Vintage lenses on digital cameras. How good are they in reality compared to modern lenses?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ต.ค. 2020
- This video looks at the science, performance and aesthetics of vintage lenses on digital sensors, and their strengths, best points and limitations compared to modern lenses. Here are the links to the different sections:
1:05 Questions and answers
3:35 Technical differences between film and digital sensors, and colour science
5:51 Resolving power
6:47 Sharpness (centre)
8:09 Lens design
9:08 Edge to edge sharpness across the frame
9:40 Chromatic aberrations
9:57 FF versus crop sensors
11:19 Glass and coatings
13:15 Bokeh
13:47 Manual v auto focus and exposure
15:01 Aperture blades and rings
16:34 Quality control and used condition
17:35 Post processing and lessons learned
20:10 On-line tests
21:06 Conclusions
#vintagelens #oldlens
"It can take you down a dangerous, addictive, and costly route" - truer words have never been spoken.
@W Ng Wow! 😆
And it is still legal.
Astrophotography is much the same though, but can't stop won't stop, even found a modestly old Minolta lens in a secondhand store that I want to adapt to my EOS Rebel T6 to venture into this a bit, both for daytime and astrophotography use
That's just photography in general isn't it? = p
Yep yep yep!
It's nice to hear a calm voice in a camera gear video for once
Agreed! Another channel that pairs well with this one is Zenography. Worth a look!
I agree. It is also nice to hear some passion behind the topic, rather than just stats.
He didn't say "Puffwhat'sup everybody". I am not sure that is allowed on a photography channel on yt
@@izayus11 or worse - "Froooooo knows photoooo... dot com". Makes me wanna puke.
@@4mitcheb Yes, Zenography, and another is Steve O'Nions.
I am a filmmaker working on putting together movies. And I came to the realization that vintage lenses are fantastic alternative to the insanely costly cine lenses of today. I am grateful that this is an option that works.
My eyes miss the silver
Vintage lens are awesome for motion picture if only because they have hard stops.
I got a serious question. How do you stabilize while pulling focus?
I'm puzzled about that since weight stabilizers and Gimbals don't work with manual focus (at least not without a wireless focus puller)
@@luzbiensuave The pros would have the thing on a heavy mount, or if on a steadicam a remote, like you said.
You most likely don't have that stuff or you wouldn't be asking. And each shot is an individual, so the best I can hope to do is give you some ideas that might stimulate your imagination for the shot you have in mind.
If you are moving fast and without many resources or cheats, just go wide and close up the lens for more space in focus and calculate your focus in advance, then move to remain in the zone you calculated. Lot of good apps help with the numbers, Pcam is one.
You can use a laser pointer taped to the camera/cam mount pointed at an angle to the ground (so dot is around the shoes of the subject) or even a string if you are leading the subject, so the dot/string tip trails at whatever distance you have dialed in. That lets you get your focus by distance but not really change it on demand.
Part of the answer depends on what you've got, and if you can pull focus at all for your setup, and what points you'll need it for. Usually you want a second guy for that, and you could say, stop, hold tight while he goes on the lens, or you can practice moving with him on the lens the whole time like the pros. There's a reason dolly was preferred for most of the history of film.
@@greyvr4336 Thanks a lot for taking the time to reply!
So far, using a MFT sized sensor and 50+mm lenses (100mm+ equivalent), so I'll settle down for either a wide angle adapter or wide angle lenses.
A gentle, cultured voice - so rare on the Net these days. A pleasure to listen.
One other issue is color-shifting off-center. Film doesn't care much what angle a ray comes from, but digital sensors do. Several old designs that made sense for range finders had a rear element very close to the film plane, and that required extreme ray angles. It didn't hurt results on film, but causes all sorts of vignetting and color-shifting off-center in digital cameras.
Quite right. I had read this and observed it. What I hadn't twigged till watching this was the opposite end of the spectrum, that rays travelling very normal to the surface of the flat shiny detector can reflect back and forth between the rear element and the detector causing contrast loss. I had observed this especially with telephoto lenses but di not know why.
I'm not seeing this with the lenses I'm using - primarily an older 58mm Rokkor PF used on a full frame Sony. I think these problems become quite apparent with older wide angle lenses - 28mm 24mm and 20mm lenses pre autofocus. note- most of these were not sharp in the film days of the 80s...
As a professional photographer for over 55 years, I find this video and commentary absolutely superb - and great common sense.
I’m happy to use my Nikon lenses from the early 60’s - alongside the latest Sigma digital models.
Thank you very much for highlighting this import subject and the true value of vintage lenses.
I'm a 40 year computer programmer/enthusiast. I learned in the 80's that you cannot compare the digital against the organic especially using digital equipment. Digital precision is the problem. For example a digital device can never draw a perfect circle. The coordinate system for pixels won't allow it and this was evident on early computer screens and dot matrix printers. So what made Laser printers so much better? A magnifying scope showed that the laser printer made a horrendous mess when laying down its toner. The borders of the letters can't be defined in high magnification. It was the organic and messy nature of the laser printers toner delivery method that gave it its high quality look. The dot matrix printers had vastly higher resolutions but the laser printers always produced a better result.
Organic methods cannot be compared with digital stats.
So far, my all time favorite lens is Fujian 35mm F/1.7 CCTV lens. It has every flaw imaginable, but I just love how dreamy the effect looks.
I actually Had one of These Loved them but looked so stupid on my a7ii and yeah the Adapter was Shot so i send it Back.
love the colours from that lens!
I have one with 12 blades f1.6 on my Olympus EM10 MK2. It’s gorgeous, creamy background bokeh!
Think about it, all of these vintage lenses were once considered obsolete and even throw away in the trash until mirrorless cameras made them desirable again but unfortunately that made them expensive.
So true! When I started to collect these lenses some of them cost as little as $10. I remember going into a thrift shop and saw a Takumar 55/1.8 for $10, went to buy it, and the lady at the counter said "we're having a sale on these items, its $5". Of course, others accused people like me of being thrift shop lens/trash photographers...but that's all changed now. I could never afford to put together my collection these days.
Why do you think they only work on mirrorless? Pentax DSLRs are designed to accommodate all their historic range including the mechanical links for early autofocus, as well as fully electronic connections for the latest lenses. The only time auto exposure doesn’t work is with lenses that don’t have an ‘A’ setting on the aperture ring, seen on FA designated lenses onwards, but they still work fine in manual exposure. The in-body image stabilisation is a bonus which of course works for all lenses. Having been designed early on with a decent sized mount it hasn’t been necessary to change it as Nikon and Canon did, rendering their older lenses redundant overnight.
@@robertlavers1121 Vintage lenses definitely work well on DSLRS...with a few exceptions where the lenses + camera + adapter combination results in the lens hitting the mirror or not focusing to infinity. Those combinations are flagged on the internet. And you're 100% right about Pentax DSLRs. I even have photos of lenses on my Pentax K-1 in the video and refer to photos taken by a Pentax DSLR camera in the part about colour science (see 5:16); colours which I personally like very much.
@@Simonsutak Sorry I was intending to respond to Caldera’s post which said that vintage lenses were obsolete until mirrorless came along.
@@robertlavers1121 Oops. Thanks for clarifying. My apologies. On my notifications, I only see the most recent comments, so I thought you were referred to the video, not another comment! (And I have a mirrorless camera on the thunbnail). I'm still learning about YouTubing..... Cheers, SImon. PS I've edited my comment above.
Well done! Also remember that in decades past, there was a huge community of amateur photographers who's big decision at processing time was; "should I get the cheaper 4x5s or maybe pony up for the 5x7s?". The resolution on even the worst of these was sufficient for their purpose back then.
So true. Many thanks for reminding me of this! Our family hardly ever went the extra inch to 5x7s, and when we did, the prints seemed almost strange to look at and handle.
The fact that I’m watching your videos means I’ve gone pretty far down the rabbit hole of vintage lenses :-) I love them, and your videos
Thank you. It's a slippery slope...but so enjoyable! When friends buy a new lens (sometimes over $1,000)...I think - "I could have got 8 or 10 excellent vintages lenses for that price!"
@@Simonsutak exactly, I usually spend $60 or less on a lens. Some where given to me for free.
I started my lens journey with my Asahi Pentax MX and its SMC Pentax-m 50mm f1.7. I had very few lenses, mostly a 28mm f2.8 and a 100mm A-series f2.8. These made great images and helped develop my style. I worked in black and white and developed and printed my own negatives. Colour became exciting and worthwhile when I discovered professional labs and printers. Colour reversal film was the gold standard for seeing what our lenses were capable of. I got introduced to Takumars and bought a Spotmatic. M42 lenses were inexpensive and good. £20 lenses were available in all sorts of focal lengths. I loved what the Takumars did and CZJ lenses were great buys. I started finding other focal lengths that did new things and built a collection of really cool lenses. Digital arrived slowly for me and took a while to bed in. The k10D was my first camera and I still can use it. Digital really came to life when I started to master post-production. The lenses are still useful and I love the image making power they provide. My favourite lenses are the ones that produce plasticity and near 3D rendering of tones and colours. I mostly use and buy Pentax K mount glass and almost all of it is vintage. I will buy a K1 or a K3iii at some point to use alongside my K-01 I can possibly try out the digital era lenses that fit those models. I know they produce incredible results and that I will find value in the increased utility that the cameras have with modern glass.
On film processing:
I worked in photo labs that processed film and made custom prints for 20 years starting in the early 80's. The two main types of film processes were dip-and-dunk and roller transport. Roller transport was used mainly for mass market developing and many rolls of film would be spliced together and run all at once. The replenishment rate was set by the actual amount of film going through the chemicals. This was only used for roll film, mostly 35mm and 120 (or 220) film formats.
Dip-and-dunk machines used racks and tanks that would lift the film up in the air and lower the racks into each tank, like a row of sinks filled with chemicals. The replenishment rate was set by each rack activating a sensor switch as it passed by. So the replenishment of developer and fixer (and reversal) would be the same if one roll of 35mm film went through or 8 rolls, one 4x5 sheet or 3 8x10 sheets.
More film would deplete the developer more and if you ran 50 sheets of 8x10 film (like Richard Misrach would send us) you had to replenish manually or you would see the difference from first to last sheets of film. The effect would be a lower contrast and less saturation of colors.
We ran control strips of pre-exposed film through and analyzed them and sometimes they would be way out of the acceptable parameters. Only a trained professional could spot the result, but the difference can be seen once pointed out. This variation does not exist in digital cameras as far as I know, a change over time of quality due to quantity.
I'm curious about reciprocity failure with digital cameras, is it still a thing?
There is no such thing as reciprocity failure with a digital camera.
Reciprocity failure was film going from a linear response to a nonlinear response. You can still get that nonlinear response from silicon sensors: at some point, only so much current can pass, no matter how much light you shine at it.
@@jorymil Are you talking about a low-light, long exposure situation? Or can you give an example of the nonlinear response?
Here are the links to specific sections:
1:02 Questions and answers
3:35 Technical differences between film and digital sensors, and colour science
5:51 Resolving power
6:47 Sharpness (centre)
8:09 Lens design
9:08 Edge to edge sharpness across the frame
9:40 Chromatic aberrations
9:57 FF versus crop sensors
11:19 Glass and coatings
13:15 Bokeh
13:47 Manual v auto focus and exposure
15:01 Aperture blades and rings
16:34 Quality control and used condition
17:35 Post processing and lessons learned
20:10 On-line tests
21:06 Conclusions
If Im using a sony lae4 adapter and Im looking for a good wide angle and a good 85mm which ones do you recommend? Should I go for a totally different adapter? Im just looking to add two lenses to my sony a7r3
@@JJ-vp3bd Wow that's a really tricky question to answer. There are some really good modern wide angle and 85mm lenses made for the Sony e-mount. (Sony, Sigma, Samyang etc). If you venture away from Sony mounts...the choice is quite wide and depends on your budget; whether you need/want auto-focus; whether you're happy to use old manual lenses rather than lenses designed for FF digital sensors, and so on. Personally, I'd start with finding the exact lenses you'd like to buy, at the price you want to pay, based on an internet search and recommendations. Regardless of maker. Then get the right adapter. I like the M42 and Pentax K mounts because there are a lot of relatively cheap lenses out there, and PentaxForum reviews are an excellent resource, but Canon and Nikon in particular have great vintage lenses too.
@@Simonsutak ok let me break it down. i need af. I was looking at the 20mm minolta and 85 mm minolta. Dont know if those two are worthy at all to be on my sony a7r3 as I have a lae4 adapter.
@@JJ-vp3bd I can't really comment as I've never used these Minolta lenses.....but the lenses you mention in particular get good reviews (Ken Rockwell for example). Part of the decision seems to boil down to whether you like "Minolta colours"! Although these can be adjusted pp.
I use a lot of vintage lenses, mostly Pentax K mount on my Fuji X-E3.
Being old enough to know how much they cost then, (I used to work for the import distributor for Minolta, Cokin, Soligor, Tamron and later Ricoh).
Lovely video Simon, so well thought out and presented in your beautifully toned voice. liked and subscribed.
You're absolutely right about chromatic aberration and color fringing. I recently did a test on the 50mm AFD, 50mm Ais vs the 50mm S Auto. The most obvious difference in the test was the blue color fringing on the newer lenses. It also affects the sharpness because the RGB colors are not focusing on the same plane. I did the Ai conversion to it and kept it.
My photos were fairly prosaic until I ditched my modern carbon fibre tripod for a vintage wooden one. Suddenly my shots gained a delicious je ne sais quoi and my life is now totally fulfilled, except for the occasional splinter.
This really how it feels talking to some artists, regardless of the field. Sometimes, something old isn’t good, it’s just technologically inferior and less effective.
LOL, back in the day I actually did have a wooden tripod.
hahahahahah
@@LairdDavidson ha.... I didn’t even know they made those 😄
@@Logan-qi4nx then there’s the age old argument that limitations breed creativity. Which means that the limitations of vintage gear lead you to try different things that maybe you wouldn’t try with modern gear.
Fantastic video! I really appreciate the time and effort you have put in your content and samples of your work. For some time I tried to avoid lenses without multi coating but recently have come to recognize the unique look they can provide. I also agree my experience with the Russian lenses have been of very good quality. Thanks for sharing!
Thank you! I was the same with multi-coating, and even put filters on my lesser coated lenses...but that's all changed for me now!
The half-life of thorium is about 14 BILLION years. Meaning that it's barely radioactive. If you have tritium in your watch (half-life 12.33 years), or in some other article you may possess, it's FAR more radioactive because it emits particles far more frequently than does thorium. (Longer half-life means LESS radioactive than a radio isotope with a shorter half-life because it emits a decay particle LESS FREQUENTLY. That's why it takes so long for half of it to decay.) Does this make them dangerous? No, for two reasons. First, you won't encounter concentrations of either of them for their per-hour dosage to be significant, even over long time periods. Second, not all radiation is the same. Thorium and tritium decay emit alpha and beta particles, respectively. Both are stopped by a few centimeters of air, or the layer of dead skin on your body, so neither is particularly dangerous except when highly concentrated and in direct contact with a biological material (like a cancer cell) that might be affected by them. I wouldn't worry about thorium lenses. The fact that they turn yellow indicates that the alpha particles are doing work in the glass - they're not escaping the glass. Only the thorium on the surface of the lens could possibly irradiate you (because the glass itself stops decay products from embedded thorium from escaping), and when one such thorium atom decays its decay product is as likely to go into the glass as it is to go into the air (for a few centimeters). Thorium is also found in common dirt, and is about as common as lead in the crust, and more common than tin. You're not worried about dirt, are you?
You´re absolutely right, except one thing: there are lots of housewifes being obviously worried about dirt! ;)
Yes I am worried about dirt
You'd be correct if the thoriated glass existed in a vaccuum. However, in a lens it is in contact with various metals as well, the specific properties of which can alter the decay very slightly, in some cases leading to gamma being produced. The amounts are very, very small, but they are, technically, there.
Check out this 2013 paper on the radiation of camera lenses, you'll notice they did indeed detect gamma radiation off of several lenses:
www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:652338/FULLTEXT01.pdf
It's also worth pointing out that while alpha and beta can be stopped by skin, neither is stopped by broken skin or by your eyes; cuts on your hands or looking through them closely can be a risk. I think people should also be aware that film left in a camera with a radioactive lens attached absolutely can go wonky, and while I've yet to see or hear of any problems occuring with digital sensors, it's still a good idea to not leave a radioactive lens on there in storage.
The *TL;DR* is that under "normal use" you shouldn't need to worry about any single lens, however if you were to collect a whole bunch of radioactive lenses and used them intensively day after day, it would all add up and could become a significant problem. The key is "normal use". So don't lick them, don't hold them up to your eyeball directly, and don't crush them up and snort them. The radiation may be weak but as with anything in life, small things repeated quickly add up and there's no point taking unneccessary risks when it's so easy to simply take proper care of a lens.
Honestly would love to have a "Rad-glass" lens, even if mostly for the novelty
After I found out about the radiation I asked a friend of mine who studied physics about the topic, and he confirmed what you guys say, as long as you do not lick the glas, hold to close to your eye etc. should be ok. You get more radiation to your body on an international flight. I was curious and as my friend owns a Geiger device (he visited Tschernobyl for fotos!) we measured all my vintage lenses. Astonishingly most of were NOT radioactive, and the Internet says that it also depends on the production time, so the serialno was a good indicator. But unfortunately my best Takumar made the Geiger cry... Now we come to my wife's part of the "discussion" ... my whole explaination seemed to be white noise to her (pfffffffffffff) beside the buzz word "radioactive". So the lense is banned from the house also because of children and the small one actually might lick it. I personally also feel uncomfortable now that I know, and as a result will never get on my camera again :/ So if one of you guys wants to take the risk...
Simon!
These vintage lenses just happen to be Full Frame lenses. Their prices are being driven up by the Cinematography students using cameras like Sony A7S or R's. For me, this story started when I bought a Sony A7Rii for $880 to record some TH-cam videos to promote my vacuum tube mic preamp/limiter product. I was trying to understand the history of HD for the Sony cameras. Like, Full-Frame vs Super35 Cinematography. So, when you follow that topic down the rabbit hole, you find that Super35 has been the dominant format for decades. Now, we have all the relatively cheap modern cameras appearing on the market with Full-Frame sensors. All my 28 vintage lenses were born Full-Frame, meaning that they are the size of a frame of 35mm film. The world of Super35 Cinematography lenses can't be used anymore if they are going for Full-Frame. I have noticed that the prices of my lenses have been sky-rocketing in the last two years. Some Cinematography students are now buying up vintage lenses at $100 to $500. The new lenses seem to cost upwards of $1,000 to $16,000. This surge has been driven by the small prosumer cameras like mine. I am seeing lenses that went for $50 two years ago on eBay now going for $400. Just saying...
I really enjoyed this look at vintage lenses. I have been shooting for a causal hobby since 1959 but in the late 70s got more involved, partly because I wanted to keep a camera handly in my main work as recording engineer and studio owner and taking candid B&W shots during breaks or with artists in deep artistic discussions or arguments. They became historical records of their era and some were featured on hit album liner notes or even cover images. Most I developed myself but never color, those went to a lab. Fast forward to 2008 when I gave up on film and switched to digital, with D90 Nikon. Now do commercial photograph as a side job, theater and actor headshots, portraiture and events, some fashion and product and cityscape/architecture used in my main business of incoming tour operator after moving from California to St Petersburg Russia, which is a wonderland of visual opportunities for shooting.
Now with a D850 and a much more often used Z6, and a lot of lenses, I would like to learn more about the many Russian made lenses I see in antique stores, camera shops since the Z6 has such a large flange and shallow sensor depth, any lens can adopt to it. I love the image quality of the S lenses, and hardly use my large collection of F mount lenses except when an art directly wants larger files, and I end up using the D850 or D800. I have sharp low distortion lenses but would like to find some that have an interesting character. So, I will be anxious to see any other videos on your channel. Some of the Russian lenses were made just blocks from my home in the city center so I will be on the lookout for good candidates.
I like your response. I'm getting back into photography after a long break. I'm looking at Nikon versus Sony. With Nikon, it's a choice between the D-850 (robust construction and optical viewfinder) versus the Z-7ii (S-lenses and perhaps better off-tripod handling). What makes the choice challenging for me is my collection of seven, manual focusing, AI-S Nikkor lenses (all in mint condition), designed in the 1980s. There's nothing like the feel of an all-metal lens body and manual focusing.
This was one incredibly well-constructed lecture. I think I just found my favorite TH-cam photography channel.
Lots of great info and ideas. I appreciate the low pressure plus/minus aspects of your videos. Very helpful. Thanks for doing this.
Many thanks for your kind words. And thanks for following me on Flickr too!
Reply on the question on the first minute, and great detailed analisys afterwards. Great video!
Excellent, excellent, excellent review ! As a vintage lens buff I can only but agree with your conclusions. It is spool much fun to experiment with older lenses!
Thanks for the detailed, yet accessible overview of this topic. I really appreciated what you said about older lens coatings, because that's something I have also found truly adds to photos via working the light flares and contrast. The "feel" of the photo can be brought out so much more with vintage lenses thanks to their characteristics. There's still definitely a place for modern lenses in certain situations, but when a specific character is needed, then I always go for my vintage lenses!
Thank you! So good to find a kindred spirit!
This is half the reason I went with Pentax for my first DSLR, use some old sears branded chinron glass I got from my grandpas old slr, couldn’t be happier. Just pops right in.
One of the most detailed and unbiased reviews of vintage lens on TH-cam very well done!
Thank you for this thoughtful exploration of a most interesting topic. I have had a similar experience enjoying some moderately cheap thrills with some old gear, and found, like you report, that macros in particular do not give up much to newer designs. Fast primes, especially wider ones, are another story-here is where I see great improvement with modern lenses over old retrofocus. Still, modest aperture examples like the Takumar 28/3.5. are terrific. Long lenses of yore are...long. The compact modern design is soooo much more usable, never mind image stabilization. IBIS and live focusing on slow lenses makes older telephotos much more usable, even with manual focus. Looking forward to seeing more from you on this topic. Many thanks for sharing the findings!
Another wonderful video, thank you.
One of the reasons I purchased a few Lensbaby lenses was because I wanted to buy NEW some lenses that had interesting and unique characteristics, to complement my 'normal' modern lenses. Unfortunately today's all 'modern manual focus lenses' (Irix, Samyang etc) follow a similar optic formula to AF glass and thus I feel are a little 'boring'. It feels when buying new lenses today you are stuck between buying either ultra high quality, clinical perfection glass or really weird lenses like Lensbaby where the effect is often just too strong. Vintage lenses offer a middle ground, something classical, with flaws but also character and at a nice balance point between these two spectrums.
My only complaint is that the only way to buy these lenses is on the used market. Imagine a company that replicated the Takumar 50/1.4 (8 Element) lens design with perhaps weather sealing, a lens you could buy new and with warranty yet rendered exactly the same to their older siblings. Now that would be something!
Timely video. I was thinking about this exact question yesterday, as I was buying a few more vintage 50mm and 28mm to experiment with on a modern crop sensor. I appreciate how you framed the question and structured your answer. As always, very well done. Thanks for making these!
Thank you so much, your kind comments are much appreciated (and shared with my family, who watch me late a night trying to finish the videos!!!)
It's so so nice to be able to use this Wonderful older technology with new. It hurts to see this older great engineering go away. Seems like the relentless march towards precision leaves a human element behind.
The big pain in the ass with radioactive lenses is also that some delivery carriers just flat out refuse them. I heard of a case on eBay's global delivery program that received one of these and they immediately disposed of it (which is actually the standard procedure for the global program in cases where they can't deliver something).
Very informative video though! I think most people have too many lenses (me included) :)
Strange, I've bought a number of 'radioactive' Pentax Takumar lenses from Ebay sellers in Japan and experienced no problem at all with their shipping to England.
Why/how would the post office know you’re shipping a radioactive lens? I’ve done so without any problems a few times.
@@terryjacob8169 The early 50mm Summicron and I believe Taylor-Cooke are very similar, and both are radioactive! I have 2nd version in my Collapsible-Summicron. No yellowing. So is OK!
Great commentary. Some of the old cine lenses are also great assets to retain. Image stabilization combines with auto-focus for sharp images in long modern lenses, which is a reason to take a modern lens to locations where a tripod is not possible. Its always good to retain something of the past to understand the present, and in the end, its what the image instills in the viewer that counts more than any technical attribute of a picture.
Wow! I wish more YT videos were like this one in terms of: relevance to the topic, providing enough data without getting lost into the details, sharing really useful knowledge and also being a pleasure to listen to. Thank you!
An extremely high quality and insightful video - with some beautiful photos to boot. It was a joy to watch.
I am truly grateful for this much needed multi disciplinary overview . I’ve struggled to find smart discussions on this topic and was often left feeling unsatisfied or confused when researching this stuff. Shit this is some academic level presentations. Thanks a million for doing this. The only absolute conclusion to which I have arrived (hopefully not a misguided one) is that lens design and performance is a mix of compromises and time. And that internet research on this stuff is borderline futile. Your thesis (and the Lens Rentals Blog ) is the exception to my observations. To date I have yet to find a satisfactory answer or video on wtf good image quality means. Oh, as I’m watching your video I’m intrigued by one issue you mentioned which was the inability to compensate using post processing. I’d love to hear your insights on color , Astro, and polarisation filters and whether those can compensate, enhance, or detract from lenses. I find this domain so frustrating and fascinatingly opaque.
Great video! I also prefer lesser coated lenses. I started down this path due to them generally being better for infrared photography as they produce much more contrast with less issues. F series pre-AI Nikkor lenses have been my favourite so far. This encouraging me to use them more often has given me an added appreciation for them. I also started with vintage lenses due to cost, but I still buy them today now that I have several good autofocus lenses.
I've recently come across your channel and from a beginner's perspective everything seems to make sense. Which makes a pleasant change.
I have a couple of Super Takumar lenses: the 50mmf1.4 and 28mmf3.5. They're not as sharp as my Fuji lenses but that's a good thing, they render beautiful soft images with amazing colors. And the bokeh with that fast 50 is dreamy
Agreed, I am find the out of camera colors of most of the pentax/42 lens aremore pleasing to me than my newer Nikon lens.
Great video! It's really interesting to consider how the old lenses can provide creative effects. Technically the elements on a sensor aren't pixels, but it's not super important. One of the things I find frustrating with respect to film is that my Nikon scanner sees the film grain in such a way that there's less useful resolution than when printing the film image on photographic paper. On the other hand, the scanner is able to create a digital image which has more visible information from a negative in terms of dynamic range than paper could reproduce.
Hi Simon, have only just found your video. I have bought my first manual focus lens, a Voightlander 35 1.4 SC and have found so much joy in using it. I feel more involved in the photo-taking process and it’s good to slow down for a well-considered composition. I love dreamy bokeh so will definitely be looking at the Helios 44. Many thanks for an informative and enjoyable watch. Subbed!
Thoroughly enjoyed your research and views on this subject matter. I'm hooked on manual lenses and have had a bugging eye on vintage lenses. You've increase my interest as well as my pursuit in capturing unique and distinctive art.
One of the best presentation I’ve seen in a long time, regardless of the subject.
Very professionally made.
And beautiful photos by the way.
Thank's for this video Simon, it was great to hear and see the explanation of, how different old lenses are in the way they produce the picture. I'm very much into older lenses because they are great to make experiments in different projects, and if they are not working as they should, I just disassemble them and try to repair them if I can.
Excellent video Simon , as a newbie on the “ dangerous “ vintage lens path , this is absolutely invaluable and I’ve learned so much from this piece . Many thanks 🙏 just subscribed too …. All the best Gary
yes lenses are dangerous , you can die from them !! or get hurt very badly !!! its well known how dangerous lenses can be , its a risk every time you pick them up
Geez I just found this guy yesterday and I'm a couple years deep into the lens buying addiction now for exactly the same reason he said. All the videos I've seen so far are amazing and I share a lot of the same glass and opinions. Keep up the good work and I look forward to seeing more content
Subscribed! Great commentary - calm, sensible and honest. Wide sweep of lenses and knowledge. You introduce us to all the key factors. And your comments about when and why to use modern vs vintage are spot on. And of course, the sheer joy of using a beautifully engineered work of art (science) is true. I just smile when I hold my Takumars!!
I know this is a year old, but as someone that shot digital only with vintage lenses, for close to ten years, I found that c-mount lenses typically had/have the best sharpness, as they typically have a smaller more compact profile.
While I have never had the luck to use the full frame mirrorless cameras of today with my slew of fujinon lenses, I can only salivate over the chance to get back into photography before it disappears completely, like cuneiform.
Edit: the other main difference between modern and vintage, is that every digital camera has a hot filter installed on the sensor. Rather than the film simply not seeing that spectrum of light, it has to be blocked out in a digital camera.
This leads to certain spectrums of light that would affect an exposure, simply not being present in a digital capture. Typical lenses do not need a UV filter, because the hot filter in the camera does that already. Also how a darkroom would use a near infrared light to avoid exposing film, because film was not reactive to it. This same infrared can be seen by digital.
Further studying “full spectrum photography” by removing the hot filter in my nex-3 simply forced me to put hot filters on the front of the lenses if I wanted realistic photos.
Full spectrum was simply mind blowing the first time I used it for astrophotography.
" Also how a darkroom would use a near infrared light to avoid exposing film, because film was not reactive to it."
I think you are wrong here. Every film manipulation should be in total dark. However, developing photo paper was done under the red light.
Another well articulated, hype free and informative offering on vintage lenses. I agree that the risk of buying my first two m42 mount lenses is in going down the rabbit hole of many other unique, tactile and gorgeous lenses that I simply can't justify. As a Micro Four Thirds user, I'd love a future video to address use of focal reducers (Metabones / Mitakon Zhongyi) to recapture a bit more of the original field of view.
Looking forward to the next in your series, thanks!
I just worked through this issue. The Mitakon Zhongyi "speed booster" is very poorly built and the lens wobbles in the fitting. The inexpensive Pixco M42 to MFT "speed booster" produces great results for me. I've used it with a variety of lenses and have no complaints about the Pixco. Several youtube reviews also report favorably on the Pixco.
Great video, great delivery, nice way for us to get the info on vintage lenses. Takes away a lot of work.
Beautifully made and thorough video. Thanks for the warning at the start, I think I will steer clear!!
Terrific video! Your combination between monologue and still pictures for example/explaining is top notch. Just "discovered" ( the YT-algorithm worked today) your channel and have subbed already. Got a strong addiction to aquire and test old lenses, and find them often superb in combination with my 5dmkII.
Many thanks for your kind words - much appreciated!
In film days, we shot a standard resolution test chart to find the actual resolution limit of a film and lens. Kodak PanatomicX or Kodachrome clearly resolved more line pairs per mm. than even the 45 megapixel digital cameras today. So whatever their faults, those old top brand lenses can still outperform a lot of very pricey new digital cameras.
For 8now
The relevance of those tests today are not ironclad equivalencies imo as they fail to take into account the adverse impact of aging. And they were also a result of the perfect mix of film stock, developer, shutter speed, and lens resolution. An AF testing chart won’t tell me how well skin tones and color tonalities will be rendered. Otherwise we’d all be shooting process lenses, no?
@@Callmedstone They made, and still make, for an objective way to compare system resolution. Skin color, etc, are moot points, there were always other ways to compare those, and choosing Fuji, Kodachrome, or Ektachrome was always part of that process. But there is no substitution for pin sharp resolution, as one of many factors.
@@lyfandeth Maybe my skin color reference was a bit oversimplistic in nature, but wouldn't it be fair to say that the issue of spectral transmission analyses (and by extension - contrast ratios) to be as equally valuable as the resolution? I came across some interesting discussions on mflenses where it was posited that certain lenses (e.g. the Nikon 105 DC defocus control) had their coatings tweaked to better render skin tones. I'm not disputing the value of those lens tests (I wish there were more other than the hevanet ones - albeit they're fascinating) but I think (correct me if I'm wrong, please) those resolution tests only paint a partial (and incomplete) picture of a lens' capabilities and leave out other aspects whose tradeoffs might be desirable (e.g. lower resolution but more pleasing rendering of certain colors or how they "draw" - such as the Canon 50 1.2, Nikon 58 1.4G, Pentax 67 105 2.4, and so on). Correct me if I'm wrong on this issue, but lens resolution tests only illustrate one singular aspect of it all. Otherwise, wouldn't process lenses (or enlarger lenses) be the gold standard?
Hey, be sure to show us all some "proof" of this -
I very much appreciate your rational approach to vintage lenses. I learned a great deal and look forward to the series of videos.
Thank you, one of the most enjoyable and truthful videos I’ve watched about vintage lenses. You have done nothing to quench my addiction for vintage lenses, but that’s a good thing.
That's an awesome video, very helpful, thanks for making it. I just ordered a Fujinon 1.8 55 and adapter (I notice that you mention it in this, and also recommended it for product photography in another video) to use with my Fuji xt3, and am so glad to have discovered your channel. If nowt else, it will hopefully mean I can experience your lens addiction by proxy and spare myself the expense and relationship stress. Subscribed!
Thank you for your kind words! Enjoy that Fujinon. The XT3 works very well with vintage lenses, I hear...
@@Simonsutak thanks for replying. I have had it a few weeks now and it's a lot of fun to use, quite challenging and probably best as a sort of details/faux macro or as a portrait lens. At first I thought it couldn't focus to infinity but it just needs to be stopped down to 5,6 or 8 to be sharp. But it's much better suited to focussing close. The xt3 is definitely suited to vintage lenses and even recognises when an adapter is attached. The colours are glorious when there's a bit of sun - in Finland at this time of year it's golden hour most of the day but sadly the few days that the sun has been visible since I got the lens have been urgent work days where I couldn't just nip out and enjoy the light for half an hour. It's a pity there isn't any focus assist technology anywhere near as easy as the split ring on my old Praktica! Anyway, thanks again and I hope you are keeping safe but able to enjoy the holidays.
Thank you, I really enjoyed your video. I have been experimenting with old lenses on my Sony A7 and had some good results. As you pointed out though it’s nice to have an autofocus modern lens for shots that you would inevitably miss trying to focus
“Horses for courses” was the old expression, have fun with manual lenses but keep an automatic focus digital pocket camera ready for the shot that is only there for a few seconds.
Years ago I bought a Sony A7 on sale at a bargain price to use as an everyday kick around camera instead of my Nikon D810. I have a lot of Nikon glass, some of the best ever made. I bought a cheap adapter and began to use my Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8 on the A7. I was astounded by the results being that the A7 is only a 24 megapixel camera. My Nikkor 35mm F2 was as good if not marginally better in image quality. I come from the film world so manual focus is not a problem for me. Two years ago I tested a 55mm F1.8 Sony Zeiss against my Micro Nikkor 55mm F2.8, my Nikkor gave the same image quality and was slightly sharper overall. Since I couldn't see $1200 worth of difference in image quality I didn't bother buying the Zeiss lens. I'm not spending an extra $1200 just for autofocus. Later I learned that the Zeiss 55mm suffers from both pincushion and barrel distortion and some chromatic abberation.....no problem, it can all be fixed easily in Lightroom. Really, in my humble opinion any professional quality lens that suffers from those faults is just a piece of overpriced junk.
I shoot vintage lenses on a Fuji digital medium format camera. I have also used my vintage lenses on a Fuji X-T3 and Fuji X-Pro 2. When I used DSLR's instead of mirrorless, I used vintage Nikon Nikkor lenses with full frame Nikon D700 and a Nikon D800E. What got me started down this path was a Pentax K5 that I had bought many years ago... once I figured out that I could mount any Pentax K mount lens onto it, I became a bit obsessed. Started buying all lenses left and right. Found out about adaptors and got an M42 to Pentax K adapter and dug out some lenses that I had left over from my film days (I started with photography in 1980). Since then, I've never looked back, and I only own one digital AF lens that came with my Fuji GFX 50R, and even with that lens, I never even use the AF on it. MF only. With the insane amount of capability in todays modern digital cameras it's almost like autopilot... or self-driving cars. Not for me. There is absolutely no fun in it if I can't work in full manual on my camera.
Those picture examples completely blew me away, thank you for sharing!
Nearly spit me coffee when it came to to storing radioactive lenses :)
I have the 55mm 1.2 tamioka, its just crazy...
Well done ! When I bought my first DSLR I chose Sony. Having been out of touch so long, I knew nothing about the Konica / Minolta absorbtion by Sony & only later found that my old 1970's & '80's Minolta lenses were still good via an adapter. I'm glad I kept everything.
Wow. Very impressed. Anybody that puts a programme up like that and without the ubiquitous muzak is close to gaining another subscriber. Thank you.
r
One thing to add about the lack of corner sharpness in older lenses is a discussion about field curvature. Field curvature was not well corrected for in most lenses. Which means that any test chart would look sharp in the center and soft towards edges and corners. However, if you focus at something in the corner, sharpness could be improved significantly at the expense of center sharpness. In situations like portrait or wildlife photography this should be considered, where edge to edge sharpness is not required - only sharpness on your subject.
Thank you. Something to test with my earliest lenses!
Also vintage lenses were made in a time when they were built to last, not built to last just long enough to get past your warranty.
You look at for instance an old minolta maxxum lens, full metal construction, built like a tank.
I use a Nikon nifty fifty f1.7, sometimes with extension tubes for macro, love the quality and sharpness.
I thoroughly enjoyed this video. Your professional documentary styled delivery is engaging. Also, the demonstration images beautifully articulate your opinion.
I'm new to digital photography, and have a few vintage lenses. Really enjoyed your overview, and it has encouraged me to make a start with using them with my new digital camera.
I have the Sony A6000 and also a 1982 Olympus OM-G (OM20). I'm very curious to start adapting lenses now!
I have om20 too
AWWSOME video, very informative 👌. Here's a sub and a 👍.
A very thorough and informative video.
Recently I've been using a friend's Tokina 35-105 lens on my Nikon D7100 and have been very pleased with the results. I was even able to download a user manual for the lens.
I have used leitax adapters for my Leica lenses and used them on EOS-1DX Mark II and the results are great. The color is outstanding much better than the Canon zoom lenses. They are very sharp and I was surprised at how good they preform.
The Leica lenses are fixed focal where as most of my Canon lenses are not. The Canon 300mm up to 600mm look better than their zoom lenses as it should be, but the Leica lenses are very nice for landscape and street photography. My Hasselblad lenses look great as well. I am glad I kept all my old glass and with Hasselblad having a digit back 907x I am very excited to get one and try it with all my old Hasselblad bodies and glass. All my old or vintage glass are in great shape and I am sure that makes a difference. I can't use any of these old lenses for work but for person use it really takes me back to the film days as I must slow down and get the light meter out, compose and frankly think about what I am shooting. Thanks for not forgetting about the old glass. There is a lot of great old glass out there.
One of the best reviews I've seen. Thank you for doing this. Are you able to review alternative softwares to light room. I'm interested to know what your opinion is. Thanks
Thank you! I've been thinking about a video on post processing software...so your comment is most encouraging!
Yes please do! Would love to see that as well. This video is also much appreciated. Thank you
(Almost) No mention of Olympus Zuiko lenses and / or pictures taken with them? I'm kinda disappointed but I understand...
I started scavenging these old lenses about 20 years ago. When the Navy closed down it's photography school in Florida I scooped up a lot of vintage Canon lenses. I was buying other lenses at thrift stores for under $10, usually thrown into old camera bags.
I love the look of an old prime for video interviews, especially with natural light. Those days of screaming deals are mostly gone but great while they lasted.
Superb video and beautiful work!
I regularly use a number of M42 lenses on my current Pentax K-1 DSLR. The Takumar 105mm/f2.8 and a Super-Takumar 55mm/f1.8 are my favourites; super sharp, really nice contrast and a certain distinct 'feel' to images produced with them. The other lens I use quite regularly on the K-1 is the Takumar 105mm/f2.4 from my Pentax 67 used with a 67/P-K adapter; stunning image quality but really the subject for a different conversation.
Thank you for this wonderful video !
Glad you enjoyed it!
I only use vintage now on my Nikon d600
Thank you very much for this substantial and well-structured elaboration on the different aspects of vintage lenses.
Glad you enjoyed it!
Fantastic! I did some testing some 10 years ago on a Sony A100 with M42 lenses from Chinon and Pentax. The results were not what I expected at all, and my abilities with digital were very new. I am now going to give them another try with better more modern equipment. Thanks
The older lenses have less optical glass compared to most modern lenses. The micro contrast pops out more on the older lenses.
I was confused to find out that it wasn't Christopher Hitchens making a lens tutorial.
Thank you! I was trying to figure out who he sounds like, and it was just there at the edge of my memory but I couldn’t get it!
Simon, I can’t thank you enough for this video. I feel like I got a free master class from a very qualified, experienced and passionate teacher and what I learned, I appreciate a lot.
You got a new subscriber, thank you so much.
It's fun just having an array of both old and new lenses to select from.... iv always described it as.... choosing a paint brush to work with, understanding the characteristics of the lenses I own.... and the joy of creating work with lenses that are deemed old and out of date.... if only they knew :).... one lens that I do think is a masterpiece is the Olympus 50mm f2 macro....... but I have so many 50mm's I spend more time humming and arring which one to go out with....
I would've liked it better if there had been more images.
Nice video regardless.
Wonderful! Thoroughly enjoyed this, now subscribed and intending to watch all your others. You will have probably covered this point, about the major difference between digital sensors and film, in terms of the angle that rays of light hit the film/sensor, especially with older wide angle lenses where the rear elements are deep inside the camera body, or in the case of the Hasselblad Biogon, the camera has to be built around the lens. The popular Jupiter 12 35mm lens for Leica screw or Contax, has most of the lens elements behind the iris. I have found that using lenses like this on digital sensors, like putting the Jupiter on my Leica M9, of putting a digital back on my Hasselblad SWC, gives disappointing results. The light rays are hitting the sensor at low angles it was not designed for, and severe colour fringing and smearing effects are noticeable. I spent my entire working life in the photo industry, as a lab technician, owning a large professional colour lab in central London, and also as an advertising photographer and black and white printer, which I continue to enjoy now I am retired. I am looking forward to enjoying your other videos, and future ones.
Bravo. (and thank you for the free education!) Peace.
Simon I love your videos so much! No fluff or pretence, just a man talking with intent about something he's passionate about. Brilliant.
Thank you! A late response, but thank you (Sero Sed Serio to be pretentious!!!!).
Thanks for the well-thought-out video! There's something about vintage lenses that I really like, even though I know the images are way less technically perfect than most modern lenses.
I recently bought an FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC (non-aspherical because I'm not rich) and one thing I really like about it is that I can get the dreamy weird look wide open, but then if I stop down to f/2.8 I get excellent sharpness (on my 26MP EOS RP at least) but still have a bit of a vintage look to the image. When I'm post-processing my images I tend to use a lot of the Mastin Labs film simulations and it seems like the character of this lens fits those perfectly.
I also have an old Canon EF 80-200mm f/2.8L (the first autofocus one, before they started painting them beige) and it's incredibly sharp in the center, even wide open, but also has much more of a vintage character than the newer 70-200mm lenses. I love using both the 55mm and 80-200mm for portraits.
I really like the hexagonal bokeh patterns. I think an album of nature or landscapes with various geometric patterns from lenses like that would be neat.
It's the clue NOT to use Nikkors and post on Leica film sites!
Excellent video! I have dealt with literally hundreds of vintage lenses for almost 20 years now and I am absolutely glad that finally someone summarizes it in such a concise and correct manner. There are so many wrong things swirling around on social media, I will link and recommend your video for clarification and getting across some correct information. Thank you very much indeed.
RetroaCamera.blog
Thank you so much for your kind words and recommendation.
Thank you so much for producing such a high-quality content!
That was a really interesting essay. Oddly, I think there are a fair few of us that like old glass and finds its new limits on FF digital.
The best of the so called vintage lenses are probably better than modern plastic lenses.
Professional quality vintage lenses give up nothing to modern lens designs and the build quality is far superior.
Thank you for your videos. I also love vintage lenses. Well, at least some of them. I have a small friendly tip, I think you have mixed up onion ring bokeh with bubble bokeh. When you have a lighter edge it is called bubble bokeh. On modern aspherical lenses you can get a lot of rings, just like a cut onion, there of the name onion bokeh. As I said, just a friendly tip.
I really appreciate friendly tips! Part of the reason why I do these videos is to learn more, and feedback such as yours is so helpful. I see bubble bokeh with defined edges to the bubbles, and bubbles without defined edges...so I'm going to have to be more precise in my descriptions.
love this video! best one on the subject!! Love your channel ^^
Great video! I should mention - vintage lenses are SUPERB for modern video cameras. Indeed, there are limits when comparing to film photography, however, there is *almost* no justification for using a 35mm film camera these days. It's just too expensive.
You would be surprised how much character a vintage lens will give to a film vs. their modern counterparts.
The new Batman (2022) used a Helios 44-2. The character of a beautiful vintage lens is greatly emphasized when looking at a moving image. There's nothing quite like the creamy bokeh of leaves dancing behind a subject. I believe that vintage lenses give a *look* that clients adore.
Many try to edit their videos to look "vintage" and don't quite get all the way there. Even in modern movies. It's not all about color grading & grain! There's this untouchable characteristic that the glass brings to video that I've found often makes the difference in the editing room. There are just some things you can't recreate digitally (yet) - and editing a video is far more intensive than editing a single photo. You can't fake as much 'characteristic' as easily.
Just my two cents. Loved your video.
"Many try to edit their videos to look "vintage" and don't quite get all the way there." It's the same thing with 35mm film cameras. I can get close to a vintage look with Lightroom filters but you can't really match up a digital pic to a Cinestill or Lomography film
Beautiful, beautiful photos!!! We know vintage lenses are not technically perfect, but you sir have shown us that these old lenses with their flaws, can deliver excellent photos! Thank you for sharing photos and thoughts!
i am so glad i subscribed to this channel.. no fluff and straight facts. as a photographer who started on film in 91 as a kid.. i clearly missed a lot.
Thank you so much for your kind words.
So LOVE your work! Thanks for all these great informative videos!!
Thanks so much!
Thank you Simon, I love your videos and photography.I purchased a few M42 and Prentax lenses this year. For me, the 2 great joys so far are the out of camera colors and the bokeh.
After all the years, it still surprises me how much impact old lenses can have on the colours from the sensor. As you say, it's one of the great joys of these lenses.