how many $$$ have legacy lenses saved for you? and aren't they fun?

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
BigBarney
Senior MemberPosts: 2,722
Like?
Macro may be a good example
In reply to tt321, Jan 28, 2013

tt321 wrote:

If I'm disingenuous, I'd say 1000 pounds, a 1:1 macro lens, a short fast tele, and a 100-300 zoom. However, this 1k pounds will eventually be spent as working with MF legacy lenses is anything but fun.

I am one of those strange people who have a penchant for both 1:1 macro and close-up shooting. I managed to get a great deal (by UK price standards) on the Panasonic Leica 45mm f2.8 macro lens and use it for 3 purposes:

  • close-ups of flowers, handheld.
  • portraits - it is not as fast as the Olympus 45mm but is still a good portrait lens.
  • 1:1 macros shot on a copy stand.

Yet I still have a Canon FD mount Vivitar 100mm true macro lens that mounts well with an adapter on my m43 camera bodies. It cost me nothing today, even if it was rather expensive in the 1970s, and works very well today provided I am happy to shoot from a tripod for flowers, insects etc. The only downside is that it is something of a beast when it is fully extended, but on the positive side it does allow me to shoot small objects from a greater distance. Manual focus is not an issue when shooting macros from a tripod.

So, all things considered, I'd say that it is in the area of specialist lenses, such as true macros, that the everyday practical roles of 'legacy' lenses truly lies. Tilt/shift lenses for architectural photography may be another really useful application.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow