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

[pjmeade]

<p>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.<br>

The only additional kit I've had to buy was the cable release and a couple of filters for shooting BW.</p>

 

[ann_overland]

<p>Peter, can it use both the FD and the EF lenses?</p>

[CoryAmmerman]

<p>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 <em>does</em> make a 45mm lens <em>(I don't need another lens, I don't need another lens, I don't need another lens, I don't need another lens).</em> </p>

[ann_overland]

<p>LOL!</p>

[david_carroll4]

<p>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</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>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.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>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.</p>

[ann_overland]

<p>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.</p>

[prudhomme]

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

[jeff_sudduth]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Since there are a lot of you guys out there that <em>are using</em> or <em>has been using</em> 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?<br>

The intention of the thread is to learn as much as possible about 35mm camera and lenses, and have it as a <strong>guidance for future gear shopping</strong> :-)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

[andylynn]

<p>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.</p>

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

<p>Now if you made the mistake of buying a bunch of cropped sensor lenses then you may have problems.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That's how I ended up with the F100. Same lens compatibility as a Nikon DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is very convenient. An advantage indeed, Andy.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A little private film camera/lens/flash collection is what I want.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why not? :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And if you want to collect wouldn't you want to buy mint?!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br>

<br /> Each have their own criterias for their personal colletions.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>If they were mint I wouldn't use them. Cameras get marks when I use them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When the collection consists of film cameras and film camera lenses, you don't buy the digital lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[Brian]

<p>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.</p>

[ann_overland]

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

[ann_overland]

<p>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?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>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.</p>

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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. </p>

[andylynn]

<p>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.</p>

[ann_overland]

<blockquote>

<p>You mean on eBay?</p>

</blockquote>

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

<blockquote>

<p>....it doesn't occur to them that the lenses are important.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can say that again! Even if you ask them about <em>what</em> 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.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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?!</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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. <strong>A lot of the time the best deals are from people who do not fully understand what they have on their hands.</strong> 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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

 

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[steve m smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, you need to distinguish "the film days"</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br /><br />For many of us, that refers to the past, present and future.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"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?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Zooms in general are much better now than in the film-only days.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>