New York Times Article about Manual Focus Lenses on dSLRs...

eggboy

I wonder if this will drive the market up for these lenses...since investors maybe want to take their money out of all the US banks that are getting shaky...

You might need to register (free) with the Times to get access. I can post the full text if anyone wants:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/technology/personaltech/11basics.html?_r=1

excert:
Vintage Lenses on Digital Cameras
By RUSS JUSKALIAN

"...For the vast majority of D.S.L.R. users, the switch that turns off the camera�s autofocus system is nothing more than a curiosity, some kind of vestigial remnant from a mechanical evolution. But a renewed interest in the deliberate twisting of a lens to focus has generated a healthy market for decades� worth of optics that have been gathering dust in closets and taking up space as dead inventory on camera store shelves.

Photographers who had been all too happy to hold down the shutter button in a practice known as �machine-gunning� or �spray and pray� are now searching online for vintage lenses with exotic names like Pentax Takumar, Voigtl�nder Nokton, Chinon, Kiron, Fujinon, Hexanon and Rollei.."

DSG · Joined: 04 Mar 2007 Posts: 544 Location: London, UK.

They mentioned the Canon FL 55mm f1.2! (I have one too Very Happy

)...I thought I recognised it from this tiny pic:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2008/09/11/technology/personaltech/11basics.190.jpg

LucisPictor · Expire: 2013-12-03

Thanks for the link! I guess I will wait a little before I sell some of my lenses. Wink

bawang · Joined: 26 Mar 2008 Posts: 548 Location: Indiana, USA

Look here for one of his source of information for the article.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/679246

BobDodds · Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 87

Neither the article or the fredmiranda link mention that old lenses are better.

eggboy · Posted: Mon Sep 15, 2008 2:35 pm Post subject:

Truly, honestly, I don't think old lenses are better from a raw technical imaging/contrast/resolution standpoint. Anymore than a fussy old English/Italian sports car or even, if you're a masochist, a vintage French car is 'better' than a new, safer, more fuel efficient, cleaner more reliable auto. But what is more wonderful and fun than an old Citroen?

It's more the glorious tactile feel of using an old, solidly built lens, the look of the lens, and, for me at least, the memory and nostalgia you get from shooting a 1960's era Nikkor, or even better, a prewar Exakta lens?

Old Nikon F Photomics with a Nikkor-P 105mm give me an almost Proustian memory rush back to my childhood in the sixties, and all the gritty black and white images produced by photojournalist: the Vietnam War, the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix...What other pictures have these lenses taken? Who's handled them? What is the story behind them?

Of course, I shoot Canon dSLRs now! Which means I can easily mount just about anything my heart desires on my 40D...except an old Leica Summar 50/2, alas.

Eugene

Attila · Expire: 2025-11-18

I think old lenses in same quality than AF lens, lot more cheaper. Sometimes 10X more than equivalent AF lens, in many cases AF lenses made for MTF chart they are sharp and nothing else. Consumer choice is:
Pay plenty of money over and over again for AF lenses when manufacturers change their system and loose all value after all like Canon doing or buy old lenses and keep their value or increase a bit and use them on all future generation of camera with suitable adapter. I am not that rich to throw my money out of window to buy newest lenses. I am pretty fine with old ones I have time to set focus manually Laughing

I spent about 3000-5000 USD for MF lenses I am pretty sure I can sell them with profit or without that. I am really not sure how much money I loose if I buy AF lenses for same amount.I guess at least 30% loose for sure.

Retro · Joined: 02 Feb 2008 Posts: 173 Location: Krautland