Vintage Glass

[DavidBeier]

I just got a pretty tidy little scholarship and, since I don't want to buy more P2 cards for my HVX200 and its 1080p performance has never been up to snuff, I've decided to go with a DSLR (still debating between 7D, 60D, and 600D but that's another thread...)

Now that I'm looking at lenses, I'm coming to realize that these suckers may not be as cheap as I think. I was planning to get just one all-in-one zoom (maybe the Tamron or Sigma 3.5/6.3 18-200mm for $300) but I know it will drive me nuts indoors. I've had a Rebel XT for some time and I HATE how slow the zoom lens I got for it was. Unfortunatly, I really don't have the budget for a bunch of pricier primes. So, I've been toying with the idea of getting one all-in-one zoom and then trying to get a hold of some cheap vintage glass on ebay or other sites.

Does anyone have much experience using vintage glass on APS-C cameras? Is it too big of a challenge. I don't mind manually focusing (as I hear it's much easier with the old lenses than with new ones), and I plan to do most stuff on a tripod or monopod so I can life with a lack of stabalization. Is it very challenging to put 35mm glass on a 60D or 600D? I'm very comfortable with prosumer HD cameras but my DSLR experience is limited to my few years with my Rebel XT and I admit I didn't play a huge amount with the more advance features.

Thoughts?

 

[kostas]

I wouldn't bother with such a long range zoom especially for video. A much more useable range and quality lens would be the Canon EF-S 15-85mm 3.5-5.6, and it is pretty nice for stills too.
As for vintage primes, that is the way to go. You can find a lot of ideas in this thread http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...age-Lens-Thread&highlight=vintage+lens+thread
Long story short, you can easily adapt to EOS (using corresponding adapters that can be readily found on eBay), old Pentax M42, Olympus OM, Nikon, Pentax K, Exakta (with no protruding aperture lever) lenses to name a few.

There are also vintage zooms. If you don't care about autofocus, the only reason for still getting the modern zoom lens would be to have a real wide angle on the crop sensor camera. Vintage wides (15-20 mm that become 24-32mm equivalent for APS-C crop sensors) are quite rare to find, so you have to cover the wide end with a modern lens.

 

[jamesd256]

I just got a pretty tidy little scholarship and, since I don't want to buy more P2 cards for my HVX200 and its 1080p performance has never been up to snuff, I've decided to go with a DSLR (still debating between 7D, 60D, and 600D but that's another thread...)

Now that I'm looking at lenses, I'm coming to realize that these suckers may not be as cheap as I think. I was planning to get just one all-in-one zoom (maybe the Tamron or Sigma 3.5/6.3 18-200mm for $300) but I know it will drive me nuts indoors. I've had a Rebel XT for some time and I HATE how slow the zoom lens I got for it was. Unfortunatly, I really don't have the budget for a bunch of pricier primes. So, I've been toying with the idea of getting one all-in-one zoom and then trying to get a hold of some cheap vintage glass on ebay or other sites.

Does anyone have much experience using vintage glass on APS-C cameras? Is it too big of a challenge. I don't mind manually focusing (as I hear it's much easier with the old lenses than with new ones), and I plan to do most stuff on a tripod or monopod so I can life with a lack of stabalization. Is it very challenging to put 35mm glass on a 60D or 600D? I'm very comfortable with prosumer HD cameras but my DSLR experience is limited to my few years with my Rebel XT and I admit I didn't play a huge amount with the more advance features.

Thoughts?

I love using vintage glass. I have tons of m42 lenses, and most are a joy to use. Stabilisation would be nice, but other than that, they're perfect for me. I particularly like the metal construction and the large, smooth, damped focus wheels.

They don't have the contrast or sharpness of Canon L glass, but other than that performance can be excellent for the money if you choose your glass carefully.

The first time I saw the colour rendition on a Takumar SMC 50mm f/1.4, the penny dropped and I sold the Canon 50mm f/1.8 without hesitation. Washed out and sterile by comparison.

 

[Samuel H]

* any zoom with more than 4x range will be very soft
* you WANT to focus manually, even if the lens has autofocus, and even if the camera were to have good AF in video (which these don't)
* no challenge at all; just make sure you get glass for a mount that can be easily converted to canon EF (such as nikon, leica-R, M42, etc) (the ones you don't want are the ones with lower focal flange distance than the canon EF mount, as in that case the adapter has to add a glass element or lose the possibility of focusing at infinity)
* the weak spots of vintage glass are zooms and wide angles; if you stick to primes of 35mm or longer focal length, you can find some great lenses for very competitive prices
* also consider modern samyang primes, they are also quite cheap, and seem to be very, very good (not so much in terms of sharpness, but on bokeh, which may be even more important in many occasions)


and then, head over here:
http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/20/which-lenses-to-buy/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/06/still-lenses/
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/07/03/leica-r-mount-lenses-for-the-canon-hdslrs/
(read all the comments on those blog posts, some are very useful)

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?193-Lens-Discussion
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?201760-The-Vintage-Lens-Thread

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247211-L-series-lens-Help
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?248450-60D-First-and-Second-Lenses-to-get!-!-Opinions-needed!
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247953-What-is-the-best-versitile-quality-documentary-lens

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?248835-What-lenses-do-you-keep-in-your-arsenal
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...enses-vs-Canon-fast-primes-for-the-big-screen


also, check out my tests for sharpness and bokeh, with my vintage Leitz and Carl Zeiss Jena lenses:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/lenstestsa.html
http://www.similaar.com/foto/lenstests/bokehtests.html

 

[jamesd256]

I wouldn't bother with such a long range zoom especially for video. A much more useable range and quality lens would be the Canon EF-S 15-85mm 3.5-5.6, and it is pretty nice for stills too.
.

Good points, but I have to say, I owned the the Canon 17-85mm, and it was good, but I now have the Tamron 18-270mm, and I love it. It is suprisingly sharp in the mid-range lengths, and the IS is good.

The AF was quicker and quieter on the Canon, and manual focus is better, because you have a fairly wide full time continuous wheel, where as the Tamron is a bit harder to focus. This doesn't really matter to me, because it's mainly used outdoors with a narrow aperture and consequently a huge depth of field.

Other than that, the optical performance is pretty equivalent. See for yourself at Photozone:

Tamron

Canon

* UPDATE *

Sorry, just realised I was mistaken about which lens you were referring to. The EF-S 15-85 is way better than any super zoom optically, but it's also in a different price bracket to most super zooms.

 

[jamesd256]

* also consider modern samyang primes, they are also quite cheap, and seem to be very, very good (not so much in terms of sharpness, but on bokeh, which may be even more important in many occasions)

+1 on the Samyangs. The 85mm f/1.4 is a great tool for video.

 

[DavidBeier]

First of all, thank you to everyone who has responded. It's so helpful to get feedback (if you have any advice about 60d vs 600d, I'd appreciate that too but right now I'm leaning towards 600D so I'll have more cash to invest on lenses).

I wouldn't bother with such a long range zoom especially for video. A much more useable range and quality lens would be the Canon EF-S 15-85mm 3.5-5.6, and it is pretty nice for stills too.

Well, I honestly can't afford that much for my all purpose zoom.

The reason I was looking at the 18-135/200/270 is that I wanted the one electronic one I got to be able to go through all the ranges I might need if I was in a pinch (mainly for videos but also for stills).

As I mentioned before, I've been shooting with prosumer HD for a while and I've had a Rebel XT with a 28-90mm lens. Whenever I pull out my the Rebel XT, I find myself frustrated with the lens as the 28mm definatly isn't wide enough and I find the 90mm doesn't give me as much reach/magnification as I might like. I've shot a ton of stuff with my HVX200 and this year I shot five or six projects with the EX1. Really loved the EX1's lens options so and I read that it had a 5.8 to 81.2 mm zoom. If my math is right (which is probably isn't), that would be roughly the same as an 18-270mm lens on an APSC sensor. I thought it would be good to have the same kind of range I was used to. Is 270 not used very much? Would 135 or 200 be a better choice?

I guess if I went with the 600D, the 3X zoom in video might eliminate the need for the 270 and I could settle for a 135 or 200.

Long story short, you can easily adapt to EOS (using corresponding adapters that can be readily found on eBay), old Pentax M42, Olympus OM, Nikon, Pentax K, Exakta (with no protruding aperture lever) lenses to name a few.

Cool. How do I got about figured out what lens needs what adapter?

If you don't care about autofocus, the only reason for still getting the modern zoom lens would be to have a real wide angle on the crop sensor camera. Vintage wides (15-20 mm that become 24-32mm equivalent for APS-C crop sensors) are quite rare to find, so you have to cover the wide end with a modern lens.

I want one all rought (but cheap) zoom for all the times where I'm just trying to grab something and need auto-focus/exposure.

 

[gshort]

Keep in mind, if you went for the 600 you would have 3X zoom mode already, with minimal quality loss. Might mean you could go for a shorter zoom range?

 

[jamesd256]

FOV against length on APS-C

FOV against length on APS-C

First of all, thank you to everyone who has responded. It's so helpful to get feedback (if you have any advice about 60d vs 600d, I'd appreciate that too but right now I'm leaning towards 600D so I'll have more cash to invest on lenses).




Well, I honestly can't afford that much for my all purpose zoom.

The reason I was looking at the 18-135/200/270 is that I wanted the one electronic one I got to be able to go through all the ranges I might need if I was in a pinch (mainly for videos but also for stills).

As I mentioned before, I've been shooting with prosumer HD for a while and I've had a Rebel XT with a 28-90mm lens. Whenever I pull out my the Rebel XT, I find myself frustrated with the lens as the 28mm definatly isn't wide enough and I find the 90mm doesn't give me as much reach/magnification as I might like. I've shot a ton of stuff with my HVX200 and this year I shot five or six projects with the EX1. Really loved the EX1's lens options so and I read that it had a 5.8 to 81.2 mm zoom. If my math is right (which is probably isn't), that would be roughly the same as an 18-270mm lens on an APSC sensor. I thought it would be good to have the same kind of range I was used to. Is 270 not used very much? Would 135 or 200 be a better choice?

I think the 600d will give you better value personally.

I think you are right about the equivalence of the field of view of the EX1.

EX1: 5.8-81.2 mm = 30mm - 440mm 35mm equiv.
APS-C 18mm-270mm = 29mm - 432mm 35mm equiv.

I personally think it's worth having the extra reach, but actually it doesn't amount to much of a narrower FOV

APS-C FOV:

200mm - 6.22 deg
270mm - 4.43 deg

However, I believe that the Tamron at 200mm will outperform most of the superzooms that are 200mm maximum.

I guess if I went with the 600D, the 3X zoom in video might eliminate the need for the 270 and I could settle for a 135 or 200.

I will be upgrading from a 550d to the 600d when ML matures on it. I too am looking forward to the 3x zoom, but I don't see it as eliminating the need for longer lenses. I want the longest 35mm equiv I can get. The 270mm end becomes a virtual f/5.6 1296mm equivalent (1 deg FOV) with IS.

Cool. How do I got about figured out what lens needs what adapter?

A good strategy would be to buy some EF-S to m42 adapters. That will give access to the widest variety of lenses. I have 3 adapters from 3 different ebay sellers, and each one works perfectly with all of my m42 lenses.

I also have a couple of Olympus OM mount adapters. Other than that, it's rare you would find a lens worth buying requiring a different adapter.

I want one all rought (but cheap) zoom for all the times where I'm just trying to grab something and need auto-focus/exposure.

I can only speak for the Tamron in the super zoom class, but given that I paid £240 for a mint second hand one on ebay, I couldn't be happier with it. However, I'm not a professional, and it doubles as my walk about stills lens too.

I would think very seriously about getting a 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom or equivalent instead. unless you really use the longer end a lot. Tamron's non-IS one is optically very good and very good value.

 

[Mark Von Lanken]

I have a lot of vintage glass that I use with my Canon 60D. Just about anything but Canon FD and Minolta will adapt to Canon. Chris Watson's post on Vintage Glass over on the lens portion of this forum will give you all of the technical specs.

As far as wide vintage glass, some of the wider stuff is slow, f/3.5 or 4.0. For wider and faster than 3.5 is the Zenitar 16mm 2.8 or the Nikon 24mm 2.8 or even 2.0, but the 2.0 version does get a little pricey. I have a Zenitar 16mm 2.8 that I used for a little bit until I got the Tokina 11-16. I will sell my Zenitar 16mm for $150. Here is a clip with the Zenitar in action.
http://vimeo.com/13346965

 

[M. Gilden]

Moving to the Lens section (in the future, check there fist- the Vintage glass thread is actually a stick there!)

 

[DavidBeier]

A guy on craig's list is offering a M42 Zenitar 16mm lens for $160 (a fellow USC student apparently). Good deal? What kind of adapter will I need?

 

[DavidBeier]

Also, if I'm planning on getting the Tamron 18-200mm zoom (just so I can have one all rough AF lense) for $300, is the 16mm 2.8 Zenitar really going to provide me that much more light or wide angle than the 18mm 3.5 end of the Tamron?

 

[Kastro]

A guy on craig's list is offering a M42 Zenitar 16mm lens for $160 (a fellow USC student apparently). Good deal? What kind of adapter will I need?

M42 to (whatever cam you have) adapter. @$160, yea thats a good deal.. I bought mine from here for $100 (recently stolen) and after looking @ ebay 'n whatnot for replacement, I've noticed a rise in price to ~$200 or so.


In regards to your Tamron statement, 3.5 - 2.8 yea, theres a noticeable difference based on your lighting environment. When I shoot in a club, I cant do 3.5 as 2.8 is the slowest i'd be willing to go @ ISO 1600 at that.. So it all depends on what your going to shoot along with how your lights look.

Also the 16 has the 'bend' where as my tamron 17-50 doesnt have that 'bend' and is a better WA. It depends on the look you're after too. When I shot this escalade, the 16m zenitar 'bubbled' out the front and gave it a cool look. The tamron wouldnt 'bubble' the grill, so again, it would depend on the look you're after.

I enjoyed my 16mm and will probably get another in the future, but only for the fisheye look. Not as a primary WA lens.