Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Using old SLR lenses from the 70s with AF100??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Shooter View Post
    You only need one adapter for each type of rear lens mount you own.
    True, but I have 3 m42 Takumars (28 3.5, 50 1.4, 100 4.0 macro) and its a lot more convenient to keep an adapter on each rather than screwing and unscrewing each change. I only paid a total of $200 for the lenses so $60 for 3 adapters was an easy decision.


    filmguy123...
    Here is the adapter from fotodiox you would need, I'm not aware of the offerings from B&H. These guys are good to deal with too...
    http://www.fotodiox.com/product_info...roducts_id=477

    Like was suggested, buy one adapter for $40, it expands your collection by a couple good lenses. If you decide that vintage is not for you, you will have no problem selling them and the adapter.

    Comment


      #17
      Its the FOV thats 2x crop. actually its only 20% less than a full frame s35 motion picture chip, its 2x DSLR full frame crop. In other words, its actually closer to a 1.6x crop factor from an arri S435 and its only FOV not magnification or DOF

      Comment


        #18
        Wow, that FotoDiox is a great price compared to the BHPhoto adapters. I have heard people say repeatedly don't skimp on the adapter - can anyone confirm this FotoDiox is a high quality adapter and not taking the "cheap route"? I don't wanna spend more money than I need to, either, so if I can get a good adapter for $40 instead of $100 or $165 that would be great!

        David G. Smith - thanks for the great feedback! You mentioned the vintage glass is generally less sharp and contrasty. While the sharpness is something that cannot be corrected (and I see what you're saying, doesn't necessarily need to be - I love the soft look as well), it seems that contrast is something that could easily be changed in post-production? I never shoot straight to delivery, but always edit/CC first. Would this mean my only potential drawback with the vintage glass would be less sharpness (and heavier weight/no electronic controls)?

        Comment


          #19
          The Fotodiox adaptors for my Takumars are very solid, no complaints at all. I can't directly vouch for the particular one you need, but they are a good company to deal with.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by filmguy123 View Post
            Wow, that FotoDiox is a great price compared to the BHPhoto adapters. I have heard people say repeatedly don't skimp on the adapter - can anyone confirm this FotoDiox is a high quality adapter and not taking the "cheap route"? I don't wanna spend more money than I need to, either, so if I can get a good adapter for $40 instead of $100 or $165 that would be great!

            David G. Smith - thanks for the great feedback! You mentioned the vintage glass is generally less sharp and contrasty. While the sharpness is something that cannot be corrected (and I see what you're saying, doesn't necessarily need to be - I love the soft look as well), it seems that contrast is something that could easily be changed in post-production? I never shoot straight to delivery, but always edit/CC first. Would this mean my only potential drawback with the vintage glass would be less sharpness (and heavier weight/no electronic controls)?
            Vintage glass being less sharp is a general statement in regard to possible side by side comparisons with similar quality modern lenses. Sharpness would not be an issue on a project unless you were cutting back and forth between shots from different lenses. Of course this would probably be a problem using modern lenses of different quality also. I am not saying that vintage lenses are not sharp, I am just saying that compared to many high quality (And expensive) modern lenses, they would, generally, be less sharp.

            As for drawbacks, yes some of the vintage glass may be heavier than some similar modern lenses because of the use of more metal in their construction. They will also be fully manual lenses, without electronic controls, which is fine by me, as that means that there is less thing to go wrong with them. The thing is, to me, I am more comfortable buying used full manual vintage glass from the seventies and early eighties than buying used lenses from the late nineties to the early two thousands with auto focus and electronic aperture controls. The older vintage lenses are pure mechanical devices and it would take, really, quite a bit of effort to damage them. The more modern auto lenses have more delicate controls and moving parts in them that are, it seems to me, more susceptible to failure.

            There are other considerations of course, like lens coatings. The modern lenses have what many believe to be better coatings and, again as a general statement, have less flaring, or better flaring. The vintage lenses that I have actually have very pleasant flaring characteristics. I have shot under some extreme lighting characteristics (Shooting a live band under stage lighting), with lights directly hitting the lenses, where any camera would flare, and it looks very good. I am glade the lenses don't have "Better" coatings.

            Of course, buying used lenses is a risk, I mean we are talking about camera gear that may be decades old, but I think that it a risk that can lead to some very beautiful images. Try out the lenses you get from your dad, and see how you like them. I think you will be very pleasantly surprised.
            "The enemy of art is the absence of limitations"
            -Orson Wells.

            "To me the great hope is... people that normally wouldn't be making movies will make them and suddenly some little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart and will make a beautiful film using her father's camera-corder and the "Professionalism" of movie making will be destroyed forever and it will finally become an art form."
            -Francis Ford Coppola.

            Comment

            Working...
            X