--------------------<br>

One thing that really TIC's me off is hacking FD lenses to force them to work on<br>

an eos. and I qualified my posting commenting:<br>

" if you cannot afford a lens, using an adarpter makes good sense.<br>

Not to start another thread but the Dollar is so low that inported lenses are very expensive.</p>

 

[jodys]

<p>To quote Kung Fu Panda, "There is no secret ingredient". That doesn't mean all soup is the same; it means that whatever makes you prefer one particular soup isn't magic, it's just the right combination of known ingredients.</p>

[peter_de_waal]

<p >Back in the 1980's when I worked as a cine camera technician we adapted a fair number of Canon and Nikon tele's to Arri PL mount, as very long focal lengths are outrageously expensive (over $20,000 each) if you bought proper cine Zeiss or Angenieux optics.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >We used film tests, a collimator, a projector, and a Zeiss MTF machine to test lenses before and after repair. The MTF was particularly useful in that it allowed objective testing of new Zeiss and other lenses on arrival, providing a suitable benchmark for results after repairs. Zeiss always included a sheet of paper with their Standard and Super-Speed lenses stating MTF values. Very useful. It allowed us to orientate replacement lens elements in such a way as to maximise light transmission.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >At the time I personally used a Nikon F and a Leica CL. Wondering if money could be saved by adapting still camera manufacturers' lenses in other focal lengths, I made up a number of adaptors and began testing many 35mm still camera manufacturers' lenses with film, the collimator, projector, and MTF machine.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I found that only German manufacturer's lenses had repeatable results, particularly Leica. The accuracy with which Leitz, Zeiss and the old German Voigtlander company ground their lens elements was un-matched by anything from Japan. Nikon were definitely the best of the Japanese companies, by a substantial degree. The German lens mounts were also more accurately manufactured.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would say that a 4-element German lens from the 1950's such as a Schneider, Leitz, Zeiss or Voigtlander would easily be the equivalent of a 6-element design from Japan in the 1960's.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If not for lens coating and the double-gauss design, the Japanese would never have been able to displace Germany. The Japanese were very lucky. The wiping of German optical patents after WWII allowed a century of work to be exploited at no cost.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Everybody wants a bargain, and that's what Japan delivered from the 1950's onwards.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >However, you won't see much of a difference if you restrict yourself to print making. You need to project transparencies 2 metres wide. Get a Leitz projector with a 90 Colorplan and test your lenses with slide film. Then you will see real differences in color rendition, edge sharpness and distortion levels.</p>

 

[User_4525289]

<p>I have got a Panasonic G10 an M39 adapter and tested 7 of my Industar-50 lenses along with 4 Jupiters-8 and 4 Industars-61 l/d. They ALL look sharper then the kit 14-42 zoom. I do not believe in progress anymore.</p>

[vince-p]

<p>Kozma -- for the record, the new 14-42 zoom has been denounced from all quarters and is supposed to be a very poor product. What's worse, it's inexplicable. What they had in the 14-45 that preceded it was a superb lens. Many professionals I know admired it. I have to believe they were out to save money but the older, better lens wasn't that expensive so how much money could they be saving? I would write to Panasonic and tell them your results and say you are very disappointed in the lens. This way perhaps they'll see the light and return to the other and vastly superior one.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p> 4-element German lens from the 1950's such as a Schneider, Leitz, Zeiss or Voigtlander would easily be the equivalent of a 6-element design from Japan in the 1960's.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>At equivalent apertures yes, but the Japanese lens would be f1.4/1.7/1.8 or f2 compared to the 4 elements' f2.8-3.5 - that is what those extra elements are for.</p>

[JDMvW]

<blockquote>

<p>If not for lens coating and the double-gauss design, the Japanese would never have been able to displace Germany. The Japanese were very lucky. The wiping of German optical patents after WWII allowed a century of work to be exploited at no cost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>However, the German and other European manufacturers did not start behind the others, they just didn't keep up.<br>

Those patents were released as war reparations, so it <em>is</em> ironical that the Japanese ended up the greatest beneficiary of the action of the Allied Control Commission.<br>

However, from that point, everyone, from British to American to Soviet, and yes, even German, makers started more or less even. I think that any objective (heh..) assessment has to recognize that a great deal more than "luck" was involved in the success of Japan after WWII. At first they did build copies, but the copies were often better than the originals they were based on. Then, very quickly, they went well beyond the "prototypes" to real innovation.<br>

Something like the new Canon TS-E 17mm lens demonstrates how far beyond those old "double Gauss designs" we have come since.</p>

<p>Although I will specify that the Biotar and some of the Sonnars were triumphs of much more <em>human</em> design, than our current designs that reflect computational power beyond the dreams of the 1930s Zeiss Ikon designers. It is surely an example of how trial and error and persistence of the successful in cultural evolution can mimic natural (and artificial) selection in biology. :)</p>

[seth_.]

<p>Fact is, many pre-war lenses are uncoated. I'm not sure I've heard of any modern ones (say within the last 10 years) that are the same way.<br>

The retro-fits I've seen have been done by people wanting to emulate certain qualities that the old lenses have.<br>

If you want a sharper image, then of course, there's no point going backwards, when a big part of the technology is aimed at getting perfect colour-balance and contrast (for example)<br>

A friend of mine made a movie set in the 1930s, using modern movie cameras (Red). My first response to him was that he should have mounted some of those old lenses on the front of his camera.<br>

If you're actually trying to emulate the old images, the result with modern lenses just isn't the same - too sharp/modern looking, despite every little detail of wardrobe and set being attended to.<br>

What makes the noise of a flathead V8? Nothin but a flathead V8.</p>