'Old Glass' on DSLR

[inkista]

snap.



Much cruddier camera, though. (XT/350D).

[GrahamS]

Snap again!

[inkista]

Yeah, but that's an AI lens (note holes in the bunny ears up top).

And snap again.

[GrahamS]

Yeah, but that's an AI lens (note holes in the bunny ears up top).

Actually, it's an Ai converted lens.

[inkista]

Actually, it's an Ai converted lens.

You mean whoever converted the lens also drilled the holes in the bunny ears? Wow. That's seriously detail-oriented.

[Bobobird]

I know nothing of lens but can tell you one thing.

Many of the old time photographers I know (have been at it 30-40 years) use only old glass. Not the cheapie throwaway stuff but really good Zeiss, Leica lens that are no longer in production. Some have switched to the Sony NEX for walkaround work and get super results with these lens.

Odd thing is these guys have hundreds of lens as each time I see them they are using something different.

One guy who shoots only flowers is pretty strange - he gets an old lens, uses it a few days, sells it and gets another. He has even found an AF mount for the Sony NEX.

[dav3g]

I too am using Mamiya 645 glass on my D7000 and have found the results to be most wonderful, especially with the 80mm 2.8 and the 120mm F4.

[WingHo]

Hi. I am a newbie here.
I’ve been looking for suggestions how to make good use to all those Nikon F2s and Old Glass.
Nikon F2 w Light Meter
Nikon F2 w Prisms
Nikon MD1w MB1
Nikkor-S auto 55mm 1:1.2
Nikkor-PC auto 105mm 1:2.5
Nikkor-QC auto 200mm 1:1.4
Nikkor WA auto 28mm 1:3.5
Vivitar Marco Zoom 75-205 1:3.8MC
Tokina TelePhoto 400mm 1:6.3

Hate to sell them cheap.
Thanks in advance.
My photo link:http://www.flickr.com/photos/7985153@N06/

Wing Ho

[WingHo]

snap.



Much cruddier camera, though. (XT/350D).

Hi inkista.
Noticed your photo. Just wondering how differcult to mount that Nikor 55mm onto Canon and how were the photos came out.
Thanks
Wing Ho

[jcuknz]

Kathy Li ... MF SLR lenses on a mirrorless look incongruously large, and make all the combos pretty damn nose-heavy,

If you hold the camera by the body with both hands this statement is correct. But if you use the left hand to support the lens then it becomes a very nice balanced rig. I do this with the Lumix 014140 on both my G3 and GH2 and it works well. I have been supporting the lens with my left hand since I started using SLRs.

[inkista]

... Just wondering how differcult to mount that Nikor 55mm onto Canon and how were the photos came out.

Pretty easy. Just added a Fotodiox adapter ring, and the photos came out pretty good.



I didn't keep the lens, though, because I thought it might have thorium in it, and swapped it for an Olympus OM-mount 50/1.2 instead.

If you hold the camera by the body with both hands this statement is correct. But if you use the left hand to support the lens then it becomes a very nice balanced rig. I do this with the Lumix 014140 on both my G3 and GH2 and it works well. I have been supporting the lens with my left hand since I started using SLRs.

Oh, I always do the SLR hold, too (habits of 30 years are hard to break), and agree you can use it. But I gotta tellya, it still feels freaking ridiculous and nose-heavy to put any of my Canon Ls on my DMC-G3. Particularly the 400/5.6L. You are not holding the camera, you are holding the lens. The Panasonic Lumix lenses are just a much nicer fit. I went to m4/3 for the smaller size and lighter weight. Slapping SLR lenses on negates that advantage.

And let's face it, a Lumix 14-140 for four-thirds is still quite a bit smaller/lighter than a more traditional designed-for-film/full-frame SLR lens.

[John Morton]

I didn't keep the lens, though, because I thought it might have thorium in it, and swapped it for an Olympus OM-mount 50/1.2 instead.

Kathy, are those lenses the ones which can undergo a color change over time? I remember reading something about that quite a long while ago...

[ajohnw]

Talk about miss balance. You should see some of the telephoto lenses I have tried on an Olympus E-PL1. E-P3 too which is bigger but still much smaller than a dslr. I always hold the lens. What I have found is that the heavier long lenses get very difficult to focus and hold sufficiently steady for the Pen's images stabilisation to cope hand held seated or "squatted". The focusing problems are down to the electronic view. I have had some success with a 500mm mirror lens but even the better examples of that wont match a good conventional 500mm lens. A decent result from that is this one. Untouched, The dark part of the head is really a Pen problem and could be recovered. Often it's to easy to miss focus on a Pen or even keep the subject in the frame if it's moving as at this distance. The 7x magnified view is needed for focusing. It's interesting to note that the doughnuts only occur around small items of rubbish in the shot. Sign of a good mirror lens.



Where I think old lenses are useful is for portrait and macro focal lengths. A 50mm standard lens can make a good portrait lens on aps or even 4/3. Using them on EOS or 4/3 cameras is easy what ever the make as adapters are available. AF confirm is available for EOS's. Not for 4/3 so far. AF is often dubious for macro work and in the case of a Pen all I could use would be the Panasonic macro lens that has a rather close working distance. I use a Pentax 100mm F4. This is the sort of thing that can achieve couldn't clean the window



and this is a full res crop



Focusing these at 7x mag was fun. Easier on a dslr. As far as AF lenses go I have found that close up lenses and extensions tubes often mess up AF.

Older lenses do have a bit of a problem. Contrast. Coatings and reduction of internal reflections have improved dramatically in fairly recent years. Full frame lenses from around the film to digital switch over may be the best option in this respect.. I tested one fairly thoroughly out of curiosity. A Tokina SD 35-200mm zoom. SD stands for super low dispersion so it is representative of a modern lens. It's also unusual in that it has good resolution through it's entire range. Couple of shots at each end.

35mm F4


200mm F8 (F8 to make focusing easier really Pen again and it's very slightly out. A crop would show that)


And this is a test image as the sensor sees it. The crossed mark pixel boundaries True raw. Wide open, 200mm at a distance of about 25-30m. The focal depth at that distance is about 120mm at pixel size. There is vertical blur due to the shutter introducing shake. The horizontal blur is abou 2 to 2 1/2 pixels which isn't too bad really and probably includes some shake. The light scattering can be seen in the pixels making up the GB. There was a shadow across it. A crop on a screen would show the GB letters about 15mm tall.



This one is an older Olympus zoom at 150mm. Constant F5 2 touch that remains in focus when zoomed. Has a tripod bush so little if any shake this time. Very heavy lens as it uses conventional glasses.



And last but not least a Panasonic 40-200 at 150mm. No tripod bush so probably slight vertical shake.



Not fair really as I know that the lens is worse at 200mm from using it generally but the increase in contrast can be seen. Most zoom have problems at max focal length other than maybe those with a restricted range.

This will probably bore you all to death.

-

[WingHo]

Thanks inkista your reply and other's info. I'll keep on reading.
Wing Ho

[inkista]

Kathy, are those lenses the ones which can undergo a color change over time? I remember reading something about that quite a long while ago...

Yes. The radioactivity of the thorium can cause the glass to yellow over time. Dosing it with UV (sticking the lens in sunlight or under a UV lamp) can put enough energy back in to reverse the decay and clear up the yellow. Or so they say. I just didn't want to deal with it after the word "radioactive" came into the conversation. Even if, rationally, I'd probably get a higher dose from eating a banana than I would shooting with the 55/1.2.