An unexpected result of the popularity of mirrorless cameras...

[rpcrowe]

Mirrorless cameras can easily be adapted to work with virtually any lens, although most often this will be in the manual focus mode and there will be no electronic connection between lens and camera, so you have to select the f/stop on your lens.

However with the modes for manual focus like zoomed in focus and focus peaking, using a manual focus lens is actually easier with a mirrorless camera than with a DSLR...

This has resulted in the upsurge in popularity of "vintage lenses" especially those with an M-42 mounts.

While manual focus lenses are quite nice for a lot of video work, I personally would not use an M-42 manual focus/exposure lens for anything but special effects in stills.

The lens which certainly has special effects that cannot be duplicated in Photoshop is the Russian Helios 58mm f/2 which when shot wide open produces a swirly bokeh which photographers either love or hate. I personally think that this swirly bokeh is pretty cool for people and just might be really nice for pictures of my white fluffy dogs.

The 58mm lens on a 1.5x crop camera produces an 87mm effective focal length which is pretty nice for head and shoulders portraits while the f/2 aperture of that lens allows shooting head and shoulders portraits with really narrow DOF increasing the swirly bokeh rendition.

Another series of lenses which are becoming popular are the "Bubble Bokeh" lenses from Fujinon and other manufacturers such as Pentacon.

It would be fun to just play with some of these lenses and despite the fact that their prices are going up, they still wouldn't break the bank to own one or even a couple...

I remember when you could hardly give away lenses like the screw mount Pentax Takumar's but, these lenses along with the Russian Helios are gaining in popularity along with a surge in prices.

[pschlute]

The advantages of zoomed focus and focus peaking are available now on any DSLR that has Live View capability. Admittedly this is not through the viewfinder of course.

I find when I use the camera on a tripod I use Live View and 100% zoom for manual focusing all the time.

[DanK]

The advantages of zoomed focus and focus peaking are available now on any DSLR that has Live View capability.

Zoomed focus, yes, but I think some don't have focus peaking. As far as I can tell, my 5DIII doesn't.

[rpcrowe]

Although I do like live on my Canon 6D2, it is not an all-around panacea. I personally have problems viewing the LCD ion bright sunlight. Adding a SWIVI viewfinder helps but, that really adds bulk (but not a lot of weight) to the camera.

I enjoy using the eye level viewfinder and that is where the mirrorless camera comes to the front. With a Sony A6500 and Canon m-50 (and possibly many other mirorless cameras) there is the option of eye level viewing with manual focus which has the zoomed in capability and focus peaking. Additionally, these two cameras, and perhaps others, allow you to select a focus point with an AF lens by dragging the thumb on the LCD while viewing through the viewfinder.

[pschlute]

Yes Richard I can see the features of the EVF being extremely useful. I must try out a mirrorless at some point.

[billtils]

Another result, but not so unexpected, is the drop in prices of good quality digital bodies.

[Manfred M]

There have been some interesting reports about how some high end lenses, especially ones from the film camera days, that do not give optimal results on cameras that they were not designed for. Roger Cicala of Lenrentals has written three articles on this (about 4 years ago) covering of what and why this happens. Much of this is a result of the optical stack in front of the sensor. The articles are extremely technical and here is a link to the last one. The others can be found on that website as well.

Sensor Stack Thickness Part III: The Summary

The upshot is that wide angle lenses and fast lenses tend to be the worst performers although other lenses can also give sub-optimal results. Sometimes the problem can be partially resolved by stopping the lens down a few stops and other times it cannot be. MFT cameras (Panasonic and Olympus) are particularly problematic with their 2mm thick optical stack.

I suspect that the majority of these lens purchases neither know nor care...

I did do some testing when I bought my Panasonic GX7 (MFT) a number of years ago and bought a Leica and Nikon adapter. The image quality was definitely not as good in my limited testing.

[Hanginon]

...and most of the WYSIWYG advantages of mirrorless are shooting with available light. Still going to have to do chimping with flash, albeit it can hopefully be done in the EVF.

[rpcrowe]

Manfred, I totally agree that we cannot expect the pristine quality that some of the older top line glass produced on film cameras. In other words, this is not a cheapo fix which will give us Leica rangefinder quality at a fraction of the cost. I would not expect to use the vintage lenses for day to day shooting. Lens manufacturers have spent large sums of money to produce the modern auto focus lenses that we use now and I will stick with these for the best quality imagery.

However some of these older lenses have optical flaws which produce unique results. A very unique (but, certainly not the only) example of this is the Russian produced Helios 58mm f/2 lens which has an optical flaw producing a very distinct coma aberration in the OOF edges of the frame. This results in a swirling pattern bokeh which some folks hate but, others are quite fond of...

https://www.google.com/search?q=58mm...w=1280&bih=615

I personally like this effect for certain shots but, realize that (like any other special effect) it can easily be over used.

I have been in communication with a group of traditional Indian (not native American but, the effect would work for these also) musicians, singers and dancers. I think that the swirl bokeh might work for portraits of these artists. The swirl bokeh is nice for head and shoulders portraits with my soon to arrive Sony A6500.

The 58mm focal length was quite common for lenses deigned for early film SLR cameras because the distance between the back of the lens and the focal plane would provide room for the mirror to swing. However, on a crop sensor camera like the A6500, a 58mm focal length will provide an equivalent 87mm which is a great focal length for portraits.

There are several other lenses with optical flaws which lend themselves to creative photography. However, as I said, a ittle of this can go a long way.

Speaking about using manual focus with a camera that allows focus peaking. I read a recommendation to shoot JPEG + RAW and to have the B&W mode selected for the JPEG. This will produce a B&W image on the LCD or in the EVF which will enhance the colored in-focus confirmation of focus peaking. The RAW image, of course, will not be impacted by the B&W selection, only the JPEG.

There is another feature of the older lenses which were designed for SLR cameras, the preset f/stop in which you can select a designated f/stop, open the lens all the way for focusing and then stop down the lens for shooting without having to look at the lens or count clicks. This is one of the features from the 1930's and 1940's that would certainly benefit modern manual focus lense usd on a DSLR. The way the lenses like the Rokinon's, etc. work is pre-1930's technology. Just fine for mirrorless but really sucky for DSLR shooting when you need to focus wide open...

[Manfred M]

Richard - when it comes to some of the specialty lenses including the new issues by companies like Lomography (a reissue of the famed Petzval 58mm lens), Meyer Optik reissue of the 100mm and 50mm Trioplan, etc. I agree.

My point was aimed at the folks who are looking at thinking they can pick up a bargain priced lens and get stunning images. That might be the case, but some research is needed first in order to not be disappointed.

[DanK]

Even more relevant to many of us is whether one would experience much loss of quality using modern lenses with adapters on bodies for which they were not designed, given differences in the thickness of stacks. I'm guessing not, since the within-brand variation in stack size in his first, incomplete table is almost as great as the between-brand.