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

I don't get it - what are these old lenses good for?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:26 pm    Post subject: I don't get it - what are these old lenses good for? Reply with quote

I've been lurking in this forum for quite a while and I've finally taken the plunge and spent a significant amount of money (we are talking upwards 30 GBP including postage) for what is probably a 50-something years old Super Takumar 135 mm f/3.5 with an unhealthy amount of fine fungus in it. I really did not want to spend too much, because - let's get serious here, folks, these old geezers is really nothing but an old-timey hobby and it's not possible to get results from them that can match a new lens. But hey, it's all good, y'know, and if someone has fun running around playing photographer with one of these relics, all the power to them, right?

Anyway, this weekend we had a bit of good weather in Denmark and I thought it would be a good chance to do a bit of testing so I mounted the 135 on my trusty old Canon 1Ds MKMII and snapped some pictures at the west coast.

And, well - yeah, my worst fears were confirmed. Look, this is what you get straight out of the camera when processed through Capture One using the "Film - high contrast" setting:



And this lens is supposed to be sharp when used wide open? Ha! Just look at this 100% crop - really, just look at it:



Man - but I guess that is what you get, fungus and all. And manual focus! OK, it may do for a stationary object, but the moment things start to move just the slightest you will be so thoroughly hosed - like this, for instance:



Clearly, anyone using this lens for anything faster than a snail-race must be severely delusional.

OH! - and the flare! Glass that has never seen a computer design program, coated by just about nothing - it's a recipe for flaring all over the place once you point your camera even in the general direction of the sun. Put the sun in the frame and you are asking for it - seriously, this is where you end up:



- and while we are at it, we might as well touch on the last thing that you will see with these ancient designs: The abberations. Oh my - don't get me started on the abberations. You put some semi-high contrast subject in your image and you will see those pesky green and red stipes lining everything - this is a 100% crop from the scene above:



I mean, seriously people - I have Canon L-glass that performs almost as well!

So, like I said, I really don't see what anyone could expect these old lenses to be good for, and it is obvious to me that there is no way anyone could ever hope to use them for anything even slightly important - you'd have to be crazy to even consider it...

Wink

Regards,
Anders


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

- and I guess a second post is needed for the images to show up? BTW, all images are straight out of the camera, all processed in Capture One using the high contrast setting.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice pictures. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Chuck it in the bin Wink Thanks for sharing Smile


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ixnay on the old enslay!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

better to chuck the L's! Laughing
tony


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeah....I'm crazy and loving it. I love the challenge of getting good pictures from old lenses, and better still; I love the pictures I get from the old lenses. I also love the most expensive lens I own, a very nice auto focus lens. But they are worlds apart, that modern AF marvel will produce an image that is hard to tell apart from old classics that are in some cases 50 years older. And that's OK, the image is the important thing. But..........getting that image is also important. When I use my old lenses I can't just point and shoot, I slow down and think about what I want and how to achieve it, the lens sets the pace. And that's a good thing.
I think the old Takumar set the pace for you as well. Wink


Last edited by Lloydy on Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:50 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laughing Laughing


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How could you spend 30 significant pounds on a lens???? You must be rich !!!! (and crazy)

Nice eyelashes by the way!!!


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why would you buy a lens covered in Fungus for that much money, but they look nice to me when processed.
If you dont mind i ran those through Aperture and i think they look a lot better with pop



PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Takumar looks excellent, congrats. I really enjoyed how you approached the review, very funny but also very informative, thanks.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

welcome Anders, nice demo with the takumar


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I think the old Takumar set the pace for you as well. Wink


Actually this is what has surprised me the most: I don't feel that my style of photography is that much different from when my 28-70 f/2.8 L is attached to the camera. I have to think a bit more when focusing but using a focus-confirm adapter helps a lot as long as I remember to keep my aperture on or below f/8 for the AF-confirm to work.

What DID surprise me this weekend (I knew the lens was sharp already) was how extremely well it handled the extreme contrast and the sun shining directly into the lens. I did a similar test with my SuperTak 55mm f/1.8 and the only time I could get some flare was at f/1.8 - but at that point it did really show up:



The image is slightly overexposed since I did not notice that I'd actually hit the 1/8000 shutter speed limit. Smile

Stop down to f/4 and the flare is completely gone:



I don't know if it is the simple design and the fact that there are so few glass elements, but this resistance to flare is completely extreme as far as I am concerned. I don't own a modern zoom that is even remotely close to this performance.

Someone mentioned eyelashes - trust me, this lens does eyes just as well as eyelashes. Smile



Straight out of camera like the previous ones. A bit of noise, though - I had to up the ISO a bit and it does show up a bit more than I would have liked in the 100% crop:



However, sharpness and color reproduction is still very much acceptable to me, and I have no problems using this lens for model shoots and other more "serious" tasks - if there is sufficient light to do manual focus, the lens will deliver for me.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eddieitman wrote:
Why would you buy a lens covered in Fungus for that much money, but they look nice to me when processed.
If you dont mind i ran those through Aperture and i think they look a lot better with pop


I wouldn't - but according to the seller the lens was in mint condition with just a few specs of dust. Problem is, returning a lens from Denmark to the UK would cost me almost the amount I paid for the lens and shipping in the first place. I intend to clean the lens when I feel up to it and has found a usable tutorial but to be honest I'm more worried about ruining the lens while trying to clean it than I am about the fungus ruining my pictures.

Also, "covered" is probably a bit strong, but there is a lot of fine strands on both the front and the rear elements.

As for post-processing, yes, I would definitely also add some more pop to the images, but then these images would not really be representing the capabilities of the lens as much as my post-processing choices, so I restrained myself... Smile


PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



PostPosted: Sun Feb 03, 2013 10:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

madsenandersc wrote:
eddieitman wrote:
Why would you buy a lens covered in Fungus for that much money, but they look nice to me when processed.
If you dont mind i ran those through Aperture and i think they look a lot better with pop


I wouldn't - but according to the seller the lens was in mint condition with just a few specs of dust. Problem is, returning a lens from Denmark to the UK would cost me almost the amount I paid for the lens and shipping in the first place. I intend to clean the lens when I feel up to it and has found a usable tutorial but to be honest I'm more worried about ruining the lens while trying to clean it than I am about the fungus ruining my pictures.

Also, "covered" is probably a bit strong, but there is a lot of fine strands on both the front and the rear elements.

As for post-processing, yes, I would definitely also add some more pop to the images, but then these images would not really be representing the capabilities of the lens as much as my post-processing choices, so I restrained myself... Smile


Beautiful eyes indeed!!!!

You shouldn't be worried, i've cleaned 4 or 5 of these (3 of them i own) and they are not really difficult to clean if its just fungus.

And there is no problem, if you do ruin it, then when you think about buying a filter for one of your L lenses, instead with that money you can buy 2 of these lenses!!!!


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 5:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Great first post, Anders!

But be careful pointing lenses to the sun, especially tele lenses. I understand the bundled infrared light can make you blind!

Best to use live view for that!


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 7:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I like the picture with the flare, because of its circular shape it looks natural, as though it should be there.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

inombrable wrote:

You shouldn't be worried, i've cleaned 4 or 5 of these (3 of them i own) and they are not really difficult to clean if its just fungus.


Any pointers you could share about what to expect? I've found a couple of forum articles on the web and it's all the way from "unscrew the front name ring and the elements will basically drop out when you turn it upside down" to "you will have to take it apart to a point where a focus readjustment with grounded glass may be needed!"

I suspect that the reality is somewhere between these two statements but since the lens (obviously) is performing quite well despite the fungus I am somewhat reluctant to throw caution to the wind and start disassembling...

inombrable wrote:

And there is no problem, if you do ruin it, then when you think about buying a filter for one of your L lenses, instead with that money you can buy 2 of these lenses!!!!


Ehh - I actually only have a single L-series lens and even that is close to being a relic - it's a 1993 Canon EF 28-70 L USM and it already has a filter fitted. Smile

I would hate to see the Tak go to waste since it's really well looked after. Of course, any lens this old will have signs of use, but this specimen is very nice looking indeed.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ultron wrote:
Great first post, Anders!

But be careful pointing lenses to the sun, especially tele lenses. I understand the bundled infrared light can make you blind!

Best to use live view for that!


What is this "live view" you are talking about? Can't seem to find the button for it on my seven year old Canon iDs MKII...! Wink

And yeah, I'm careful with the sun, but in this case there were a thin layer of clouds in front of it making it slightly less intense so it was really not a problem. Also, with a lens like this you will see the full effect of the aperture all the time, so once you go in "landscape mode" (usually f/11 or thereabout) the light coming through the viewfinder has been reduced significantly.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lloydy wrote:
I like the picture with the flare, because of its circular shape it looks natural, as though it should be there.


Well, it looks cool but in reality the flare has caused the image to go very, very soft - even at the reduced size here in the forum you can see that it looks like it is slightly out of focus compared to the one taken a couple of seconds later at f/4.

Cool? - yes. Practical? - nope. Smile


PostPosted: Mon Feb 04, 2013 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If the lens was not as described, you could have just returned it (the seller is supposed to cover the return costs then) ... or at least ask for a refund!
Cleaning a lens yourself is only something you should do if you are really comfortable with it and have some experience, otherwise it is best to have it professionally cleaned. If you have a look around, you will find someone who cleans the lens for an acceptable price.

Very nice pictures overall! Good to hear that you enjoy this lens.


PostPosted: Tue Feb 05, 2013 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't have live view either, but if I had it I would use it for shots into the sun.
For now, I am just careful with it, and I never use long lenses anyway.

I guess the best way to tell if there is any risk is to check if you can feel the warmth of the sun, because it is not the visible light to worry about (too much visible light will make you look away) but the infrared.

I think IR-blocking sunglasses could also make some difference, though I wouldn't rely on it but only use it as an extra precaution. But most ssunglasses that claim to have IR-blocking Revo-coating block only very little IR-light, you can test it by shooting a remote control through it.
I have a pair of very old genuine Revo-glasses that seem to block most of the infrared. They are in bad shape with scratches on the coating but when using my remote through it I have to be about one meter from the tv to operate it.