4 ms·

> narrowly escaped this not so cheap hobby It's a way cheaper than collecting new lenses anyway :) Not sure about F-mounts, but I kept an eye on M42 old lens m

> narrowly escaped this not so cheap hobby It's a way cheaper than collecting new lenses anyway :) Not sure about F-mounts, but I kept an eye on M42 old lens market. You could (and probably still can now) get a very fast (f/2 and below) lens 5-10x cheaper than their modern counterparts. Yes you loose automatic focus but this is probably no big issue with modern viewfinders.

aenis 5y ago
You also lose resolution. Those old lenses render cool looking, but somewhat blurred images on modern high res sensors.
- memling 5y ago
  In practice prints look good either way. I have noticed that the main drawback to the older lenses is the coma, not resolution. I routinely shoot manual focus Nikkors on digital bodies without significant artifacts from resolution...but astro work is far more challenging.
- ruined 5y ago
  in the portrait and video range, high end older lenses can still compete. digital sensors have only recently surpassed 35mm film in resolution, and professional 20th century photographers had similar demands for detail across the frame. and it only really matters if you're doing significant enlargement and cropping towards the edge in post, which most consumers simply won't. professionals will always want the best, but i've got a few vintage primes that still give me more resolution than i know what to do with, and that whole collection would be outpriced by a single modern lens.
- petre 5y ago
  Who cares. I'm not copying documents or doing astrophotography. I have still yet to find a modern lens that replicates the look rendered by my old C/Y Zeiss Planar and Rolleiflex Tessar lenses.
  - aenis 5y ago
    Completely agree, I am not saying its a bad thing. I do care for resolution in landscape photography, where I need to crop, and a modern high end lens+sensor lends itself to this usage pattern well. For portraits, I think less resolution is usually better. I do most of my potrait shots with two decade old lenses despite having nearly all the modern Nikkors in my bag.
    - petre 5y ago
      I did landscape photography as well but nothing beats the Mamiya 7 lenses except maybe some of the new full frame mirrorless primes? Super sharp, no visible distorsion. The Tessar is very sharp in the center though, which is great for 6x6, works well for portraits and documentary photos. I have most of the meaningful AI era Nikkors but then almost completely gave up on 35 mm after getting the Mamiya and two Rolleis. I still used the 35mm Planar though, love it. Sold all the AF Nikkor stuff I used on the dSLR and got a Panasonic m43 with two primes. I will get the 15mm Leica DG next, to replace the unremarkable 14 mm Panasonic. Not going to lug around dSLRs any more.
      - aenis 5y ago
        That sounds like a great setup. I switched to a Nikon with a 40mpx sensor and their new mirrorless lenses are crazy sharp, even the cheap ones. I have all they have released and it seems even the kit lenses are sensor limited. Incidentally, i really dont like any of those lenses for potraits of ordinary people, with no makeup and fancy lighting and postprocessing. Every skin por, every small imperfection shows. For this I default to the old lenses and the subjects are happy.
- to11mtm 5y ago
  So, IDK how true this really is but I recall reading that the optimal angle for light to hit a sensor is different than for light hitting film. So that's a factor in the image output.
  - Croftengea 5y ago
    Never heard about angle difference but I'm no pro by any stretch. Maybe this is related to some nuances in optics for mirror vs mirrorless rather than film vs digital.
  - ruined 5y ago
    it's kind of the reverse problem of LCD viewing angles. film had no structure, but each pixel on a sensor is at the bottom of a tiny little well looking out. the effect is exacerbated on mirrorless with a shorter flange distance. the modern Nikon sensors are currently the best here, being designed with adaptation in mind. but it doesn't matter so much, the worst you might see is a fractional stop of additional vignetting. it matters even less if you're adapting an SLR lens with a deeper flange.

aenis 5y ago

You also lose resolution. Those old lenses render cool looking, but somewhat blurred images on modern high res sensors.

memling 5y ago
In practice prints look good either way. I have noticed that the main drawback to the older lenses is the coma, not resolution. I routinely shoot manual focus Nikkors on digital bodies without significant artifacts from resolution...but astro work is far more challenging.
ruined 5y ago
in the portrait and video range, high end older lenses can still compete. digital sensors have only recently surpassed 35mm film in resolution, and professional 20th century photographers had similar demands for detail across the frame. and it only really matters if you're doing significant enlargement and cropping towards the edge in post, which most consumers simply won't. professionals will always want the best, but i've got a few vintage primes that still give me more resolution than i know what to do with, and that whole collection would be outpriced by a single modern lens.
petre 5y ago
Who cares. I'm not copying documents or doing astrophotography. I have still yet to find a modern lens that replicates the look rendered by my old C/Y Zeiss Planar and Rolleiflex Tessar lenses.
- aenis 5y ago
  Completely agree, I am not saying its a bad thing. I do care for resolution in landscape photography, where I need to crop, and a modern high end lens+sensor lends itself to this usage pattern well. For portraits, I think less resolution is usually better. I do most of my potrait shots with two decade old lenses despite having nearly all the modern Nikkors in my bag.
  - petre 5y ago
    I did landscape photography as well but nothing beats the Mamiya 7 lenses except maybe some of the new full frame mirrorless primes? Super sharp, no visible distorsion. The Tessar is very sharp in the center though, which is great for 6x6, works well for portraits and documentary photos. I have most of the meaningful AI era Nikkors but then almost completely gave up on 35 mm after getting the Mamiya and two Rolleis. I still used the 35mm Planar though, love it. Sold all the AF Nikkor stuff I used on the dSLR and got a Panasonic m43 with two primes. I will get the 15mm Leica DG next, to replace the unremarkable 14 mm Panasonic. Not going to lug around dSLRs any more.
    - aenis 5y ago
      That sounds like a great setup. I switched to a Nikon with a 40mpx sensor and their new mirrorless lenses are crazy sharp, even the cheap ones. I have all they have released and it seems even the kit lenses are sensor limited. Incidentally, i really dont like any of those lenses for potraits of ordinary people, with no makeup and fancy lighting and postprocessing. Every skin por, every small imperfection shows. For this I default to the old lenses and the subjects are happy.
to11mtm 5y ago
So, IDK how true this really is but I recall reading that the optimal angle for light to hit a sensor is different than for light hitting film. So that's a factor in the image output.
- Croftengea 5y ago
  Never heard about angle difference but I'm no pro by any stretch. Maybe this is related to some nuances in optics for mirror vs mirrorless rather than film vs digital.
- ruined 5y ago
  it's kind of the reverse problem of LCD viewing angles. film had no structure, but each pixel on a sensor is at the bottom of a tiny little well looking out. the effect is exacerbated on mirrorless with a shorter flange distance. the modern Nikon sensors are currently the best here, being designed with adaptation in mind. but it doesn't matter so much, the worst you might see is a fractional stop of additional vignetting. it matters even less if you're adapting an SLR lens with a deeper flange.