Interesting article about vintage lenses

[Phalbert]

https://fstoppers.com/opinion/joy-using-vintage-lenses-modern-cameras-682133

[stevemark]

There's another one I completely agree with:

https://fstoppers.com/gear/why-i-still-would-not-buy-canon-camera-661665

And here the most important part of the above article - telling exactly why I still prefer my Sony (i. e. Minolta) A900 over any of the modern mirrorless cameras (which I also own, of course):

"Since then, it seems that the main point of my article has been proven to be true. Despite the title and the ire, my criticism was aimed at all three major manufacturers. I thought then, and with one exception now, still think now, they make ugly cameras. Many of the negative comments were aimed at the article’s main premise: the designs of DSLRs and most mirrorless cameras from the three biggest brands, not just Canon, were uninspiring to look at.

I proposed that photographers, like all artists ..., should surround themselves with equipment ... that will inspire them. However, most digital cameras are utilitarian, with some even lacking the utility of ergonomics.

I still stand by that argument: using any object of beauty is inspiring to a creator. Although there have been brief exceptions over the last century, throughout history, design has dominated by the pursuit of beauty of form alongside functionality. The Bauhaus ideal of solely form following function has little regard for the ornate having an impact on the user's soul. I would rather work at a Victorian writing desk than an Ikea table, or use my vintage fountain pen than a ballpoint. Likewise, I prefer visiting an 11th century castle to a 1950s Brutalist shopping mall. Furthermore, I would far rather use a camera that is a work of art than a shapeless lump of metal and plastic."

I don't have much to add to that ...

S

[HansMoleman]

I agree on the basic premise. However if I cannot take a good photograph with a properly functioning camera it's not the equipment.

[lightdreamer]

[stevemark]

[jamaeolus]

Interesting articles, though nothing most of us here have known for quite some time. The biggest issue with vintage lenes is....there are so very many different ones! How do you know if you'll like the Staeble Choro 38mm 3.5, or the Knoica 24mm 2.8 unless you have tried them? One thing leads to another and after a bit you realize you have over a thousand lenses and over a hundred cameras, ranging from 1/2 frame Robots to 4x5 Brand Company large format. To save a few hundred on Canon 60D lenses I've "invested" thousands in antique gear and of course moved to modern mirrorless.

As far as working with gorgeous tools I couldn't agree more, to the point that I literally enhance my hand tools to work better and be more elegant to look at.

[Alun Thomas]

The (lack of) aesthetic quality of modern photographic equipment does sometimes bug me. If you pay the amount asked by what is considered the worlds most prestigious provider of optical equipment, I think the item you receive should also be exceptional in appearance. This observably is not the case, and in fact, the appearance of their equipment could only be beautiful to it's mother, metaphorically speaking. I wouldn't care at all, if other modern lens makers offered an alternative, unfortunately many third party makers seem very enamoured with copying the same aesthetic.

Luckily, there is a wealth of older equipment that is suitable from that aspect, and while more limited technically, is not sufficiently limited to the point where my meagre photographic skills need more.

[calvin83]

[RokkorDoctor]

[Vintage_Photographer]

Whilst it's important for a device to function as it should and be ergonomically efficient that doesn't preclude it being pleasing to look at.
We see this all the time in motor vehicles.
A Mercedes G class for example is very functional but is hardly beautiful. By comparison a Range Rover is very functional but considerably more pleasing to the eye to most people.
Beauty and function are not mutually exclusive. We should always remember though that not everyone appreciates beauty in the same way.

The vintage lenses article was also interesting. My benchmark for comparison of vintage lenses is my 18-135 Fuji lens on my X-T4. That lens (or at least my copy) is knife sharp. Only a few vintage lenses get close to it for sharpness. That lens however has no character and that's where the vintage lenses come in (that and cost/value).
My favourite vintage lenses to use on the Fuji is the Rollei 50mm HFT f/1.8 as it has a beautiful out of focus render, is sharp and a joy to use.

I can see clinically sharp soulless lenses being useful for pros but I'm not pro. I take photos for pleasure and for my 'artistic' vision of how I want a photo to look. Vintage lenses suit me down to the ground.

[jamaeolus]

Thanks Calvin. I buy them at the Habitat for Humanity Restore for a couple of bucks and fix and "improve" them. I like the grip i get by coating in epoxy then adding epoxy "drops" in the hand grip area. The one "bedazzled" with stainless screws had a split in the handle and a previous owner had used a countersink to, i guess, improve grip. I drilled the core of the handle and glued a 3/8's threaded rod while gluing the split. Fabricated a cap to hold the hande to the head with a countersunk nut. The black "ring" is carbon fiber thread soaked in epoxy. I added the screws for a less bumpy and more visually appealing look. Its actually a very grippy comfortable handle in use.

[BrianSVP]

I don't know if using those screws on the grip is such a hot idea. Hit a hard material wrong, and one of those is going to shoot out and end up embedded in your hand! Especially if you have a steel rod inside, which is going to transfer all the force directly into those little screws.

[Ernst Dinkla]