Whatever gives it the most beautiful and unique perspective: I’ve scrubbed up most of my lenses from thrift stores, The Pentax 50mm blessed me me to get some great photography of Blanca,Pursuing JC, Micah Tyler, and Dante Bowe at this years River Rock in Bethel ME.
I noticed that A was the Pentax due to a little bit of blooming in the highlights. That being said, I love the look of it. I shoot with a Helios 44 all the time even though I have a Fuji 56mm f1.2. Vintages lenses are just... fun to use.
Wait a minute! You mounted the Pentax lens on your speed booster! Once you did that, fair optical comparison between the lenses is impossible. The speed booster has optics of its own. Those optics will invariably influence the image. It will work better with some lenses than others, but it will always have an effect. The 50/1.7 is a highly respected lens for contrast, sharpness and bokeh among contemporaneous 50s, which as a group are some of the sharpest and best corrected lenses of the film era. The tell for me that something was amiss was when you talked about the Pentax lens's much lower contrast. The Pentax coatings were superlative in their time- regarded by many as the best- and are still quite good when matched up against modern coatings. If a 50mm Pentax lens of that era shows low contrast, something's not right with it. As it's an old lens, it could have slight haze on an element or two, or it could have taken a knock that affects its image quality. As to resolution, the Pentax lens was designed to cover full 24X36 format, which is harder for a lens to do than to cover M4/3. You should have figured out how to simply use the center portion of the 50mm's image area, without additional optics, to match up to the 42.5's smaller coverage. Nothing against the Leica lens. It is known to be stunningly good, even at f/1.2 But no doubt, older lenses can produce quality results. Stratospheric performance (with accompanying stratospheric price), while desirable, is not essential to getting what you want, and being happy with it.
The resolution of the pentax is good for a full frame sensor, but the artifacts gets very visible on a small sensor. Same with coatings, they might have been great when the lens was made, but a $1200 new lens will most of the times have much better coatings and sharpness, especially this leica lens that is known for being very high resolution. That being said, the speedbooster makes it mor unsharp and adds more artifacts. Still prefer how the A fotage was edited and it for some reason feels more 3D than B. But you can easily spot which lens is which from the chromic aberrations, the bokeh and general sharpness. The Leica lens is perfectly sharp and normally very contrasty.
Was going to say the same thing! Even if the Speed Booster's lens is of very high quality, it's not optimized for any particular lens. This may have been the only way to mount the lens and maintain infinity focus, but to be fair to the lens in so far as the test is concerned, it's not a proper comparison. It does show what to expect when you re-purpose a high-quality 35mm SLR lens for this type of use with such an adapter, but its not a test of the lens's optical quality per se.
@@blaskkaffe The effect I'm noticing is too much realism actually takes away from the drama of both video and picture. The artistic element is often not a completely realistic element. This is where the really good video and picture creators excel, and likely for reasons they may not fully understand. They just "have it" and others don't. At least to a degree. Everyone can improve from where they are at.
My grandfather gave me two Pentax Super programs with that Pentax 50mm f/1.7. I honestly love that lens and it's got me DEEP into vintage lenses as a whole. Worth picking up if you're just starting out
Obviously A is the Pentax since you stated that you put it on a focal reducer, which changed it's effective focal length. It's also not clear which defects you describe are inherent in the lens, and which are caused by the focal reducer.
Jeven, good job. I think this is revealing for a lot of us. I've been shooting Canon Fd lenses for years---I've got some great ones. Yea, they're more than $20.00, but they're not $1200 either. They're fast, they're sharp, they're light compared to their electronic modern counter parts, the good ones have buttery smooth focus rings, and they're fast. I've used them on all sorts of cameras, and gotten some lovely, cinematic looks. IMO----they're a super bargain, and IBIS in cameras has given them a whole new life.
My first slr is literally more than two times older than me and its insane how good the lenses that came with it still perform today, love using my old pentacon lenses
Really, really hard to tell. Amazing how much you have to spend to get very slight differences even when magnified! Awesome that you added back in contrast & color to distinguish between sharpness which can't really be fixed in post.
The only reason why I bought the unpopular Pentax K-01, was because at the time-it was one of the few mirrorless cameras that accepts K Mount and M42 lenses, which mean inexpensive alternatives for me to search for. My go to lens is my Pentax 50mm f1.4 because of that soft effect it delivers. I don’t mind it at all, makes it feel more organic and less commercial sharp.
I picked out the Leica right away as more contrasty, having a deeper bokeh, and being way sharper on the lettering on the lifeguard house in the final shot. That being said, you've given me a lot to think about in terms of what might constitute an affordable yet perfectly useable lens, cinematographically speaking. Thank you.
Jeven, you need to take the Speedbooster off to assess the lens' quality. Because you're not shooting mirrorless, that adapter puts its own glass into the path!
I've been wanting to get into vintage lenses. I love the fact that they aren't super sharp and have these "flaws". I just enjoy imperfections in footage, bit soft and washed out is so good look. Doesn't work always of course, depends on your project.
Yes, it does. But it effects it in a number of ways. Since the quality of the optics will effect it, some folks go for the high end metabones. Their optics are (presumably) top shelf. I however, went for a super cheap Pixco that I got for $88 on Amazon. When I compare the images with and without the booster (50mm 1.4 vintage Canon FD on a Lumix), the results in terms of sharpness and acuity are very close, when pixel peeping. A large part of this is two-fold: boosters shrink the image, a process that enhances (perceived or real) sharpness. The other reason is that a booster is a rather simple lens configuration, so its manufacture isn't terribly difficult to get right.
@@Joshwaa_s My pleasure Josh. You know, we used to have things called "books" to learn all this. I still have all my Ansel Adams books filling a few shelves! But today it's hard to learn, or even keep up with it all changing so fast. I'll add one more thing. It really is a kick to have a 40 year old manual lens on my newest camera. It's more about all the fun, and the slightly different image quality (which only we even notice!), than it is about any perfection of image (which again, only we may notice is lacking). Get a cheap booster, and if needed, you can always go for the expensive one later if you feel the need.
A looks phenomenal, and I personally feel sharpness can be overly focused on (see what I did there lol) but it’s true, and yeah sharp crisp images are awesome... however there is not enough of a difference in the footage to split hairs over when it comes to being creative. I feel like this knowledge is so great for the people that want to experience & explore what style and vibe they want... without going broke to make it happen.
I thought A was sharper based off the flower sequence. Either way, great comparison. Im a budget beginner photographer so im always going for the under dog.
You did a good job evening out the contrast and saturation. That said, I could tell that B was higher resolution with less CA than A. A was more smooth and cinematic. B looked more like a live sports broadcast with better detail in every motion.
It was interesting to see the difference between both lenses. I agree with you about not having to buy expensive lenses while you have a wide selection of older ones to work with
I do have to say that I have several vintage lenses that I use because I am also a filmmaker but what I've noticed is adding a simple ND filter or variable ND filter really enhances the contrast of the old vintage lenses.
It was easy for me to tell a from b because I own vintage lenses . I love using vintage lenses for more artsy portrait or cinematic videos people always ask what lens I’m using when they see the result .
I enjoy using the 50mm Pentax SMC it’s my go to lens in my vintage stable. Which includes a Pentacon 135 f 2.8 telephoto portrait and a Takumar f3.5 28-80mm it all comes down for me not just post processing but also f-stop and measuring detail using the sharpest I can make it. Doing portraits and wild life I use a harder measure on detail levels by checking detail levels on the preview screen of a Pentax K10D.
I also am a fan of older lenses. Here is a tip: Nikon series E 50mm f1.8 is quite affordable, reasonably sharp and contrasty, and it tends to add a bit of boost to the blue in the sky. I would rate it as a definite buy. Also a lot of fun is the Takumar 50mm f4 macro lens. Again reasonably sharp and contrasty, with natural colors, and the added plus of being able to focus closer: at .77ft or .234meters!
I know Brandon Lee uses a vintage 50 1.4 lens for it's aesthetics. Film and photography are not all about being ""sharp" the soft characteristics of old lenses are their selling points. Awesome video!
I have a set of Canon FD's (and Pentax K-mounts - that specific one you have too). I just have been too lazy to use the Canons! I will make some effort.
Hi! What would you say about shadows at the corners using 35mm vintage lenses in a full frame camera? Is a myth? Perceptible really? Thank you for the video!
Thanks for the video I definitely liked the vintage lens look. I recently inherited all my father's belongings and didn't even think about all his camera stuff he has from the 80s. I'll spend some time going through it this weekend. I found this video very inspiring thank you!
You did a great job with that comparison. However, what was a clear sign of a cheaper lens (for me) was colour fringing and other artifacts around the backlit flower...
I was able to tell that B was the newer lens however I must say that both were very good. Those vintage lens can give a different look to photos or footage. I currently own a Tokina RMC 28mm and at one point it was my favourite lens.
A looked pretty good & with the adjustments you made to B I personally thought it was the $20 lens. All I personally own is vintage glass and since I don't do any professional work or anything that requires auto focus I think they are a amazing value.
I totally agree. I would even go a step further, I started to collect some older lenses because of their abberations and older look... and they can give a unique feel to your image or footage. however of course, if you are here for super sharp details.. sure newer lenses are better.. but when you look at a photo, the first thing you see is the overall feeling, not the super fine detail
I noticed the difference. On A I clearly saw chromatic aberration on the palms and beach watch house as well as the softness of the flower sequence. Still, for the big difference in price, it is still really good.
I would have picked A over B by the feel out of focus parts felt. Was pretty surprised on the result. But have to say my favourite vintage so far are still FD lenses. But then again I grew up with that lens.
It's contrasty in film maybe not so much on digital on a speed booster but I am just guessing. Looks like you were getting flare causing some softening on the Pentax. Either way, it's a good video and that leica lens is no slouch!
I'm a beginner photographer. I like the vintage lens. I have a Nikkor 50mm Auto. It has taught me so much that my modern lenses can't. Since everything is manual I spend more time focusing and that give me more time to think about composition; while my modern lenses have have waiting on the camera to do all the work. Also, without VR/IS I have had to learn how to keep my hands more much more steady. I think every photographer should get at least one vintage lens in their career.
An interesting video. I got the answer wrong largely due, I think, to the unexpected milkiness of some of the Leica clips. I've a Helios 44M which gives a lovely softness and dreamy flared highlights at f2. By f5.6 it's pretty sharp. Trying to recreate the f2 effects in Lightroom takes a lot of time.
personally, I Favored the $20 Pentax. for me i don't really look at the price tag when making a decision. its all about the hands on. i understood from the depth of field that B would be the expensive lens. but i noticed very clear crisp shots were taken with the $20 lens and i have to say I'm delighted with the results you got with it. I'm not Only on a budget, but i'm thrilled to see that results so amazing could be achieved with a cheaper, older lens. Im going to amazon right now XD
A .. Pentax, but why did you have to adapt the Pentax before putting it on an adaptor ? .... I use the same lens without any alterations on a K&F adaptor. I love "vintage" lenses, but then again I'm from the pre-digital age, and had Helios lenses before they were trendy.
I had though all my old camera gear was stolen when I moved 3 yrs ago, I cleaned out the storage locker and found my camera bag dropped into a uhaul box... the 2 bodies are useless but I was happy to find my old Nikon and Sigma lenses in the bag, 7 in total. They just need a little lens TLC and adaptor rings and they’ll be going on the DSLR.
A beautiful piece of antique glass butchered. Such lens mods often alter the image rendering, destroying the magic of the lens. I have seen an FD Canon 85 1.2 modded to EF mount, compared to an non-modified copy the modded copy had a washed out hue not unlike that of the modded Pentax in the video.
@@heroaomedia FD mount lenses have a flange distance of 42mm versus 44mm on the Canon EF mount. The only way to make the lens focus to infinity is either to add a piece of corrective glass to the back of the lens or to butcher the lens and fiddle with the distances between the elements. Either way it is not ideal and from experience it is far better to use the corrective lens method as it is at least a reversible process with much less risk of a botched up job. Better off adapting to a mirrorless camera instead.
@@DT1592796 right for sure with canon FD but this was a Pentax k mount. It should have been a simple metal adapter to put it on the speedbooster. The speedbooster should be the only thing impacting the image quality. Unless I missed something?
Good job on educating people about vintage glass! The only thing is - your Pentax is not exactly the best example of the old lenses. If you have a chance, try older Pentaxes - the Takumars, or Yashica, or Minolta or even some Konica Hexanons. They are all prone to flayers, yes, but they deliver exellent sharpness. Also there is one thing: modern lenses use a lot of glass to correct abberations and maintait corner to corner sharpness. But with all that glass they loose microcontrast. It is kinda a tradeoff. Anyway, my point is that vintage glass is not only about magical imperfections - they can produce great quality. I love the stills and video I get from my Yashiva 50mm 1.7, minolta 21mm 2.8 and Helios 58 2 is also wonderful, but mostly for portraits because of the corner softness.
I thought I could tell the difference, and at the same time I wasn't sure. Before I found out which one was which, I thought A was the $20, and at the same time, I really liked the look. When B came on, a couple of the videos looked sharper (which I liked), however since the look of A was better for my taste, I changed my mind and thought that A was the more expensive lens. Thank you so much for doing this comparison, because you have shown me that I don't need to buy the more expensive things. Hell, you've shown me that I may have more fun looking for some cheaper items. Thank you again for this video.
Well i have 2 lenses i use on my pentak K-50. Amd well.... i got pretty sharp images after i got the settings right and learned how to focus better. And what i got is good enough for me now.
Not every vintage lens will be soft either, some are, but if your lucky you can find a good one. I have the smc Takumar 50mm 1.4 that’s very sharp and got it for 5$. That is after you exclude the spotmatic it came with as a rear cap...thrift store find!
I use vintage Minolta MC and MD lenses and they give me a different dimension too my footage compared to modern glass they are not always the best lens to use but when you need a different look they can be very useful so agree with you completely
B was clearly the Panasonic, you definitely added contrast to the pentax in post. The bokeh was twice as pleasant on the pentax. I also thought that you washed out the Panasonic on that beach shot (good guess ) I saw on other examples that the olympus OM and Carl Zeiss produces better contrast in vintage lenses I have seen
I own Older Hasselblad lenses and will be doing a Similar test. But I’m pretty sure the resolutions Will be great. The issue is that everything is manual. I guess you have to ask yourself if that is worth giving up automatic focus etc. Loved your thought provoking video
This was brilliant. You proved something that I feel more of- the operator and skills developed through months and years of working with gear and learning from others, and knowledge is far more important than expensive gear, once you get past a basic level of gear excellence, the remainder is diminishing results, and spending more is only suitable for those projects that are commercially worth the extra investment. i.e the projects pay back teh investment, with greater income, but that is not the prime differentiator - from this video clearly editing skill is a huge factor. I woudl add also taste and taste that comes from passion and learning from what others have done is key. Good video. Proved a very important point..
I actually knew which one was which on the first guess. I use vintage manual lenses a lot for video and they will out perform these electronic lenses quite consistently...depending on what you are going for. A lot of times they are also sharper.
Pentax 1.7 is a very good lens. In my opinion, the comparison is not fair. It does not compare Pentax vs Leica, but Pentax + METABONES vs Leica. Connect Metabones to Leica and compare image quality with Pentax :D.
Interesting test, the physiology of lens selection... I love and use Leica "Lumix" lenses everyday and I also have a plethora of vintage lens I dearly love for the character (No I am not going to tell you how many) Some I actually bought new in the 70's. Each has it's place in your arsenal. It should be noted, that you can take two supposedly identical vintage lenses and get vastly different results. Also a speed booster adds a stop of light and actually sharpens the image of the vintage lens. Overall vintage lenses are a great investment and for $20 bucks dollar for dollar it kicks the Leica's butt!
I have the Pentax A lens. I also have the Pentax Super Program 35mm slr camera that came with it when I bought it brand new in 1985. Original owner. Bought new.
Now what you should have done is a comparison of an old Leica lens like the summicron 50mm against a new Leica 50mm F2 . I would go with the vintage one every time. The price for the vintage one as I write this is roughly 350 pounds on Ebay for one in perfect condition.
When my old Olympus OM 2 35slr died of old age I bought myself a secondhand Sony ILCE-7. I did this because with a adapter on the Sony I could still use my old Zuiko lenses on that digital body. I have a range of primes Zuiko lenses and own 2 Panagor zooms with the OM mount. I love love to shoot old style stills and am now starting with video. Comparing the old lenses with the kit SEL2870 lens the Zuiko stil come up top in my view. So I'am not going to invest heavily on digital autofocus lenses (have not got the budget) and I can't find fault in my digital stills and video footage shot with the Zuiko's. But hey, I am a homemovie shooter!!
I have vintage lenses that I paid $5-$15 for that just as sharp, if not sharper than my $1000+ modern lenses. A lot of it has to do with what camera you are using it on as well, but you have to remember than THOUSANDS of professional photographers used this vintage lenses long before the modern lenses of today came out. Some of the most iconic images in the world were taken on vintage lenses
LOL - I am a Leica shooter for 30 years now (only lenses not bodies) and I thought - ok A is clearly the Leica but man the Pentax lens is very very good ;-) Yes in many cases it is really hard to tell. But I still love my Leica lenses coz I know exactly what I get that does not mean that a Nikon or Canon Lens is a bad choice.
I’m a sucker for vintage lenses - FD, Helios, Nikkor. Paired with anamorphics ! I wish you did not let this secret out so i can keeping buying them cheaply.
Nice video. The speedbooster will take quality away from this vintage lens. It will lose sharpness because of that. On my Sony e-mount, the difference between (really) good lenses and the modern ones is clear. However..... the modern lenses are NOT sharper. Just more perfect, the modern ones are nearly flawless. I use both. Both have their place. The vintage ones are great, especially for the money. Btw you're using the same stock music as Mathieu Stern. LOL
One big criticism of modern lenses is that they are too "clinical", which arises from technical near-perfection. The same is sometimes said of modern T-grain type B&W still films. Technically superb, but to some folks' eyes, lacking "character". So traditional cubic-grain and films that have both grain types sell well.
The size and weight of new lenses drive me crazy ( ie: big and heavy ) I sometimes think that lens maker feel if the make them bigger we can charge more for them.
Very good comparison. Old is not bad at all. Let me say this: a Fender Stratocaster from 1963 is way better than one of today. The difference is that old lenses are cheap and a 1963 Strat is... Very expensive :-)
Having everything edited so weird made it hard to tell, but I think even with the editing I first saw A and said "that looks cheap." B purposely edited to look bad, looked bad. But the best looking film of the day was the unedited shot from the leica. I wouldn't say vintage is a waste of time, there are plenty of cool old vintage lenses that can be used for effect and are very cheap. They look cool, they display well, they're interesting... BUT they won't replace new glass. New coating technology and new coatings in a literal sense and lack of adapter are going to be better. Even a modern budget kit lens is going to be sharper than old adapted lens. Just not for $20. I actually use an adapted cctv lens quite a bit for photos. Huge aperture and swirly bokeh and a soft look that reduces wrinkles for $35.
I do not have the money for the new stuff, i have to go vintage hunting, and even then i am at a budget, i got lucky and got a Canon FD 50mm for 13.50USD i cant afford the lenses that are hundreds or more..i wish i could, but hopefully if i start to sell some of my work, i will start to make the money to upgrade to newer stuff.
I like this great to see how great the old days equipment was yes for sure ha ha well it was good back then glad you did this it was very interesting stay safe
Doesn’t the metabones take the lens away from the Pentax by adding extra elements to the design with lesser coatings. The adapter will degrade the lens away from its native resolution and rendering? A lens hood or a matte box should be mandatory too. I think the Pentax lens was disadvantaged.
It is good to see videos like this. However, I don't buy new lenses as they are not a good fit for me. Kit lenses are also not good for me. So, I used a PD150 in the 2000s and used a ProMist 1/4 Black on everything I shot across 10 years. Now, why do I say this? Because that filter created a look that I liked. So is the reason I use some vintage lenses. They have a look. A different look for each lens or lens type. My favorite lens for indoor shots has been the FUJINON 55mm f1.8 which I use on a Canon 2000D which is a crop frame. I think FUJINON had the best glass. At this point I have 17 vintage lenses. They are either Japanese or Russian (meaning German). For clear documentation of my work (electronic design or just work around the house) I use a Canon Power Shot. This is a quick camera to use in either Auto or TV. I mean, if I take something apart I want to be able to put it back together again, maybe a year later. I use the Canon 2000D with vintage lenses for my product related shots. All with no filters. I love the look of the Jupiter 9 of 1966, but can never get far enough away from the subject to use it. :-) I just discovered Olympus for what seems to be a unique way of rendering colors. These vintage lenses are like trying different spices on food. I use Photoshop and have for decades. I have Lightroom and DPP, but I am so at home with Photoshop that just stay there. I am sure I will get around to using the newer programs more as time goes on. I started working with photography when I was 8 years old in 1960. I took photography classes along with my majors in college back in the 1970s. Had a lab at eight years old. However, this is a different world now. I never print out my photos. They are viewed online on my websites. Jim Moss
So, you added another lens element by attaching it to a speed booster. Speed boosters unless they’re very expensive have a tendency to alter image quality. I’m not so sure that the comparison is completely fair. Also, you said in the last camera a camera be comparison that you were going to do anything and then at the end of it you said you played a trick so again you alter the image quality by changing the contrast about a straight up comparison out of camera no contrast changes and let’s see how that looks. That said in the In the first comparison I think the Pentax look better color wise but again that could be because of color grading
Honestly, as it was edited, I preferred the A footage...
Whatever gives it the most beautiful and unique perspective: I’ve scrubbed up most of my lenses from thrift stores, The Pentax 50mm blessed me me to get some great photography of Blanca,Pursuing JC, Micah Tyler, and Dante Bowe at this years River Rock in Bethel ME.
I noticed that A was the Pentax due to a little bit of blooming in the highlights.
That being said, I love the look of it. I shoot with a Helios 44 all the time even though I have a Fuji 56mm f1.2. Vintages lenses are just... fun to use.
That's funny I never even noticed that, I was so busy looking at the outer edges!
Says he's not playing a trick... Proceeds to play a trick.
but not the trick he warned of 😂
Came here to say this lol
Yeah I know! FUN
Wait a minute! You mounted the Pentax lens on your speed booster! Once you did that, fair optical comparison between the lenses is impossible. The speed booster has optics of its own. Those optics will invariably influence the image. It will work better with some lenses than others, but it will always have an effect. The 50/1.7 is a highly respected lens for contrast, sharpness and bokeh among contemporaneous 50s, which as a group are some of the sharpest and best corrected lenses of the film era. The tell for me that something was amiss was when you talked about the Pentax lens's much lower contrast. The Pentax coatings were superlative in their time- regarded by many as the best- and are still quite good when matched up against modern coatings. If a 50mm Pentax lens of that era shows low contrast, something's not right with it. As it's an old lens, it could have slight haze on an element or two, or it could have taken a knock that affects its image quality.
As to resolution, the Pentax lens was designed to cover full 24X36 format, which is harder for a lens to do than to cover M4/3. You should have figured out how to simply use the center portion of the 50mm's image area, without additional optics, to match up to the 42.5's smaller coverage.
Nothing against the Leica lens. It is known to be stunningly good, even at f/1.2 But no doubt, older lenses can produce quality results. Stratospheric performance (with accompanying stratospheric price), while desirable, is not essential to getting what you want, and being happy with it.
The resolution of the pentax is good for a full frame sensor, but the artifacts gets very visible on a small sensor. Same with coatings, they might have been great when the lens was made, but a $1200 new lens will most of the times have much better coatings and sharpness, especially this leica lens that is known for being very high resolution.
That being said, the speedbooster makes it mor unsharp and adds more artifacts.
Still prefer how the A fotage was edited and it for some reason feels more 3D than B. But you can easily spot which lens is which from the chromic aberrations, the bokeh and general sharpness. The Leica lens is perfectly sharp and normally very contrasty.
Was going to say the same thing! Even if the Speed Booster's lens is of very high quality, it's not optimized for any particular lens. This may have been the only way to mount the lens and maintain infinity focus, but to be fair to the lens in so far as the test is concerned, it's not a proper comparison. It does show what to expect when you re-purpose a high-quality 35mm SLR lens for this type of use with such an adapter, but its not a test of the lens's optical quality per se.
@@blaskkaffe The effect I'm noticing is too much realism actually takes away from the drama of both video and picture. The artistic element is often not a completely realistic element. This is where the really good video and picture creators excel, and likely for reasons they may not fully understand. They just "have it" and others don't. At least to a degree. Everyone can improve from where they are at.
My grandfather gave me two Pentax Super programs with that Pentax 50mm f/1.7. I honestly love that lens and it's got me DEEP into vintage lenses as a whole. Worth picking up if you're just starting out
Obviously A is the Pentax since you stated that you put it on a focal reducer, which changed it's effective focal length. It's also not clear which defects you describe are inherent in the lens, and which are caused by the focal reducer.
Jeven, good job. I think this is revealing for a lot of us. I've been shooting Canon Fd lenses for years---I've got some great ones. Yea, they're more than $20.00, but they're not $1200 either.
They're fast, they're sharp, they're light compared to their electronic modern counter parts, the good ones have buttery smooth focus rings, and they're fast. I've used them on all sorts of cameras, and gotten some lovely, cinematic looks.
IMO----they're a super bargain, and IBIS in cameras has given them a whole new life.
William, would you recommend the FD 24mm L? I am looking for an upgrade to my 24mm SSC but I don't have a $4,000 for the aspherical version
Ah, I feel old now. My first proper slr (Pentax me super) came with that lens back in 1983
Mine, even older ME with also the same lens. Superior results on film to any modern 50mm I'm using on Nikon APC-S DSLRs!
My first slr is literally more than two times older than me and its insane how good the lenses that came with it still perform today, love using my old pentacon lenses
Really, really hard to tell. Amazing how much you have to spend to get very slight differences even when magnified! Awesome that you added back in contrast & color to distinguish between sharpness which can't really be fixed in post.
The only reason why I bought the unpopular Pentax K-01, was because at the time-it was one of the few mirrorless cameras that accepts K Mount and M42 lenses, which mean inexpensive alternatives for me to search for. My go to lens is my Pentax 50mm f1.4 because of that soft effect it delivers. I don’t mind it at all, makes it feel more organic and less commercial sharp.
I don't know, the leica just gave me that "mmm" effect while watching that the cheap one didn't have. It was just an emotional reaction for me.
I picked out the Leica right away as more contrasty, having a deeper bokeh, and being way sharper on the lettering on the lifeguard house in the final shot.
That being said, you've given me a lot to think about in terms of what might constitute an affordable yet perfectly useable lens, cinematographically speaking. Thank you.
Jeven, you need to take the Speedbooster off to assess the lens' quality. Because you're not shooting mirrorless, that adapter puts its own glass into the path!
I've been wanting to get into vintage lenses. I love the fact that they aren't super sharp and have these "flaws". I just enjoy imperfections in footage, bit soft and washed out is so good look. Doesn't work always of course, depends on your project.
Some vintage lenses are super sharp actually.
@@robertanastase558 which ones?
@@JJ-vp3bd super takumar, olympus zuiko, sears, and nikkor lens has great reputation of it's sharpness
Correct me if I'm wrong. But won't the optics from the speed booster also effect the output from the vintage lens?
Yes, it does. But it effects it in a number of ways. Since the quality of the optics will effect it, some folks go for the high end metabones. Their optics are (presumably) top shelf. I however, went for a super cheap Pixco that I got for $88 on Amazon. When I compare the images with and without the booster (50mm 1.4 vintage Canon FD on a Lumix), the results in terms of sharpness and acuity are very close, when pixel peeping. A large part of this is two-fold: boosters shrink the image, a process that enhances (perceived or real) sharpness. The other reason is that a booster is a rather simple lens configuration, so its manufacture isn't terribly difficult to get right.
@@theportraitist4888 Always good to learn a new thing. Nice explanation 👍🏼
@@Joshwaa_s My pleasure Josh. You know, we used to have things called "books" to learn all this. I still have all my Ansel Adams books filling a few shelves! But today it's hard to learn, or even keep up with it all changing so fast.
I'll add one more thing. It really is a kick to have a 40 year old manual lens on my newest camera. It's more about all the fun, and the slightly different image quality (which only we even notice!), than it is about any perfection of image (which again, only we may notice is lacking). Get a cheap booster, and if needed, you can always go for the expensive one later if you feel the need.
A looks phenomenal, and I personally feel sharpness can be overly focused on (see what I did there lol) but it’s true, and yeah sharp crisp images are awesome... however there is not enough of a difference in the footage to split hairs over when it comes to being creative. I feel like this knowledge is so great for the people that want to experience & explore what style and vibe they want... without going broke to make it happen.
I thought A was sharper based off the flower sequence. Either way, great comparison. Im a budget beginner photographer so im always going for the under dog.
Wow i thought a looked better
You did a good job evening out the contrast and saturation. That said, I could tell that B was higher resolution with less CA than A. A was more smooth and cinematic. B looked more like a live sports broadcast with better detail in every motion.
Exactly! And what do we prefer..? Would you say that A is more like we see real life?
@@theWuWeiWay Leica is more real life but I prefer the old lens.
Love the look of the older one!
Though the softness and chromatic aberration in the entry level kit zoom lenses is just the stuff only a mother could love
It was interesting to see the difference between both lenses. I agree with you about not having to buy expensive lenses while you have a wide selection of older ones to work with
I do have to say that I have several vintage lenses that I use because I am also a filmmaker but what I've noticed is adding a simple ND filter or variable ND filter really enhances the contrast of the old vintage lenses.
It was easy for me to tell a from b because I own vintage lenses . I love using vintage lenses for more artsy portrait or cinematic videos people always ask what lens I’m using when they see the result .
I enjoy using the 50mm Pentax SMC it’s my go to lens in my vintage stable. Which includes a Pentacon 135 f 2.8 telephoto portrait and a Takumar f3.5 28-80mm it all comes down for me not just post processing but also f-stop and measuring detail using the sharpest I can make it. Doing portraits and wild life I use a harder measure on detail levels by checking detail levels on the preview screen of a Pentax K10D.
I also am a fan of older lenses. Here is a tip: Nikon series E 50mm f1.8 is quite affordable, reasonably sharp and contrasty, and it tends to add a bit of boost to the blue in the sky. I would rate it as a definite buy. Also a lot of fun is the Takumar 50mm f4 macro lens. Again reasonably sharp and contrasty, with natural colors, and the added plus of being able to focus closer: at .77ft or .234meters!
I was sure the B was the expensive and I was right. But they are surprisingly close!!! Good test!!!
Me to
Using a lens hood/shade on the Pentax lenes can make a huge difference. Used outdoors the color can be richer and less lens flair. Thanks for sharing.
I know Brandon Lee uses a vintage 50 1.4 lens for it's aesthetics. Film and photography are not all about being ""sharp" the soft characteristics of old lenses are their selling points. Awesome video!
Yep, and many movies are filmed with lenses that aren't just sharp HDR producing glass. These old lenses add so much character to footage, love it!
I have a set of Canon FD's (and Pentax K-mounts - that specific one you have too). I just have been too lazy to use the Canons! I will make some effort.
Hi! What would you say about shadows at the corners using 35mm vintage lenses in a full frame camera? Is a myth? Perceptible really? Thank you for the video!
Depends on the lens. You'd have to try each lens to find the ones that vigette
Well done - I prefer what you did with lens A - Steven Smith, he was making a point.
Thanks for the video I definitely liked the vintage lens look. I recently inherited all my father's belongings and didn't even think about all his camera stuff he has from the 80s. I'll spend some time going through it this weekend. I found this video very inspiring thank you!
You did a great job with that comparison. However, what was a clear sign of a cheaper lens (for me) was colour fringing and other artifacts around the backlit flower...
I was able to tell that B was the newer lens however I must say that both were very good. Those vintage lens can give a different look to photos or footage. I currently own a Tokina RMC 28mm and at one point it was my favourite lens.
I love this. The gear doesn’t matter, but the filmmaker does.
A looked pretty good & with the adjustments you made to B I personally thought it was the $20 lens. All I personally own is vintage glass and since I don't do any professional work or anything that requires auto focus I think they are a amazing value.
I totally agree. I would even go a step further, I started to collect some older lenses because of their abberations and older look... and they can give a unique feel to your image or footage. however of course, if you are here for super sharp details.. sure newer lenses are better.. but when you look at a photo, the first thing you see is the overall feeling, not the super fine detail
I noticed the difference. On A I clearly saw chromatic aberration on the palms and beach watch house as well as the softness of the flower sequence. Still, for the big difference in price, it is still really good.
I would have picked A over B by the feel out of focus parts felt. Was pretty surprised on the result.
But have to say my favourite vintage so far are still FD lenses. But then again I grew up with that lens.
It's contrasty in film maybe not so much on digital on a speed booster but I am just guessing. Looks like you were getting flare causing some softening on the Pentax. Either way, it's a good video and that leica lens is no slouch!
I'm a beginner photographer. I like the vintage lens. I have a Nikkor 50mm Auto. It has taught me so much that my modern lenses can't. Since everything is manual I spend more time focusing and that give me more time to think about composition; while my modern lenses have have waiting on the camera to do all the work. Also, without VR/IS I have had to learn how to keep my hands more much more steady. I think every photographer should get at least one vintage lens in their career.
The softness in the corners is very evident in the Pentax footage.
Hi! what's the actual name of the vintage lens?
An interesting video. I got the answer wrong largely due, I think, to the unexpected milkiness of some of the Leica clips.
I've a Helios 44M which gives a lovely softness and dreamy flared highlights at f2. By f5.6 it's pretty sharp. Trying to recreate the f2 effects in Lightroom takes a lot of time.
I’ve owned the Pentax 50 as well and absolutely love it and when focused right it can be super sharp
personally, I Favored the $20 Pentax. for me i don't really look at the price tag when making a decision. its all about the hands on. i understood from the depth of field that B would be the expensive lens. but i noticed very clear crisp shots were taken with the $20 lens and i have to say I'm delighted with the results you got with it. I'm not Only on a budget, but i'm thrilled to see that results so amazing could be achieved with a cheaper, older lens. Im going to amazon right now XD
A .. Pentax, but why did you have to adapt the Pentax before putting it on an adaptor ? .... I use the same lens without any alterations on a K&F adaptor.
I love "vintage" lenses, but then again I'm from the pre-digital age, and had Helios lenses before they were trendy.
I think he wanted to use the speed booster to offset the crop factor... but.. I asked myself the same question at first
I had though all my old camera gear was stolen when I moved 3 yrs ago, I cleaned out the storage locker and found my camera bag dropped into a uhaul box... the 2 bodies are useless but I was happy to find my old Nikon and Sigma lenses in the bag, 7 in total. They just need a little lens TLC and adaptor rings and they’ll be going on the DSLR.
If a lens make it looks washing out, is that better for post processing?
It was definitely hard to tell the difference... I definitely think both lenses were good on our HDTV. I’m a fan of less expensive lenses too.
$1200 Vs $20 but forget to mention $700 for the speed booster and the ocean of work in post.... What else have you forgot to mention?
Brilliant! Not a waste of time at all. I thought that the A clip was better, if I had to choose.
You lost me at “I had to ‘slightly’ modify...”
Same.. 😐
A beautiful piece of antique glass butchered. Such lens mods often alter the image rendering, destroying the magic of the lens. I have seen an FD Canon 85 1.2 modded to EF mount, compared to an non-modified copy the modded copy had a washed out hue not unlike that of the modded Pentax in the video.
@@DT1592796 why would modding it to EF impact the image?
@@heroaomedia FD mount lenses have a flange distance of 42mm versus 44mm on the Canon EF mount. The only way to make the lens focus to infinity is either to add a piece of corrective glass to the back of the lens or to butcher the lens and fiddle with the distances between the elements. Either way it is not ideal and from experience it is far better to use the corrective lens method as it is at least a reversible process with much less risk of a botched up job.
Better off adapting to a mirrorless camera instead.
@@DT1592796 right for sure with canon FD but this was a Pentax k mount. It should have been a simple metal adapter to put it on the speedbooster. The speedbooster should be the only thing impacting the image quality. Unless I missed something?
Good job on educating people about vintage glass! The only thing is - your Pentax is not exactly the best example of the old lenses. If you have a chance, try older Pentaxes - the Takumars, or Yashica, or Minolta or even some Konica Hexanons. They are all prone to flayers, yes, but they deliver exellent sharpness. Also there is one thing: modern lenses use a lot of glass to correct abberations and maintait corner to corner sharpness. But with all that glass they loose microcontrast. It is kinda a tradeoff. Anyway, my point is that vintage glass is not only about magical imperfections - they can produce great quality. I love the stills and video I get from my Yashiva 50mm 1.7, minolta 21mm 2.8 and Helios 58 2 is also wonderful, but mostly for portraits because of the corner softness.
I thought I could tell the difference, and at the same time I wasn't sure. Before I found out which one was which, I thought A was the $20, and at the same time, I really liked the look. When B came on, a couple of the videos looked sharper (which I liked), however since the look of A was better for my taste, I changed my mind and thought that A was the more expensive lens. Thank you so much for doing this comparison, because you have shown me that I don't need to buy the more expensive things. Hell, you've shown me that I may have more fun looking for some cheaper items. Thank you again for this video.
Managed to score this lens on a k1000 and a bayonet 135mm for $40 at the Goodwill a few weeks back 🖖🏽
Yes, old school is cool. Good work.
Well i have 2 lenses i use on my pentak K-50. Amd well.... i got pretty sharp images after i got the settings right and learned how to focus better. And what i got is good enough for me now.
tienes toda la razon..el talento esta en la persona no en los equipos ..Felicitaciones..genial video
Would putting a circular polarizer on the vintage lens help? I love vintage lenses especially for the price.
It could. I haven't tested it side by side. I'll have to try that and see what kind of results I get.
Not every vintage lens will be soft either, some are, but if your lucky you can find a good one. I have the smc Takumar 50mm 1.4 that’s very sharp and got it for 5$. That is after you exclude the spotmatic it came with as a rear cap...thrift store find!
I use vintage Minolta MC and MD lenses and they give me a different dimension too my footage compared to modern glass they are not always the best lens to use but when you need a different look they can be very useful so agree with you completely
For sure! Always fun to play with
Hey I use a Pentax 50mm f1.7 on my canon dslr. Came with my Pentax Mx back in the day ... regards fred
B was clearly the Panasonic, you definitely added contrast to the pentax in post.
The bokeh was twice as pleasant on the pentax. I also thought that you washed out the Panasonic on that beach shot (good guess )
I saw on other examples that the olympus OM and Carl Zeiss produces better contrast in vintage lenses
I have seen
I own Older Hasselblad lenses and will be doing a Similar test. But I’m pretty sure the resolutions Will be great. The issue is that everything is manual. I guess you have to ask yourself if that is worth giving up automatic focus etc. Loved your thought provoking video
I only shoot manual on my camera anyways so for me it doesn't matter. Also with the GH5 I have IBIS so old lenses can still be stable
Guess I’ll be using my gimbal for stability. I just bought the Weebill lab and use it with the XT 3.
I see that someone is grinding 7 days a week! At least something interesting to watch every day ! Keep it that way as long as you can haha :D
I try to do 31 tutorials in December every year. Its not an easy challenge :)
@@JevenDovey fingers crossed! especially good month to get some ad revenue! I'll be one of those who do not "skip" ads! :D
This was brilliant. You proved something that I feel more of- the operator and skills developed through months and years of working with gear and learning from others, and knowledge is far more important than expensive gear, once you get past a basic level of gear excellence, the remainder is diminishing results, and spending more is only suitable for those projects that are commercially worth the extra investment. i.e the projects pay back teh investment, with greater income, but that is not the prime differentiator - from this video clearly editing skill is a huge factor. I woudl add also taste and taste that comes from passion and learning from what others have done is key. Good video. Proved a very important point..
The Pentax 1.4 is far better than the 1.7 and I picked one up, on a Pentax ME Super for $25 about 6 months ago!
I actually knew which one was which on the first guess. I use vintage manual lenses a lot for video and they will out perform these electronic lenses quite consistently...depending on what you are going for. A lot of times they are also sharper.
Pentax 1.7 is a very good lens. In my opinion, the comparison is not fair. It does not compare Pentax vs Leica, but Pentax + METABONES vs Leica. Connect Metabones to Leica and compare image quality with Pentax :D.
Interesting test, the physiology of lens selection... I love and use Leica "Lumix" lenses everyday and I also have a plethora of vintage lens I dearly love for the character (No I am not going to tell you how many) Some I actually bought new in the 70's. Each has it's place in your arsenal. It should be noted, that you can take two supposedly identical vintage lenses and get vastly different results. Also a speed booster adds a stop of light and actually sharpens the image of the vintage lens. Overall vintage lenses are a great investment and for $20 bucks dollar for dollar it kicks the Leica's butt!
I have the Pentax A lens. I also have the Pentax Super Program 35mm slr camera that came with it when I bought it brand new in 1985. Original owner. Bought new.
Now what you should have done is a comparison of an old Leica lens like the summicron 50mm against a new Leica 50mm F2 . I would go with the vintage one every time.
The price for the vintage one as I write this is roughly 350 pounds on Ebay for one in perfect condition.
On my iPad I got the lenses the wrong way around - that shows to me how good the old lense is with just a little bit of post
When my old Olympus OM 2 35slr died of old age I bought myself a secondhand Sony ILCE-7. I did this because with a adapter on the Sony I could still use my old Zuiko lenses on that digital body. I have a range of primes Zuiko lenses and own 2 Panagor zooms with the OM mount. I love love to shoot old style stills and am now starting with video. Comparing the old lenses with the kit SEL2870 lens the Zuiko stil come up top in my view. So I'am not going to invest heavily on digital autofocus lenses (have not got the budget) and I can't find fault in my digital stills and video footage shot with the Zuiko's. But hey, I am a homemovie shooter!!
I'm just learning about lenses. Thanks for this.
I'm impressed how do you did a beautiful scene with just random shots 02:51
"A" footage I liked, I noticed the contrast on the Pentax.
Wow. I thought A was the Leica. Nice video. PEACE from ATL ✊🏾
Awesome video! I’ve been buying some lenses but keeping it on the cheaper side for sure. Great stuff!
I have vintage lenses that I paid $5-$15 for that just as sharp, if not sharper than my $1000+ modern lenses. A lot of it has to do with what camera you are using it on as well, but you have to remember than THOUSANDS of professional photographers used this vintage lenses long before the modern lenses of today came out. Some of the most iconic images in the world were taken on vintage lenses
+D.M.Turner I love vintage lenses. They also have interesting artifacts that give the footage a different quality 😀
LOL - I am a Leica shooter for 30 years now (only lenses not bodies) and I thought - ok A is clearly the Leica but man the Pentax lens is very very good ;-) Yes in many cases it is really hard to tell. But I still love my Leica lenses coz I know exactly what I get that does not mean that a Nikon or Canon Lens is a bad choice.
My favorite lens for youtube video in ef 17-40 f/4. But for photos 24-104 f/4😎👍
I’m a sucker for vintage lenses - FD, Helios, Nikkor. Paired with anamorphics ! I wish you did not let this secret out so i can keeping buying them cheaply.
Nice video.
The speedbooster will take quality away from this vintage lens. It will lose sharpness because of that.
On my Sony e-mount, the difference between (really) good lenses and the modern ones is clear.
However..... the modern lenses are NOT sharper. Just more perfect, the modern ones are nearly flawless.
I use both. Both have their place. The vintage ones are great, especially for the money.
Btw you're using the same stock music as Mathieu Stern. LOL
One big criticism of modern lenses is that they are too "clinical", which arises from technical near-perfection. The same is sometimes said of modern T-grain type B&W still films. Technically superb, but to some folks' eyes, lacking "character". So traditional cubic-grain and films that have both grain types sell well.
This
What camrea did you use for the video do you have to use a speed booster
The size and weight of new lenses drive me crazy ( ie: big and heavy ) I sometimes think that lens maker feel if the make them bigger we can charge more for them.
Very good comparison. Old is not bad at all. Let me say this: a Fender Stratocaster from 1963 is way better than one of today. The difference is that old lenses are cheap and a 1963 Strat is... Very expensive :-)
great video I use a 35mm vintage lens for my sony
Having everything edited so weird made it hard to tell, but I think even with the editing I first saw A and said "that looks cheap."
B purposely edited to look bad, looked bad. But the best looking film of the day was the unedited shot from the leica.
I wouldn't say vintage is a waste of time, there are plenty of cool old vintage lenses that can be used for effect and are very cheap. They look cool, they display well, they're interesting...
BUT they won't replace new glass. New coating technology and new coatings in a literal sense and lack of adapter are going to be better. Even a modern budget kit lens is going to be sharper than old adapted lens. Just not for $20.
I actually use an adapted cctv lens quite a bit for photos. Huge aperture and swirly bokeh and a soft look that reduces wrinkles for $35.
I do not have the money for the new stuff, i have to go vintage hunting, and even then i am at a budget, i got lucky and got a Canon FD 50mm for 13.50USD i cant afford the lenses that are hundreds or more..i wish i could, but hopefully if i start to sell some of my work, i will start to make the money to upgrade to newer stuff.
What is the name/brand of the gimbal used at 0:08 while filming the lady?
I like this great to see how great the old days equipment was yes for sure ha ha well it was good back then glad you did this it was very interesting stay safe
Loving your thumbnails!
I preferred "A",, for the price difference in the two lens, I greatly preferred "A".
Doesn’t the metabones take the lens away from the Pentax by adding extra elements to the design with lesser coatings. The adapter will degrade the lens away from its native resolution and rendering? A lens hood or a matte box should be mandatory too. I think the Pentax lens was disadvantaged.
It is good to see videos like this. However, I don't buy new lenses as they are not a good fit for me. Kit lenses are also not good for me. So, I used a PD150 in the 2000s and used a ProMist 1/4 Black on everything I shot across 10 years. Now, why do I say this? Because that filter created a look that I liked. So is the reason I use some vintage lenses. They have a look. A different look for each lens or lens type. My favorite lens for indoor shots has been the FUJINON 55mm f1.8 which I use on a Canon 2000D which is a crop frame. I think FUJINON had the best glass. At this point I have 17 vintage lenses. They are either Japanese or Russian (meaning German).
For clear documentation of my work (electronic design or just work around the house) I use a Canon Power Shot. This is a quick camera to use in either Auto or TV. I mean, if I take something apart I want to be able to put it back together again, maybe a year later. I use the Canon 2000D with vintage lenses for my product related shots. All with no filters. I love the look of the Jupiter 9 of 1966, but can never get far enough away from the subject to use it. :-) I just discovered Olympus for what seems to be a unique way of rendering colors. These vintage lenses are like trying different spices on food. I use Photoshop and have for decades. I have Lightroom and DPP, but I am so at home with Photoshop that just stay there. I am sure I will get around to using the newer programs more as time goes on. I started working with photography when I was 8 years old in 1960. I took photography classes along with my majors in college back in the 1970s. Had a lab at eight years old. However, this is a different world now. I never print out my photos. They are viewed online on my websites.
Jim Moss
So, you added another lens element by attaching it to a speed booster. Speed boosters unless they’re very expensive have a tendency to alter image quality. I’m not so sure that the comparison is completely fair. Also, you said in the last camera a camera be comparison that you were going to do anything and then at the end of it you said you played a trick so again you alter the image quality by changing the contrast about a straight up comparison out of camera no contrast changes and let’s see how that looks. That said in the In the first comparison I think the Pentax look better color wise but again that could be because of color grading
chromatic aberrations are a dead giveaway, however they both look beautiful and know one who's not a camera nerd can tell the difference