The Vintage Lens Thread

Do you know if the M42 to EOS adapter to mount the (monster) Helios 40-2 :) on an EOS body needs to have a back flange or not?
 
Would any of these be able to adapt to an EOS mount? One is a P. Angenieux 75mm 1.8 lens, but I don't know what adaptor I would need. The other is a 4inch f.4 C-mount lens. They don't look like they would be able to, especially the c-mount.

IMG_2536.jpgIMG_2546.jpgIMG_2533.jpgIMG_2526.jpgIMG_2523.jpg
 
With a c mount lens adapter, you're going to get a significantly smaller image circle than even the GH1 and no infinity focus.
 
I just picked up a bunch of konica hexanon AR lenses at an estate sale for 25 bucks. looks like they were really well cared for. All have leather pouches. covers. No scratches or anything. I'm wondering if I can adapt these to my t2i. And has anyone had experience with them? In the leather bag was a 57mm 1.4, 135mm3.2, 35mm 2.8. There were some nice hoya filters on all of them as well. For 25 bucks I'm happy with just the leather carrying cases for the lenses but I would love to hear some feedback on these lenses and if somebody knows a link to find the adapter. Thanks in advance.
 
Pentax lenses are spectacular. They really made good stuff. Plus their mount is easily converted to ef
 
Everyone on this thread has been pointing to ebay as the best place for vintage primes but I gotta say that I'm finding much better deals by searching through pawn shops. I've been able to find several vintage primes for half or even 1/3 what I've seen them sell on ebay for. This way also has the added benafit of not having to shell out another $10-$20 on shipping and I get to actually examin the lense myself. I think the word is out on how cool vintage primes are so the prices on Ebay have really skyrocketed.
 
DavidBeier said:
Everyone on this thread has been pointing to ebay as the best place for vintage primes but I gotta say that I'm finding much better deals by searching through pawn shops. I've been able to find several vintage primes for half or even 1/3 what I've seen them sell on ebay for. This way also has the added benafit of not having to shell out another $10-$20 on shipping and I get to actually examin the lense myself. I think the word is out on how cool vintage primes are so the prices on Ebay have really skyrocketed.
Click to expand...

True, but personally I've had a hard time finding decent pawn shops anywhere near me. The few that I've found don't have anything camera related, so my best options are for sale ads on craigslist and occasional yard sales (neither of which have yielded much for me).
Since ebay is not localized, its easier and more realistic to find things if the local venues aren't able. Believe me, I'd love to find some of these deals I hear folks find in pawn shops.
 
I hear you. I went to visit my parents back home and there are a ton of pawn shops near the airforce base where they live but none had camera lenses. Now that I'm back in Los Angeles, I'm finding a ton of great deals in local pawn shops. You just have to search. I'm surprised that you can't find any good shops in New York City.

Oh, and let me plug for everyone the Bargain Camera Show which I've just come back from in Pasadena. It apparently moves all over Southern California and there are a ton of great deals to be had. The people selling the lenses are also way more knowlagable than in a pawn shop (which sometimes means better deals and sometimes worse) and the lenses tend to be in better shape.

So far, I've been sticking with Nikon primes. So many pro photographer friends have always sworn by Nikon and the way their optics stay good over the years. Personally, I just like using lenses which were once considered top of the line (and paying way less for them then I would a crap lens now). Thus far, I've purchased the following.

Nikkor 24mm f2.8: ($100 - Bargain Camera Show) - Nice wide and looks like it was made just before Nikon switched to digital cameras. Great shape and great image but I have to admit that I actually prefer some of the older Nikkor's I've tried. They don't look as nice but they're heavier, feel more solid, and the focus ring is a lot more forgiving. Still, I needed a wide so I'm happy with my purchase.

Nikkor 35mm f/2: ($85 - Pawn Shop) - Love this lens (though I'm a bit annoyed since I spent forever haggling the shop owner down to $85 only to see it at the camera show for $10 cheaper). The outside is old and not asthetically pleasing (paint chipped, metal scuffed) but the actual lens feels like a dream. I really like these old Nikkors from the 80s more than their later counterparts. They just feel more solid and are easier to focus. Oh, and I love how great the macro is on this thing.

Nikon E Series 50mm f/1.8: ($35 - Pawn Shop) - I've heard a lot of people saying that the difference between the E series and the older Nikkors isn't that great. I have to say that I'm not so sure. I like this lens (great deal) but I really wish I'd waited and picked up a 55mm Nikkor f1.8 that I saw later for a little more. There may not be a huge difference in the picture quality (looks about as good to my eye) but it really doesn't feel nearly as robust. It's way too short with a tiny focus wheel that isn't very pleasant to use. It's also pure plastic with no solid parts. Also, since it's so short, I know I'll never be able to rig a follow focus to it. This is a great lens for the deal but I have to say, if you can find old Nikkors for not too much more than the E series, then they are worth the extra money (and this is coming from one cheap SOB who never really cared about expensive lenses).

That's all I've got so far. I'm looking to pick up a Nikkor 105mm f2.5 in the next week or so to give me some telaphoto options (found a few at shops and just comparing prices). I like the idea of sticking with Nikon so the lenses all have a similar "character."

While at the show, I did find a guy selling a Jupiter 9 85mm f2. He had it for $60 which is a great deal compared to eBay but there was a scratch on the front of the lens and it seemed the aperture ring had been installed on backwards so that when I turned it to f2, the aperture closed all the way and when I turned to f22, it opened all the way up. I almost got it but those two defects (and the fact that the lens looked so beat up and wasn't Nikon) made me reconsider. I'll probably regret it though since the cheapest 85mm f2 Nikons are $250+.
 
^ Was it a black or aluminum Jupiter 9? I have a black one which I really like but I hear the aluminum ones are better (less glow) wide open. They also run more.

I want a fast 35mm lens and have been comparing the Mir 24, the Zeiss Distagon, and Canon's f/2.0. Why are people paying roughly $100 more for a 24m instead of 24n? Just a difference between m42 and Nikon mount, right? Based on what I've read, the extra grand for the Canon L is not, in this case, worth it.
 
Last edited:
Just added the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 to collection. Found it at a pawn shop for $50 (though I saw a few sellers at the bargain camera show selling it for $100 and ebay for around $120).

I've been hearing a lot of people say, "these lenses are sharp enough for 1080p" but I'm gonna argue that, at least with the vintage Nikons, they're sharp enough for 18 mp stills. When I bought my 60D, I got two cheap zooms (18-55mm and 55-250mm) to give me some flexability. Recently, I've been comparing them to the vintage Nikons in stills mode and so far, the vintage lenses manage to be just as sharp when using the the same aperture.
 
DavidBeier said:
they're sharp enough for 18 mp stills.
Click to expand...

I'm not totally on board with that. I have Nikkor 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (Nikon AF 1.8), and the same 105mm 2.5 you just picked up. Like any lens, they need to be stopped down to the sweet spot to be sharp enough for stills, imo. Don't get me wrong, I love Nikon glass - there's a reason I shoot with old Nikons over everything else I could be buying in this thread - but I think for stills, they still leave a little to be desired in the sharpness category (color rendition has always been awesome, however). For example, there's some edge-to-edge sharpness issues with the wider lenses that becomes apparent with digital stills, something that's not noticeable with 2MP video.
 
If the lens kits are sharp enough for stills and the canon zooms that so many buy are sharp enough for stills then I don't see why the Vintage Nikons aren't.

I know that Canon L glass which costs over a thousand bucks will be sharper.

I'm guessing that even the lower budget Canon and Sigma digital primes which cost in the hundreds are sharper.

From my limited tests, the Nikkors are as sharp as the lower budget Canon zooms when they are at the same aperture. A lot of people get a DSLR and just stick with the zoom kits. I did with my Rebel XT back in the day. I see a lot of people getting 60Ds or T3is and grabbing the 18-135mm kit (3.5-5.6) with them for another $350 or so. I just think the old Nikons are great because for roughly the price of that kit, you may be able to track down a whole slate of Nikon primes which (in my limited tests) are looking as sharp in stills as the zoom (when in the same aperture) and have the added advantage of being able to open up more. The Nikons also seem to have a bit more natural color rendition and aren't quite as contrasty.

Oh, and how much did you shell out for the Nikkor 50mm and the 85mm?
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
I'm not totally on board with that. I have Nikkor 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm (Nikon AF 1.8), and the same 105mm 2.5 you just picked up. Like any lens, they need to be stopped down to the sweet spot to be sharp enough for stills, imo. Don't get me wrong, I love Nikon glass - there's a reason I shoot with old Nikons over everything else I could be buying in this thread - but I think for stills, they still leave a little to be desired in the sharpness category (color rendition has always been awesome, however). For example, there's some edge-to-edge sharpness issues with the wider lenses that becomes apparent with digital stills, something that's not noticeable with 2MP video.
Click to expand...

The thing with vintage glass is that you will hardly find 2 lenses in the exact same condition. Yes, sometimes you will find vintage lenses are bit softer than their more modern counterparts (especially wide open), but I've actually found this is not always the case.

One of my side gigs has been photographing products for a Karate/MMA distributor. I was using a modern Tamron and well as a Canon lens for a while when one day I forgot to bring it and instead had only my vintage glass for video with me. I decided to do a little testing... I found that the Nikkor 50mm 1.4 was rather soft until stopped down, but surprisingly my 75-150mm E-series zoom was wonderfully sharp, even without much stopping down. In fact, I even did a couple of product shoots with that lens wide open for kicks, and some shots actually came out better than my modern lenses wide open. Now, this might just be a lucky fluke for me, since my other vintage lenses clearly aren't as sharp, but that just goes to show- some are better kept than others.

I actually ended up using the E-series lens to do many of my product shots since then, because I love the color it produces. Here's some examples:
http://www.mmahq.com/Ring-to-Cage-Deluxe-MiM-Sparring-Gloves-2011-08-10.html
http://www.mmahq.com/Combat-Sports-MMA-Fight-Gloves-2011-08-06.html
http://www.mmahq.com/Cobra-Leather-Speed-Mitts-2011-07-04.html

Yes, I'm aware that these are web-resolution photos and hardly require the full 18mpix resolution, but even in print catalogs, moderate sized images, these lenses can still perform. I suppose if you are blowing up a huge poster-sized image this would be less than ideal, but for catalog/postcards/moderate sized images, I think these lenses can be (and are) used for stills. Remember, they actually WERE still camera lenses about 20-30 years ago, and they used them to capture all sizes back then!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top