Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!

SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Great Lenses to not so great?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 5:51 am    Post subject: Great Lenses to not so great? Reply with quote

I am fairly new to the forum, but I have a question.

Some manual lenses have a great reputation on reviews and from long time users. Some lenses have a 'cult' following, based on the history of the construction, or how difficult a lens was to design.

I guess my questions is whether there is a general way to know if a remarkable lens becomes unremarkable once adapted to a digital system?

I'm not an expert in optics, or the effect that taking a lens and adding it to a digital camera with a metal adapter has.

Are there general rules to this?

For example... (zeiss lens to sony = great, or canon fd lens to sony = not so great?)

I guess my general question is does a remarkable lens on a 35mm SLR camera become average once adapted and that space or dimensions between the sensor changes?



Thanks!
David


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For example - http://evtifeev.com/8897-gelios-40-2-85-1-5-vs-carl-zeiss-planar-85-1-4-c-y.html
Link in russian, but there a lot of sample pics that saying enough about quality. )


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are several reasons why a ceratain lens, and I mean a certain copy of a lens, because most of us only have one copy a lens model, can be lemons although they enjoy a great reputation in the net:

1. The taste of others can be very different from your own one.

For example there are many photographers who love the Meyer Trioplan 2.8/100 and its "bokeh bubbles". I never liked that. I have always thought that this lens is a simple three-lenser and just mediocre and not at all stellar. I don't object the fans of the lens, though, because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

2. We must never ever forget that in most cases we deal with used lenses.

And "used" can also mean "abused", even though it is not visible from the outside. My first Lubitel 166 was terrible! The images it took were dreadful and I couldn't believe that there are so many fans of this cam. Just when I got another copy I learned that my first one seems to have a lens that had been tampered with. So, it might easily be that you have a copy of a certain lens that everybody likes and still yours has a problem.

3. Some lenses and sensors/cameras are not compatible.

Especially wide-angle rangefinder lenses do have problems with narrow-flange fullframe system-cameras, such as the Sony A7. That cannot neither be blamed on the lens, nor on the camera.

==> There is no general rule to it. It's always a matter of each individual scenario. And that's part of the fun! Wink


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The remarkable or mediocre performance of a legacy lens adapted to a digital camera, has less to do with your last statement about the register distance to the sensor.
Each lens was designed to be optically aligned to the camera's register length. So, that length is maintained (must be) by the adapter for a given camera, ie. Sony.

Since you brought up Sony, the A7 series has a thick(er) glass sensor stack which has the greatest effect on performance with wide angle lenses for 35mm format.
That would be the only generality I could deem as accepted.

Otherwise, most well-reputed lenses for film, will likely be excellent for digital. Only particular lenses aren't compatible with a given camera model. Best to always search for reviews before buying a lens for your camera model.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks guys for your input!


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How sensor size, technology improving lenses coming better and better, even mediocre lenses are perform better on latest Sony sensors ,than excellent lenses on my oldest digital camera Panasonic G1. I was happy with all FD lenses what I did try before, what I not like that is mount, pretty silly, but after a few trial and fail , it's okay to mount lenses on adapter.
Sony NEX-7 , A7r was a huge step up to me with any lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To really understand this I would have to learn more about what happens after the light goes through the rear element.

If i'm able to connect a great engine in a car it wasn't intially designed for, yes the car will accelerate but will it perform the same.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:07 pm    Post subject: Re: Great Lenses to not so great? Reply with quote

davidblue1984 wrote:
I am fairly new to the forum, but I have a question.

Some manual lenses have a great reputation on reviews and from long time users. Some lenses have a 'cult' following, based on the history of the construction, or how difficult a lens was to design.

I guess my questions is whether there is a general way to know if a remarkable lens becomes unremarkable once adapted to a digital system?

I'm not an expert in optics, or the effect that taking a lens and adding it to a digital camera with a metal adapter has.

Are there general rules to this?

For example... (zeiss lens to sony = great, or canon fd lens to sony = not so great?)

I guess my general question is does a remarkable lens on a 35mm SLR camera become average once adapted and that space or dimensions between the sensor changes?



Thanks!
David


Welcome David

The general ways to know if a remarkable lens becomes unremarkable once adapted to a digital system are try it or take the words of other with experience. There have been reports of thick sensor glass interacting with steep projection angles from wider lenses -- vignette, etc..

I think general rule example is more like "A great lens adapted to modern digital camera will be great!"

The answer to the general question is key -- the lens register distance determines a lens can be mounted on cameras of lesser register distance using a thin adapter. Some lenses are impossible to adapt...


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am no expert, but one of the obvious advantages to cropped sensors will use the best part of the lens, reducing the possibility of soft corners.

I use a Fuji XE-1 and for some reason Minolta lenses do not really reached their potential with this sensor, or perhaps my technique is lacking. In comparison, Konica Hexanons and Nikons work very very well.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for your insight.

Part of what sparked my curiousity is whenever i see a lens that people rant and rave about, i go online to flickr for example to see sample shots that people have taken using that lens and i'm assuming an adapter.

If the gallery is impressive then i assume it's adaptability is solid. I guess i saw a lot of posts remarking how great the aspherical canon 55mm and 85mm lenses were, but then i looked to see 1 or even 2 great images using this lens and they all looked like they had strange bokeh and flare issues.

Perhaps on an original FD mount they were much better? Or the rarity of the lens makes it that some photographers do create stunning images with those lenses but they just havent made enough to be visible online?


PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2016 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another cause for holding a lens in dis-favor would be the initial expectations of the user. For example I have seen several comments over time on how badly a Jupiter-12 35mm lens works on a Sony A7 camera.

In this case the complainers were landscape photographers who need sharp corners. Myself, I use that lens for much closer subjects and corner sharpness is not an issue, but the way the J-12 renders an image is very satisfying to me.

Here again, no fault to the camera, lens or photographer. The tools just need to match the job.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
Another cause for holding a lens in dis-favor would be the initial expectations of the user. For example I have seen several comments over time on how badly a Jupiter-12 35mm lens works on a Sony A7 camera.

In this case the complainers were landscape photographers who need sharp corners. Myself, I use that lens for much closer subjects and corner sharpness is not an issue, but the way the J-12 renders an image is very satisfying to me.

Here again, no fault to the camera, lens or photographer. The tools just need to match the job.


And that I believe is why using these old lenses is so interesting, there is a challenge to finding the lenses that suit our personal style and objectives, . We can arrive at the the lenses we like by diligent research of other peoples pictures, and reviews of the lens we fancy, then hunt it down. Or....we can chance it and buy lenses we see in charity and junk shops. I've bought lenses both ways, and had great success. Some of my favourite lenses have been bought by chance for next to nothing, some I've paid the going rate for because I wanted that particular lens.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 12:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

davidblue1984 wrote:
I guess i saw a lot of posts remarking how great the aspherical canon 55mm and 85mm lenses were, but then i looked to see 1 or even 2 great images using this lens and they all looked like they had strange bokeh and flare issues.

Perhaps on an original FD mount they were much better? Or the rarity of the lens makes it that some photographers do create stunning images with those lenses but they just havent made enough to be visible online?


I don't know if you were thinking of the 2 samples with the 55 I posted in the "biggest-bargains" thread, I can understand this lens is not everyone's cup of tea, but for what it's worth I really love it on the A7! And not because it is an exclusive lens, I just got lucky to find it cheap and it just works great for what I want. If I ever lost mine somehow I think I would bite the bullet and search for a new one.
I will post some more samples in a new thread, if it looks bad, I am almost certainly the one to blame, not the lens, but that's one of the great things of this digital age, you can make up your own mind just by looking at lots of samples!
The bokeh of the FD 55 aspherical can be a bit on the wilder side, but it's actually very close to the Minolta Rokkor 58 1.2 from what I have seen so far, the onion bokeh does show sometimes, but not too often and never too pronounced.
Flare has never been an issue with this lens for me so far, but I do use the rather deep original hood. Perhaps the adapter was to blame if the interior was too reflective.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Havent seen the images you posted...but i would not comment negatively on anyones work in particular--just basing on the flickr uploads.

I had my eye on those lenses because the history behind them seems to suggest they are amazing lenses, which they seem to be, but i guess this goes to the question of whether they perform as amazingly as they do on digital as they do for a canon camera for 35mm.

Please let me know your thoughts on these. If you had to get one the 85mm or the 55mm which one is more striking?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No problem, even if you were, as I said, I can imagine not everyone likes how it draws, I just thought you might, because I think they were the latest samples from this lens on this forum Smile (http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?p=1464068#1464068)
I can't help you with any of the other questions sinds I have only used this lens on digital, and not the 85mm, but I guess it's bokeh will probably be softer, almost any 50-58mm f/1.2 lens will be harsh at some focus distance at f/1.2.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I love the color and the composition. Great shots man! You might have changed my mind.

How does this 55mm lens compare with most 50mm lenses, where does it stand out?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks a lot!
For me, as you say: mainly the color and contrast wide open (these are unedited)!
But also center sharpness from at every aperture, I don't think I have anything that comes close at <f/2 and the microcontrast already is "almost as good as it gets" @ f1.4-1.8 (don't know what the f-stop between f1.2 and f2 is on this lens) in the middle of the frame. For me it also has quite a lot of "3D pop".

#1


This one is at f/1.2, you have to click on it to see the full 100% crop print-screen.

This one is obviously edited, but nothing fancy, the smart sharpens were I think first 0.7 or 0.8px @ 70% and then 0.1px @ 60%, I didn's change the midtone contrast while using "shadow/highlights"
Corner sharpness (detail) isn't great, but the contrast remains quite good. It even seems to need f/8 for perfect corners, certainly at larger distances, mostly because of field curvature probably, but not only. At closer distances it seems to be better through the entire field.

The 85 possibly has all of these characteristics with better corner sharpness, but I don't want to know! Just kidding, if I find one at the right price it's mine, but I do also love my Vivitar 90mm 2.5 at that focal length already.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:44 am    Post subject: Re: Great Lenses to not so great? Reply with quote

davidblue1984 wrote:
I am fairly new to the forum, but I have a question.

Some manual lenses have a great reputation on reviews and from long time users. Some lenses have a 'cult' following, based on the history of the construction, or how difficult a lens was to design.

I guess my questions is whether there is a general way to know if a remarkable lens becomes unremarkable once adapted to a digital system?

I'm not an expert in optics, or the effect that taking a lens and adding it to a digital camera with a metal adapter has.

Are there general rules to this?

For example... (zeiss lens to sony = great, or canon fd lens to sony = not so great?)

I guess my general question is does a remarkable lens on a 35mm SLR camera become average once adapted and that space or dimensions between the sensor changes?

Thanks!
David


The lenses you refer to were designed for film. They will perform closest to their design on the digital camera which is closest to film in the way it receives light.

The Sony A7 with it's 1.9mm coverglass is very popular today, but Sony decided to ignore the industry standard set by Canikon of a little over 1mm and go their own way. So the Sony bodies are further from film than a D810, or 5D3. Closest to film are the Leica digitals.

As to the real effects on performance with the Sony bodies, it's case by case. But even with film lenses the sony likes, there is usually some sort of imprint, a difference in bokeh (often smoother).

This is a shame because the sony mount is very convenient for legacy glass. Personally I was not impressed with the stock A7 and legacy lenses, though I had high hopes. But a year after I bought one it became possible to have the 1.9mm replaced with 1mm and now with .8mm by Kolari, and with the A7 the AA filter also goes away in the process. This costs 400USD.

To my eye it's a huge difference with many lenses going to 1mm and soon I will see if .8 is nicer yet, as my camera is getting this upgrade now. How much this mod would matter to any given shooter is a matter of personal taste. But there is no doubt .8mm is closer to film than 1.9mm. I would not trade my A7.mod for the A7r2 even if cost was the same, because I have many film lenses. And as the original A7 gets cheaper and cheaper the mod is not an exotic or expensive proposition. Used A7 700 + 400 = 1100 for probably the best legacy lens platform in the world, all things considered. The A7II would add IBIS, and the A7S would be much better in low light, both for an additional 4-600USD. An A7r2 with the mod would be very interesting Smile

Here the ZM 35/2 on A7.mod:


Into the fall Sun by unoh7, on Flickr

and here a legend looking like a legend; the Nikkor 300/2.8 EDIF


Mountain Beach by unoh7, on Flickr

and a famous nFD lens, the 24/2:


Blue FIre by unoh7, on Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

this is the first time ive heard of this modification. Who does it? Do you have a link, any sample pics of photos taken before and photos taken after?

Really curious about this. I'm assuming doing this modification would also change the way the camera works with lenses designed for the e mount?


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 8:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

davidblue1984 wrote:
this is the first time ive heard of this modification. Who does it? Do you have a link, any sample pics of photos taken before and photos taken after?

Really curious about this. I'm assuming doing this modification would also change the way the camera works with lenses designed for the e mount?


Check this: http://kolarivision.com/product/sony-a7-series-thin-filter-legacy-lens-upgrade/
It includes examples before and after the modification and links to examples from original e-mount lenses. At least they claim that the impact on original lenses isn't visible.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi!
I'll throw a couple of my coins into this discussion.

For me, using manual focus lenses us a big compromise. I sacrifice comfort of usage (no AF is a great sacrifice for me). I was using SLRs in pre-AF era and I was VERY glad to move forward into modern times. So, if I sacrifice something, i must gain something instead.

What I seek in manual lenses is an UNUSUAL picture that cannot be take with modern autofocus lenses. Modern lenses are usually made with no or almost no optical mistakes. Spherical aberrations are corrected, chromatic aberrations are corrected, bokeh is just a simple smoothing. As a result - the picture is of high quality but it is boring sometimes. It's great to have such a picture for lanscapes but I'd throw some more character into macro and portrait shots.

So, what I seek from manual lenses is NOT high quality picture, but a character of lens visible in the picture. This "character" comes from mistakes in optical scheme. A combination of overcorrected spherical aberrations, not corrected chromatic aberrations, internal light reflection MIGHT give you a very special picture as a result. At the same time, all those mistakes give this lens disadvantages also. Among them you can see low contrast, color tint, very low flare resistance, e.t.c. Many of those disadvantages can be easily compensated digitally.

And one example. Fuji made several 55mm lenses. I've had them all. The low quality lineup was 55/1.6 and 55/2.2 lenses. They were made from plasic and were very cheap. The high quality lineup was 55/1.4 and 55/1.8. They are flare proof, have more contrast, made from metal. I've tried all 4 and sold 3 of them. The one that I have now it the chapest of them - 55/2.2. Why? It gives very nice pictures like no modern lens can! 1.6 was TOO blurry wide open, other two are just regular high quality lenses, they give nothing special in comparison with modern AF lenses so I don't see why I should use them instead of my AF lenses.

You can check my pictures from it here - http://www.alphatraveller.org/gallery/index.php?/category/49


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
...no fault to the camera, lens or photographer. The tools just need to match the job.


Like 1 small Very good point.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2016 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

davidblue1984 wrote:
Thank you for your insight.

Part of what sparked my curiousity is whenever i see a lens that people rant and rave about, i go online to flickr for example to see sample shots that people have taken using that lens and i'm assuming an adapter.

If the gallery is impressive then i assume it's adaptability is solid. I guess i saw a lot of posts remarking how great the aspherical canon 55mm and 85mm lenses were, but then i looked to see 1 or even 2 great images using this lens and they all looked like they had strange bokeh and flare issues.

Perhaps on an original FD mount they were much better? Or the rarity of the lens makes it that some photographers do create stunning images with those lenses but they just havent made enough to be visible online?


You have to consider things like copy to copy variation which tends to increase greatly as lenses age. There's also such thing as photographer's ability.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 8:52 am    Post subject: adapter troubles Reply with quote

As can be concluded from the texts above, decide what your needs are in relation to reviewers preferences.Be aware that very short focal length symmetrical design optics work best with Leicas thin cover glass+ special microlens sensors, least well with thick cover glass sensors. Considering needs include thinking not only about image style, but also about distance and movement of the type of subject you intend to use the optics for. Landscape? Macro? Portaits? or fast moving subjects? For slow, deliberate work, issues like focus turning direction and ease of setting the aperture is irrelevant.

If you wish to focus manually, make certain that the camera body you use is well suited to your methods. Mirror&prism via matte screen in a digital autofocus camera is just for framing. Being able to exchange the screen for one optimized for manual focussing - or live-view is essential, unless your subject is fairly stationary and you use a tripod, tethered mode and focus via a big computer screen. Mirrorless usually have better focussing aids, but on some cameras, touch-screens and accidentally pushed buttons can upset manual focussing efforts.

Proper adapter rings is another hurdle. Some have too weak or badly adjusted springs for the stops holding the lens in place. In the worst cases your lens will come loose while you focus. Some adapters (usually apart from a certain label beginning with N and ending with x) may not have the exactly right dimensions. Usually a little bit too thin so as to be certain of reaching infinity with short focal length optics (that are more sensitive to small variations in flange distance), but sometimes skewed.Not a big problem when focussing manually unless you use a lens with moving elements compensating for close focus, but do not expect that the infinity stop on the lens means that it is focussed at infinity. Longer lenses will be correspondingly less affected by dimensional errors.

Finally, some lenses have rear elements that get in the way of camera innards -or foul the mirror movement when set near infinty. This is discussed elsewhere here at mf-lenses and need not bother anyone until they have decided on which camera body and which lenses they will use.

p.


PostPosted: Fri Jan 29, 2016 10:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think the best advice is not to buy lenses based on reputation as those reputations often don't follow reality. Buying by reputation and you could end up with a very expensive lens with poor corners even at f8 Wink