what legacy lenses do you have and how do you draw the line at having enough

[andrew_spence1]

<p>hi all<br>

With all the choices of interesting manual focus older legacy lenses out there to chose from<br>

How many legacy lenses have you got for your m 4/3 and how do you draw a line at having enough<br>

how did you chose them and do you use them much<br>

and finally what would recommend and why<br>

I am genuinely interested on your thoughts on this <br>

regards Andrew</p>

[BelaMolnar]

<p>I never draw a line, just bought a new second cabinet for the ever growing lenses and cameras, since 1965.<br /> It is no limit, it all happen, what you want, what do you like to have, what you need or not, its all depend on you valet and the size of your glass cabinet. Apropos! And on your wife.<br /> Cheers.</p>

[david_smith110]

<blockquote>

<p>How many legacy lenses have you got for your m 4/3...<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>None. But I have a lot for my E mount cameras. :)<br>

<br>

As Bela said there is really no need to draw a line. It is up to an individual to decide what they 'need' or 'want'. I think though there is a tipping point where the lenses you have become a collection of old glass rather then just a group of old lenses that you use on a regular basis. Nothing wrong with that of course. I had a collection of old lenses for a while then made the decision to pare them down to what I mostly use all the time.<br>

<br>

For a long time Minolta Rokkors were my favorite old lens line. But they have been supplanted by the Yashica ML lenses. There is just something about the way those old Tomioka made ML's render that I really love. I can definitely recommend them. I currently own and use the following lenses as my main kit.<br>

<br>

ML 28/2.8<br>

ML 35/2.8<br>

ML 50/1.7<br>

ML 55/4 Macro<br>

RMC Tokina 17/3.5 (in CY mount)<br>

Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 58/2 (in M42 mount)<br>

<br>

I use these with my A7 and my speedbooster enabled NEX 7. So I have effectively 2 full frame 24pm cameras in my bag along 6 primes and various filters and extension tubes. And it is a fairly small bag. I can also take the speedbooster off the NEX 7 to get the crop back and turn the ML 50/1.7 into an ML 75/1.7 which makes a nice portrait lens.<br>

<br>

Yashica ML lenses are well made and come with really good coatings. You dont see them as much as some other brands and I like that to. I also like that they are considered to be a more 'budget' option to the Contax Zeiss glass that was also made in CY mount, although nothing could be further from the truth. I dont believe that any of my photographs would have been 'better' had I used the Zeiss equivalent to the ML lens I was using at the time. Yashica ML lenses will always live in the shadow of their Zeiss brothers but they are not in any way inferior. You can see many examples from these lenses (and others) here.<br>

<br>

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/<br>

<br>

There are also a lot of shots from my Minolta lenses there. Minolta was one of only a couple of companies that controlled every part of their lens creation process, from melting sand to make the glass to assembling everything in house. It shows in the quality of their product.</p>

[SCL]

<p>WWWAAYY too many...but in my defense, I have the (film & digital) cameras they belong to as well, and they get used there also. Today, for instance, I put a 1954 Leitz Elmar 50/3.5 on my OLY E_PL2 as I took a dose of my own medicine to others who run out of inspiration, by forcing myself to shoot in my kitchen in the midst of a dreary, cold rainstorm....B&W only, full aperture, nothing rearranged, and create a good slideshow out of the results! I've tested every legacy lens I own against its equivalents, and generally know which one to grab to achieve the results I want...and I have a blast doing it! Having said that...I do periodically trim back on duplicative legacy lenses....keeping the best for my needs (I too sold my Zeiss C/Y lenses and kept my equivalent Yashica ML ones). I love the heft and mechanics of legacy lenses (and cameras)...but to be keepers, they must get out and be properly exercised, not just sit on shelves.</p>

[andylynn]

What do you mean by "enough"?

[aplumpton]

<p>Assuming interests that are purely photographic as opposed to collecting, "enough" is probably somewhere between 3 and 6. That is a personal viewpoint and based on a single mount type and one or two camera bodies. For me, any more than that would be indulging a fetish and not a photographic approach. Indeed, you can go very very far with only one or two prime lenses.</p>

<p>The following older optics that I have found to be exemplary are a 21mm f3.5 Yashica ML lens (avoid Yashica MD optics which are not of the high quality of the ML series), a 100 mm Vivitar Series 1 f2.5 short telephoto lens with macro capability, and (for M mount rangefinders) a 50 mm f2, c1980, Leica Summicron lens (a beautiful performer).</p>

[Brad_]

>>> what legacy lenses do you have and how do you draw the line at having enough ... I am genuinely

interested on your thoughts on this.

 

None. Yet I still make photographs. Have no idea how that can possibly happen.

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Most of what I actually use would fit in two small bags and a Domke F6. Hardly makes sense to keep half a dozen large plastic tubs full of stuff I've been lugging around for over 20 years but rarely use. I need more room for my photos, rather than for equipment.</p>

<p>The Nikon V1's 2.7x factor gives a boost to my compact short telephotos like the 85/2 AIS and 105/2.5 AI Nikkor. Even my old 24/2.5 Tamron Adaptall was useful on the V1 last year... once, for a concert. These smaller primes are a handy size for my small Lowepro Off Trail waist bag. I don't often use them but they don't take up much room.</p>

<p>But most of my older lenses show a lot of chromatic aberration on digital cameras so it's a tradeoff between using what I already have and the additional editing chores. I'm not a serious birder or wildlife photographer and don't get much use from most of my lenses longer than around 100mm. I should probably just sell or trade them toward something I actually would use.</p>

<p>I recently had to temporarily store most of my photo equipment at a friend's home while our apartment complex was undergoing some intrusive maintenance on short notice. It was a huge hassle and an imposition on my friend, especially for a bunch of stuff I seldom use anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_s]

<p>For what it's worth, Brett Weston used to say you don't want to have too many lenses, because they start to get in the way of your photography. I sort of understand what he means.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Probably 5 covers it - a good coated Tessar type, a good coated 6-element "double-Gauss" (AKA "plasmat") such as a Summicron, a quirkier double-Gauss or Sonnar type (like a Jupiter 3), a good uncoated 4-element (like a pre-war 5cm Elmar) and a quirkier uncoated lens like a Summar. Of course there are genuine optical reasons for having more, for example to compare different generations of Leitz Summicrons - beyond that, you're a collector (but why not?).</p>

[dave_s]

<p>A double-Gauss is not a plasmat. Your Summicron and most other fast normal lenses for 35mm cameras are double-Gauss designs. Plasmats are nearly always large format lenses, and they're usually limited to f/5.6.</p>

[laur1]

<p>My line was drawn by my curiosity. I was curious about many lenses, tried a bunch, got disappointed by some, surprised by others, and after a while I did not see much point in legacy lenses. At this moment, I am no longer hunting for any legacy lens and I have a bunch I would sell if only I could find buyers. The ones I still enjoy using are Soviet lenses - some are copies of Zeiss designs and some are original designs.</p>

<p>I started looking into legacy lenses while using a Pentax APS-C DSLR. Since I started using a MFT camera, I got very few legacy lenses - mainly rangefinder ones that I was not able to use before on a DSLR. My most notable late acquisitions were a Jupiter 9 and a Jupiter 11. <a href="http://laurphoto.blogspot.com/search/label/lens%20reviews">Here's a list of most of the stuff I tried</a> - some of them I sold, some I still have and the list mixes both modern and legacy lenses.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>A double-Gauss is not a plasmat.</em><br>

English speakers tend to say "double-Gauss", Europeans say "plasmat" (hence my "AKA"), for example:<br>

http://www.bolexcollector.com/lenses/40meyer.html<br>

Within a short time of the appearance of the first Leica in 1925, Meyer offered a conversion to take an f1.5 Kino-Plasmat; the "plasmat" design may have started out as an f5.6 design for large format, but it didn't stay that way forever!</p>

[machts gut]

<p>I had a couple of Rokkors and some Zuikos. Sold my Minolta stuff and kept the Zuikos with my OM-1n, which I still use frequently. My experience with old lenses on m4/3 cameras are mixed. I have a 2.8/100 Zuiko, which is a fine performer on my film cam, but soft and not as sharp on my G3 or PL-1. It needs to get stopped down and then a modern tele zoom is more convenient to use and even sharper. The Zuiko 2.8/35 shows much CA. I kept a 1.7/50 MD Rokkor for it's compactness and it performs o.k.. Use it sometimes for travelling. And I use a MC 1.4/50 Zuiko (one of the higher serial numbers), that I love very much. It's shows a very nice bokeh and is pretty sharp. The 3.5/50 macro Zuiko is also very good, but I hardly ever do macro.<br>

But like Lex said: I need more space for photos than for equipment.</p>

[joe_allebaugh]

<p>Too many to use each of them regularly here, and they have become as much a collection as a flexible resource of options. Lenses have certainly held value much better than bodies.</p>

[dennis_w3]

<p>I'm new to this, having just recently bought a used Nex 5N. It's so much fun that I have Nex 7 on the way. I use Topcon (RE Auto Topcor) almost exclusively, although I found a mint Canon 85 mm f1.8 in an antique shop in Florida. My Topcors are the range from 20 mm to 300 mm, about 10 lenses, so I'm all set. The adapters are so available that I'll probably pick up other brand legacy glass when I find those of interest. </p>

[harveysteeves]

<p>I buy whatever lens piques my interest if I can find it for the right price. Its why I have a basement and live in a relatively dry climate.</p>

[carbon_dragon]

I find myself with a dual viewpoint. For actually going around taking pictures, I like Leica M lenses though I have few (35.2

ASPH and 50/2 Summicrons and 90/4 elmar). Its the quality and the size mostly.

 

But I love trying a variety of lenses and I've tried old Rokkers, Kyocera Contax SLR lenses, Old Zeiss RF lenses, and so

on. The ones that perform the best in my informal use (besides leicas) are the Contax SLR lenses. It suffers from the 1.5

crop factor though because I don't have a 35. I use my 28 as a normal lens in Contax. Also the lenses are heavy relative

to the lightweight NEX bodies. But there is a special pleasure using a cheap lens such as a russian or the Leica summitar

and seeing what happens.

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>For a photographer, legacy lenses serve several purposes. A small collection of 3-6 can provide a wide range of optical qualities one can draw on for various photographic purposes. Macro's, soft focus, high speed, tilt-shift's, ultra-wide's and super-tele's all fall into this category. These, less often used optics, can be found for quite a bit less money than their modern AF counterparts and are useful when the need arises. If manual focusing is actually your preferred approach for the types of subjects and circumstances you like to shoot, certainly many standard, good quality MF lenses can be employed for everyday type shooting. </p>

<p>The other purpose of legacy lenses is optical curiosity and play. Playing with lenses is sometimes looked down on by more serious practitioners but it represents a legitimate way to enjoy picture making by exploring the various properties of lenses from across the spectrum of time and optical design. Let me say this loudly: <strong>It's OK to play with photography.</strong> It's OK to have fun trying different lenses out and is limited only by your time, wallet and interest. Most of these explorations will be short-lived, some will yield poor or unexpected results. Some of these lenses will be so good they may find their way to the first category. The effort can be both enjoyable and educational.</p>

<p>I would start with a few basic, inexpensive, Japanese primes lenses and see how you like them. Proceed from there.</p>

<p> </p>

[darin_cozine]

<p>I am going to go a diferent route and say 1 or two legacy lenses.<br>

Just ask yourself what you gain in a legacy lens. <br>

1. fast. A 50mm f1.4 or even f1.8 can be expensive to buy new. A legacy lens fills this need nicely. <br>

wide? no. The crop factor on m4/3 or aps-c makes it less desireable to use an adapted lens.<br>

Tele? not really. For good telephoto, you really want the stabilization, AF and auto stop-down of the system lenses. I did use a pentax 70-210mm f4 on my NEX 3 recently, but had varying results. <br>

fun? absolutely. I rigged up a lensbaby type setup and enjoyed it.</p>

 

[Jochen_S]

<p>Dunno. I honestly lost count of some of the "usual" 35mm SLR stuff I piled up back in the days and "just in case".<br>

I'm in the middle of my 2.5th attempt of running up Rangefinder hill and thought a complimentary Fuji X-M1 might be handy a) to substitute the 2nd & 3rd DRF with its kit zooms, b) to handle what the M8 probably can't. - So my list of planned legacy glass to try out (once I'll get hold of adapters) is 135mm Elmar, 50mm DR 'cron maybe the heavy 90mm 'cron on a monopod too. - I'd also love to try Russian stuff like 85 & 50mm f2,0 (from my first attempt with RFs) that isn't supposed to couple well with the Leica RF. - I doubt the wider lenses I have to deliver decent results on Fuji, but I'll see. There are a CV 15mm, Zeiss 21mm f2.8 and a 35mm f2.0 Hexar. - While x-mount adapters seem to go for 11 Euro, a proper 28mm finder for the Zeiss would cost a pretty penny.<br>

I plan to get a k-mount adapter too but guess I won't use it much. - I know I can't focus wides on SLRs for good and my Sigma 14mm & Soligor 20mm should be way worse than the RF counterparts. Maybe Kiron 28mm and Pentax 35mm, both f2.0, are handy and the Tamron 90mm could be used for something. - And yes the collection of k-mount 135mms is a stop faster than the Elmar. But I didn't like using them on the semi native crippled k-mount DSLRs either and have a basic AF lenses kit for those.<br>

For me legacy glass is more a makeshift solution than fullfillment. - Anyhow my guess on "how much is enough?" - 3 different focal lengths in each "field" aren't much. - Maybe you 'll need 6 somewhere too?<br>

Fields to cover: "at least something"- Typical candidates besides of course kit zooms would be the various T2 telephotos 400mm f6.4 etc.<br>

Male and female portrait lenses 35, 50, 90 (&135?)mm each.<br>

"killer lenses" Makroelmarit R etc. - full range desirable. - existance of wides questionable and of course overlay with the "male portrait" lenses.<br>

"tilt / shifts"<br>

"Dispensable lenses for playing in the sandbox" - You obviously need a dedicated body for each of these you'll take out at once. But its really a good idea to mount a 8 Euro @ fleamarket lens to shoot your kid spraypainting their car...<br>

summary: 7 portrait lenses, at least 3 dispensable ones (10), the "at least something"s = 5 wides, (4 portrait lenses left out), 3 really long ones (18) and maybe 3 tilt shifts so we are at to 2 dozen legacy lenses in total? And I haven't counted the maybe interesting fields of old zooms and un- (or barely) coated legends yet, so we might be at 3 dozen lenses in total? - Assuming one has the "right" MILC to use all of these. - Everything up to maybe a 35mm @ f2.8 can be used zone focussed. the rest shouts for more than just a rear LCD.<br>

I don't have all of these yet and I am really not sure if I am seriously hunting them down. - I have a bigger desire to get a "as functional as possible" kit together. - Right now I am sitting on the fence sytems wise and should probably try to get comfy up there while figuring out what I have in my bag.<br>

I clearly see the appeal in legacy glass for occasional use on rather static subjects and also the thrill of "budget measurbation". - Its a hobby, so whats wrong if the chase is better than the catch?<br>

I see a huge difference between grabbing (parts of) another shelf queen and shopping rabiedly for legacy glass. - I never understood why folks hunted down (and started bidding wars over) the old 80-200 f2.8 manual focus zooms when Pentax DSLRs hit the market. Sure, "everybody else" shoots a 80-200 f2.8 but those folks have AF & VR for theirs. Also no 700 Euro used RF lens can be as good as a new Fuji prime with the camera applying all needed postprocessing magic silently in the background while it writes the JPG. - For me even the Pentax AF justified purchasing the AF version of lenses I liked enough to want them in my default bag. So in my eyes something legacy should either be already at hand or at least look like a way cheaper alternative. Only in the tilt shift field I don't understand the appeal of such glass on DSLRs - which weren't made for focusing it - at all.</p>