General My article in EventDV regarding Vintage Lenses
- Thread starter Chris Watson
- Start date
Chris Watson
Well-known member
Hey KennyJay,
Thanks for posting that side by side test. I always dig those kinds of videos. The two lens I was really surprised by were the Canon FD 135 2.5 as to how clear it was and the Pentax 50mm f/2. I have the latter lying around here that never gets used. A friend of mine donated his lenses to me and that was one of them. I figured I had enough 50's to choke a horse so I never gave it a proper spin. After seeing the video, it might be time to take the Pentax 50 for a walk
.
Another thing I've noticed about the Helios is that while it's a great lens in the daytime, where it really shines is in low light. I just love how magical low light footage is with that lens.
Thanks for posting that side by side test. I always dig those kinds of videos. The two lens I was really surprised by were the Canon FD 135 2.5 as to how clear it was and the Pentax 50mm f/2. I have the latter lying around here that never gets used. A friend of mine donated his lenses to me and that was one of them. I figured I had enough 50's to choke a horse so I never gave it a proper spin. After seeing the video, it might be time to take the Pentax 50 for a walk
. Another thing I've noticed about the Helios is that while it's a great lens in the daytime, where it really shines is in low light. I just love how magical low light footage is with that lens.
So far, I've only used the Jupiter-9 to shoot stills with my 450D. I'm not seeing the aforementioned glowing while wide open. In fact, my images were a bit under-exposed while in Av mode, so I set the cam to compensate by a third. Here's an example of a shot that may have been better had I used a tripod.
Yea Chris some of the lens are surprisingly pleasing. The Canon 135 2.5 SC has some good reviews online. It cost me around $55. What funny is that I had made that price as my max price. But I know now by researching and listening to you and others that for around $200 bucks you can find some really nice glass. My goal with today's shoot is background out of focus with every lens.
Last edited:
I'm sorry I need to chime in here. Maybe you all and clear up some questions. First off I want to say that about six months back when I was looking into and buying up lenses I remembered that using vintage lenses might be a good option. But when I did some homework on it and after watching footage posted on various places online I came to the conclusion by previous users of a few important things.
1. it may sound all nice but in all reality you will loose a couple stops which was a big deal breaker for me when you use the vintage lens with a lens adapter. Now is this true? I ask because this is the main reason why I didn't go the vintage lens route. Has anyone done some hard research?
2. you actually are cropping the image even more with the lens adapter so not only do you have the crop from a 35mm lens to the 7d sensor but more of a crop is added. Is this true?
3. the current lens builds that are available now have coatings on the lens that not only improve lens flare but the quality and sharpness of the image. Even the article mentions that but kind of tap dances over that like it's not a big deal. It mentions nothing of sharpness.
This article makes is all sound peachy but if it were all true I think the majority of people using a T2i, 7d and 5d would have no need to buy Canon or current lenses... but they do. Maybe because they know something. Do they?
Has anyone done some really good test, not talking outdoor stuff because anyone can shoot some good looking outdoor stuff but good test with various lighting setups, contrast setups, color setups, shot charts ect?
Can anyone chime in an give some info to clear this up or am I wrong? Thanks all.
1. it may sound all nice but in all reality you will loose a couple stops which was a big deal breaker for me when you use the vintage lens with a lens adapter. Now is this true? I ask because this is the main reason why I didn't go the vintage lens route. Has anyone done some hard research?
2. you actually are cropping the image even more with the lens adapter so not only do you have the crop from a 35mm lens to the 7d sensor but more of a crop is added. Is this true?
3. the current lens builds that are available now have coatings on the lens that not only improve lens flare but the quality and sharpness of the image. Even the article mentions that but kind of tap dances over that like it's not a big deal. It mentions nothing of sharpness.
This article makes is all sound peachy but if it were all true I think the majority of people using a T2i, 7d and 5d would have no need to buy Canon or current lenses... but they do. Maybe because they know something. Do they?
Has anyone done some really good test, not talking outdoor stuff because anyone can shoot some good looking outdoor stuff but good test with various lighting setups, contrast setups, color setups, shot charts ect?
Can anyone chime in an give some info to clear this up or am I wrong? Thanks all.
Last edited:
Chris Watson
Well-known member
Hi Draven,
Let me take these on one by one if I may. My answers are in bold.
I'm sorry I need to chime in here. Maybe you all and clear up some questions. First off I want to say that about six months back when I was looking into and buying up lenses I remembered that using vintage lenses might be a good option. But when I did some homework on it and after watching footage posted on various places online I came to the conclusion by previous users of a few important things.
1. it may sound all nice but in all reality you will loose a couple stops which was a big deal breaker for me when you use the vintage lens with a lens adapter. Now is this true? I ask because this is the main reason why I didn't go the vintage lens route. Has anyone done some hard research?
This is probably in reference to adapters with glass elements where the register distance of a vintage lens is shorter than the Canon EOS system such as your Minolta, Canon FD, and Konica lenses. For lenses with a great register distance than the Canon EOS system (such as your Olympus, Nikon, and M42 mounts) there is no need for a glass element to achieve infinity focus. Therefore there's no light loss since the adapter only acts as a way to adjust the distance from the lens to the sensor and nothing more.
My guess is that this came up in a discussion as to whether Canon FD lenses can be adapted to the current Canon EOS system. Another cause for this concern is the yellowing that might occur on lenses like the Super Takumars that used thorium in their optical designs. This could cause the lens to be less sensitive but is easily curable with a week of UV exposure.
I haven't done hard research but I have shot several weddings with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Volna-3 80mm 2.8 and saw no difference in exposure when switching between the two. Likewise, I've found the Super Takumar 50 1.4 (M42 adapted) to be just as light sensitive as my Rokinon 85 1.4 (native Canon EOS mount). So I'm comfortable in stating that unless your adapter needs a glass element to work, you won't lose any f-stops with an adapted lens.
2. you actually are cropping the image even more with the lens adapter so not only do you have the crop from a 35mm lens to the 7d sensor but more of a crop is added. Is this true?
Again, this might be true with adapters with glass elements where there might be some magnification of the image going on. Not the case with adapters without the glass element. The focal range is exactly the same. That's why I'm only comfortable recommending lenses with M42, Nikon, or Olympus mount settings as they work beautifully without messing with another optical layer between the lens and the camera.
3. the current lens builds that are available now have coatings on the lens that not only improve lens flare but the quality and sharpness of the image. Even the article mentions that but kind of tap dances over that like it's not a big deal. It mentions nothing of sharpness.
It's true that today's lenses are better coated allowing for less lens flares but that really depends on the lens you get. For instance, the Mir 24 I have will not flare even when I'm shooting right at the sun. Same thing with the S-M-C Takumar I have. Others have veiling when shooting in a backlit situation while others flare quite a bit. I personally don't mind a little lens flare in my videos as they add a nice organic look to the video but I understand if that's not everyone's cup of tea. As for sharpness, I have a few that are quite sharp even wide open such as the Mir 24, the S-M-C Takumar, the Vivitar 70-210 3.5, and the Volna-3 80mm 2.8. The only lens I have that is unacceptably soft wide open is the Jupiter-9 but the rest are just fine. I didn't mean to "tap dance" around the issue but rest assured, I can't be happier with the image quality these lenses give me in terms of sharpness, color saturation, bokeh, and character.
This article makes is all sound peachy but if it were all true I think the majority of people using a T2i, 7d and 5d would have no need to buy Canon or current lenses... but they do. Maybe because they know something. Do they?
Actually it's more of a case of people not knowing something. It's not exactly common knowlege that you can adapt older lenses to the Canon EOS system and I imagine it isn't in Canon's best interest to publicize the fact that you can do so. The only reason I knew to even ask the question about adapting older lenses to the Canon EOS system is because I did so much research into the GH1 last year where adapting older lenses was a huge selling point.
I know the article sounds too good to be true that you can get kick ass optics and build quality for less than $50 but it's true. That's why I was so excited that I had to write an article on it. I use these lenses quite a bit on my shoots and they perform wonderfully so I'm not talking theory here. Low price is the least of what's impressive about them.
Has anyone done some really good test, not talking outdoor stuff because anyone can shoot some good looking outdoor stuff but good test with various lighting setups, contrast setups, color setups, shot charts ect?
Can anyone chime in an give some info to clear this up or am I wrong? Thanks all.
I don't think you're wrong when it comes to lenses that need a glass adapter to reach infinity focus but it's not the case with lenses with a longer register distance than the Canon EOS system. Hope my answers were helpful!
Let me take these on one by one if I may. My answers are in bold.
I'm sorry I need to chime in here. Maybe you all and clear up some questions. First off I want to say that about six months back when I was looking into and buying up lenses I remembered that using vintage lenses might be a good option. But when I did some homework on it and after watching footage posted on various places online I came to the conclusion by previous users of a few important things.
1. it may sound all nice but in all reality you will loose a couple stops which was a big deal breaker for me when you use the vintage lens with a lens adapter. Now is this true? I ask because this is the main reason why I didn't go the vintage lens route. Has anyone done some hard research?
This is probably in reference to adapters with glass elements where the register distance of a vintage lens is shorter than the Canon EOS system such as your Minolta, Canon FD, and Konica lenses. For lenses with a great register distance than the Canon EOS system (such as your Olympus, Nikon, and M42 mounts) there is no need for a glass element to achieve infinity focus. Therefore there's no light loss since the adapter only acts as a way to adjust the distance from the lens to the sensor and nothing more.
My guess is that this came up in a discussion as to whether Canon FD lenses can be adapted to the current Canon EOS system. Another cause for this concern is the yellowing that might occur on lenses like the Super Takumars that used thorium in their optical designs. This could cause the lens to be less sensitive but is easily curable with a week of UV exposure.
I haven't done hard research but I have shot several weddings with the Tamron 17-50 2.8 and a Volna-3 80mm 2.8 and saw no difference in exposure when switching between the two. Likewise, I've found the Super Takumar 50 1.4 (M42 adapted) to be just as light sensitive as my Rokinon 85 1.4 (native Canon EOS mount). So I'm comfortable in stating that unless your adapter needs a glass element to work, you won't lose any f-stops with an adapted lens.
2. you actually are cropping the image even more with the lens adapter so not only do you have the crop from a 35mm lens to the 7d sensor but more of a crop is added. Is this true?
Again, this might be true with adapters with glass elements where there might be some magnification of the image going on. Not the case with adapters without the glass element. The focal range is exactly the same. That's why I'm only comfortable recommending lenses with M42, Nikon, or Olympus mount settings as they work beautifully without messing with another optical layer between the lens and the camera.
3. the current lens builds that are available now have coatings on the lens that not only improve lens flare but the quality and sharpness of the image. Even the article mentions that but kind of tap dances over that like it's not a big deal. It mentions nothing of sharpness.
It's true that today's lenses are better coated allowing for less lens flares but that really depends on the lens you get. For instance, the Mir 24 I have will not flare even when I'm shooting right at the sun. Same thing with the S-M-C Takumar I have. Others have veiling when shooting in a backlit situation while others flare quite a bit. I personally don't mind a little lens flare in my videos as they add a nice organic look to the video but I understand if that's not everyone's cup of tea. As for sharpness, I have a few that are quite sharp even wide open such as the Mir 24, the S-M-C Takumar, the Vivitar 70-210 3.5, and the Volna-3 80mm 2.8. The only lens I have that is unacceptably soft wide open is the Jupiter-9 but the rest are just fine. I didn't mean to "tap dance" around the issue but rest assured, I can't be happier with the image quality these lenses give me in terms of sharpness, color saturation, bokeh, and character.
This article makes is all sound peachy but if it were all true I think the majority of people using a T2i, 7d and 5d would have no need to buy Canon or current lenses... but they do. Maybe because they know something. Do they?
Actually it's more of a case of people not knowing something. It's not exactly common knowlege that you can adapt older lenses to the Canon EOS system and I imagine it isn't in Canon's best interest to publicize the fact that you can do so. The only reason I knew to even ask the question about adapting older lenses to the Canon EOS system is because I did so much research into the GH1 last year where adapting older lenses was a huge selling point.
I know the article sounds too good to be true that you can get kick ass optics and build quality for less than $50 but it's true. That's why I was so excited that I had to write an article on it. I use these lenses quite a bit on my shoots and they perform wonderfully so I'm not talking theory here. Low price is the least of what's impressive about them.
Has anyone done some really good test, not talking outdoor stuff because anyone can shoot some good looking outdoor stuff but good test with various lighting setups, contrast setups, color setups, shot charts ect?
Can anyone chime in an give some info to clear this up or am I wrong? Thanks all.
I don't think you're wrong when it comes to lenses that need a glass adapter to reach infinity focus but it's not the case with lenses with a longer register distance than the Canon EOS system. Hope my answers were helpful!
jambredz
Veteran
no prob. heres video footage. U guys wont understand whats being said but u can see the image
http://www.vimeo.com/13410432
password: nimrod
This is just my colour grading and is not the final look as the director is editing it and this is audio from the unboard mic (not what is going to be used).
http://www.vimeo.com/13410432
password: nimrod
This is just my colour grading and is not the final look as the director is editing it and this is audio from the unboard mic (not what is going to be used).
http://vimeo.com/10797593
shot using the following vintage lenses (M42) :
Vivitar 28mm f2.0 Close Focus
Porst 35mm f1.8
Mir-24H 35mm f2.0
Super Takumar 50mm f1.4
Helios 44M-6 58mm f2.0
Helios 40-2 85mm f1.5
Jupiter-9 85mm f2.0
Vivitar 90mm f2.5 macro
Porst 135mm f1.8
Jupiter 6-2 180mm f2.8
Neil A Russell
Member
I don't think I would have jumped into buying a T2i if it hadn't been for the earlier posts by Chris about the terrific Russian lenses.
I really love the look I get from the Helios 44 but now running a close second is the Zenitar M2S 2/50mm that's been parked on the front of the camera quite a lot lately.
It's got a plastic focus ring, but for $50 brand new in the box I couldn't pass it up.
I would imagine there are many technical reasons to buy new lenses, but for me the look and feel of the older glass has become a stylistic choice. If I'm losing light because of the adapters I can add a light or use a reflector, it all adds to the "look".
I can't thank Chris (and this community) enough for the info and help in making the decision to go DSLR after years with a camcorder, it's a big change, but I love it!
By the way, I noticed I was getting a lot of lens flare on the Helios 44 when I added a Tiffen UV filter. I was surprised by that since I hadn't noticed it on my old Canon camera but it added one more effect to my kit. :thumbsup:
I really love the look I get from the Helios 44 but now running a close second is the Zenitar M2S 2/50mm that's been parked on the front of the camera quite a lot lately.
It's got a plastic focus ring, but for $50 brand new in the box I couldn't pass it up.
I would imagine there are many technical reasons to buy new lenses, but for me the look and feel of the older glass has become a stylistic choice. If I'm losing light because of the adapters I can add a light or use a reflector, it all adds to the "look".
I can't thank Chris (and this community) enough for the info and help in making the decision to go DSLR after years with a camcorder, it's a big change, but I love it!
By the way, I noticed I was getting a lot of lens flare on the Helios 44 when I added a Tiffen UV filter. I was surprised by that since I hadn't noticed it on my old Canon camera but it added one more effect to my kit. :thumbsup:
vegas06
Well-known member
Neil the Zenitar M2S 2/50mm looks rathe interesting.
I read and saw samples of this lens, and reports were that the construction wasn't the most robust, plastic but metal internals so it might be tougher than it originally looks. But the images seem to be super sharp, and well worth the low price of $50.
I also have my eye on a couple of Zenitar 50mm 1.7's.
I read and saw samples of this lens, and reports were that the construction wasn't the most robust, plastic but metal internals so it might be tougher than it originally looks. But the images seem to be super sharp, and well worth the low price of $50.
I also have my eye on a couple of Zenitar 50mm 1.7's.
Chris Watson
Well-known member
Hey Neil,
Thanks for the kind words. I started with vintage glass because I couldn't really afford to get a set of new lenses but like you, I'm staying with them because of a stylistic choice. There's just something special about the old lenses and the character of them. So what other lenses do you have in your collection?
Neil A Russell
Member
I guess it's not so much a collection yet as it is a "get acquainted with manual lenses" set.
In addition to the Helios 44 and the Zenitar (and the Canon 18-55 kit lens), I bought a couple of telephoto FD mount lenses off of Ebay. I have no idea how they will perform since I haven't received the adapter yet, but my hopes are high that I'll have that elusive component in a few days from Hong Kong.
One lens is a Canon 100-200 Zoom 1:5.6 that looks like it's never been used. For $8.00 I couldn't pass it up. The other is a Tokina SZ-X 28-200 1:3.5 that's in equally nice shape and was only $20.00
I've had to lay off Ebay for a while, buying lenses on the cheap can be addictive. I suspect I'll have a goodly number more before it's all said and done.
Chris Watson
Well-known member
Sounds like a solid start. You can definitely get carried away with collecting old lenses if you're not careful. You wouldn't believe how many lenses some people acquire. What I've found helpful is to figure out what your needs are after a few shoots and then make a list of the lenses you will need to fill in those gaps.
Best of luck and let me know how those FD lenses work.
Best of luck and let me know how those FD lenses work.
Mark Von Lanken
Well-known member
I love the look of those vintage lenses...shooting and editing wasn't too bad either. ;-)
My wife ask if I'm gonna buy a lens everyday . ha ha I'm up to 14 and expect to have many more in the future. It must be the hunter in me!
Well I did another test of all the lens yesterday. And I decided to shoot open. I am not pleased with the results. Most of the footage is over exposed to me. Well, maybe not if you shoot to CC in post? I'm thinking about shooting the same shots over tomorrow. This time I will go for a 'better' image. I really need a Zacuta viewfinder and a monitor to help focus as I now wear readers.
http://vimeo.com/13521918
Well I did another test of all the lens yesterday. And I decided to shoot open. I am not pleased with the results. Most of the footage is over exposed to me. Well, maybe not if you shoot to CC in post? I'm thinking about shooting the same shots over tomorrow. This time I will go for a 'better' image. I really need a Zacuta viewfinder and a monitor to help focus as I now wear readers.
http://vimeo.com/13521918