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

F

filmguy123

New member
My dad has a bunch of old lenses that he used to use with an old SLR film camera, back in the 70's. He says they're great lenses. I'm going to be talking to him later this weekend so I'll have more specific details; but in the meantime, I am trying to do some research. Is there any chance these will work with the AF100, and if so, should they work well or would there be a lot of limitations?

What adapter might I need? Will update with details ASAP when I have them but I am trying to coordinate a few things so any help in the meantime would be greatly appreciated!! :)
 
i bet they will

i mostly use really ancient nikon glass
love to have manual aperture rings and stuff
who needs autofocus anyway ;)
 
One of the best things about these Panasonic interchangeable lens cameras, at least for me, is that they got me into searching out vintage lenses, which bring a new dimension to any project. The flange distance on these is such that almost all manual lenses that fit the sensor can be adapted pretty easily. Which is awesome.
 
OK, I got the details. The camera my dad has was a Minolta XG7, and he bought the camera and lenses between 1978-1980. Uses Minolta Bayonet Mounts.

Three main lenses:


50mm 1.7 (rokkor series)
28mm 2.8
70-210mm 4.5-??


Also has a "2x Doubler" (doubles the focal length but cuts f-stop in half). Then he has a cheaper lens that someone gave him, plus a bunch of filters I probably won't use.


What adapter would you guys recommend to put these lenses to use? I found these two on BHPhoto, not sure if they are correct:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/699815-REG/Bower_AB43MD_AB43MD_Micro_Four_Thirds.html

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/646013-REG/Novoflex_MFT_MIN_MD_MFT_MIN_MD_Minolta_MD_Lens.html

If those are right, I don't know what makes the second one from Novoflex more expensive?

Also what is the conversion factor/crop factor from these FF 35mm lenses to the AF100? I was a bit confused by the sticky chart... how do I convert it directly from FF 35mm to AF100's m43? Sorry if that's redundant, a link to a good source on understanding that better would be great!

Thanks!!

P.S. - oh, and are these lenses worth getting an adapter for, really? I am on a tight budget starting, but I'd also have an Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens
 
Last edited:
analog_addict said:
Crop factor is 2x for 35mm lenses. e.g. 50mm becomes 100mm
Click to expand...

Does that mean the telephoto actually appears longer, or just that my FOV is only as wide as a 100mm and I just need to be further away from the subject? Does it mean my DoF will be/appear shallower? Sorry it's something I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around fully...
 
The 50mm 1.7 and 28 2.8 rokkors are really nice lenses! Not so sure about the zoom.

I really like the adaptors at fotodiox.com. If you are not sure about using primes, just buy one adaptor to start... You will like them.
 
OK Cool, I'll grab the adapter and use these lenses along with the Olympus that I'll have. How will the 28mm 2.8 differ from the Olympus 14-54 2.8-3.5? Wouldn't they both cover 28mm @ 2.8?

theReflex said:
I really like the adaptors at fotodiox.com. If you are not sure about using primes, just buy one adaptor to start... You will like them.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what you mean - do I need multiple adapters to make these lenses work? Or just one for all those Minolta? How about one of the ones I linked to from BH?

Thanks guys :)
 
So which mount do I need off BH?

So with the Olympus lens and these Minolta lenses, with the crop factor factored in/converted, would I basically have the following:

28-108 (2.8-3.5) ((Olympus with conversion))
100mm (1.7) [2x doubler=200mm 3.5) ((Minolta 50mm with conversion))
56mm (2.8) ((Minolta 28mm with conversion))
140mm-420mm (4.5-5.6) ((Minolta zoom with conversion))


*** Is lack of OIS much of an issue with these lenses?? ***

Also, it seems like if you buy old glass, there's some really good deals... is this a good way to go for building a good lens kit on the cheap? (buy old lenses off ebay to adapt?) i.e.http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINOLTA-MD-CELTIC-135MM-F2-8-TELEPHOTO-LENS-FILTER-CAPS-/190613362790?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c61711866#ht_1118wt_928



 
Last edited:
Vintage lenses are totally a way to go today with the large sensor cameras, especially if money is an issue. I started collecting vintage glass for a T2i, and, though I went with the Sony FS100 over the AF100, I would not hesitate to use vintage glass on either. Now there is some considerations to think about. Vintage glass is, as a general statement, not as sharp as the better modern lenses and, in many instances, are less contrasty. However, I have found that I love the look of the lenses I have. I like to describe the look of vintage lenses as they got great "Mojo"! I think that the vintage lenses help to take these new large sensor cameras to a new level toward a pleasing (To me at least) aesthetic. I hate to say that the look is more "Filmic" or "Cinematic" because that is a complicated aesthetic. I very much believe that vintage glass on modern large sensor HD cameras do help them to look way less "Video-y". The look of these types of lenses on these modern cameras really is something new, IMHO... but that discussion is really for a different kind of thread.... I love the way they look. The build quality of the vintage glass is also fantastic, with all manual controls and all metal construction. I went for a set of vintage Nikkor primes first, and am now looking around for other lenses. I just recently picked up a Vivatar Series 1 29mm-105mm f2.8 -3.5 zoom and it is pretty nice. For wide, I have a Nikkor 20mm f2.8 prime. I love that lens.

I have bought all of my vintage lenses off of eBay, and have only got one bad lens. Even on that lens, I got a full refund from the seller, so it was not that unpleasant. You just have to be careful, read the listing very carefully and do a good google search for the lens that you are thinking about. There are some great information out there about vintage lenses.

Below is a great thread from DVXUSER that talks about vintage glass.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?201760-The-Vintage-Lens-Thread&highlight=vintage+lens+thread

One word of caution about getting into buying vintage lenses... IT IS ADDICTIVE!!! There are so many very cool vintage lenses out there... and eBay buying is way too easy!

Good luck.
 
Shooter said:
You only need one adapter for each type of rear lens mount you own.
Click to expand...

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.:thumbsup:


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.php?products_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.
 
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
 
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)?
 
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.
 
filmguy123 said:
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)?
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top