Stop buying legacy lenses

[PeterLeyssens]

Hi,

after reading through some tit-for-tat nonsense, here's a short summary of the discussion:

• there are lots of lenses producing lots of styles of images
• photos can be made in various ways
• some people prefer one style over another, or one way of making the photo over another
• some of those people insist that their way is right.

Having said that, I just mounted my Leica Summitar on my E-P1 recently and the first shot was great. Just like most shots with the µ43 17/f2.8 I usually use. Neither 12mm has given me a good shot yet, because I don't own one.

Peter.

--
gallery at http://picasaweb.google.com/peterleyssens
blog at http://lightchangesstuff.wordpress.com/

 

[lensblade]

Nice summary Peter.

Personally I am just hoping everyone will take the OP's hint, stop buying legacy lenses and put the ones they have back onto ebay, where I will snap up a few at good prices!

imo some modern lenses have performance levels which some sensors cannot deal with, eg the lens has high contrast and the sensor doesn't have enough dynamic range to exploit it. Put a lower contrast legacy lens in front of the same sensor, and in some circumstances it will produce a better image with smoother rendition of tones. It depends what you are looking for in your final image.

 

[phototransformations]

Point me to a native m4/3 100mm 2.8 as good as my Nikon Series E 100mm 2.8 lens and I'll happily replace it. Or a cheap native macro lens as good as the Nikon 55 2.8. Until that time arrives, I will keep using these lenses. My 50 1.x lenses are largely retired since I bought the Olympus 45 1.8, though I still pull out the Helios from time to time because of its interesting bokeh, and I'm waiting for time to play with a 35 1.7 CCTV lens for its strange distortions.

As a friend of mine says, "it's all good."

I actually still have Oly legacy glass. I have the 100, 200 and 300. The only problem is they double their focal length when used on my m4/3rds.

There's not too many that you can use for wide angle. Even an old Oly 28mm will be doubled to 56mm. And the 50 is a 100.

My 300 and 200 seem sharp on my FF camera but the 100mm seems soft to me.

Owen

 

[Tim F 101]

Drive the prices down. Please most especially DO NOT buy the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AIS macro lens until I can afford one.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Chas2]

I have not bothered to go through the different responses, but let me just say, there are some lens that just do not exist. I was recently at a sporting event, and even with ISO 1000 or higher, it was hard to get a fast enough shutter speed to freeze action with a manual focus, 105 mm f2.5 Nikkor, ca 1960's. It was not possible with any "modern" made for "digital" lens currently made for MFT.

The choice was use my "free" legacy lens, or get no photos at all. Sure there were plenty out of focus, but there were some keepers also that the team parents appreciate because they did not get anything like this with their cameras.

 

[tedolf]

Stop! Why stand around manually focusing?

Because it is fun!

The new autofocus lenses are so much more fun to use.

Pshaw!

Hardly any missed shots anymore.

So, you can't MF eh?

The newer lenses are designed for digital, older lenses were designed for 35mm film, not the smaller sensors used now. Your only using the center part of the lens. It may be sharp, it may not be.

it is sharp, real sharp!

Wouldn't you rather have an Oly 45mm? So cute, so small, and designed for the "New Age"? Or the 12mm? I mean really.....

Hmmmmm.........so expensive too.

You givin' them away for free?

Owen

TEdolph

 

[Fredrik Glckner]

Wouldn't you rather have an Oly 45mm? So cute, so small, and designed for the "New Age"? Or the 12mm? I mean really.....

In terms of technical image quality and ease of use, I think the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 removed the need to use older legacy normal lenses. I don't see any benefit from using a cheap legacy normal lens over the Olympus 45mm.

Except if you specifically think it is fun to use older manual focus lenses. Then it makes good sens.

 

[tedolf]

Wouldn't you rather have an Oly 45mm? So cute, so small, and designed for the "New Age"? Or the 12mm? I mean really.....

In terms of technical image quality and ease of use, I think the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 removed the need to use older legacy normal lenses. I don't see any benefit from using a cheap legacy normal lens over the Olympus 45mm.

"cheap".

Oly 45mm f/1.8 costs $$$!

Except if you specifically think it is fun to use older manual focus lenses. Then it makes good sens.

TEdolph

 

[tedolf]

Stop! Why stand around manually focusing?

he is spreading F.U.N.

And the point of this thread is... ?

Fooling Unlimited Nincompoops!

TEdollph

 

[Kirk Tuck]

The half frame lenses are out there. Step up and try one.
--

Austin based advertising and portrait photographer, and author of the book series, Minimalist Lighting, and the books: Commercial Photographers Handbook, Photographic Lighting Equipment, and, LED Lighting for Digital Photographers. http://www.kirktuck.com

 

[Anders W]

The half frame lenses are out there. Step up and try one.

Sure! I actually managed to find exactly one copy on ebay right now. "Only" 300 dollars for a specimen described as having

"Sign of Life Time waer. Clean Apherture Blade. Front Element have Some sign of wear & cleansing Scuff."

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Olympus-G-Zuiko-PEN-F-40mm-F1-4-for-MFT-NEX-NX-P3-PL3-GH1-GH2-GF1-GF2-GF3-/290637923839?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item43ab5ec5ff

Ordinary Double-Gauss design from 1964, presumably with (somewhat defective) antireflective coatings representative of the time. No AF, no aperture linkage, and no EXIF data.

Nah. On second thought, I think I prefer to step up to a new Oly 45/1.8 for exactly the same money.

 

[scott_mcleod]

Indeed.

I'm glad I filled out my MD lens collection a couple of years ago with pristine examples before they became extremely hard to find.

What puzzles me is... why does Owen care so much about who uses what? Perhaps it's a case of (I can't remember where I found this quote): "anyone who follows slashdot can see what happens when someone gasp does not see the obvious greatness in someone's favorite tech..."

I would consider the 45/1.8 for my G2 if it came in black instead of that silver color (no offense intended to anyone who likes the color of the new Oly lenses, but I'm baffled as to why they don't also offer them in black). Then again, having paid all of $43 for my MD 45/2 I think I can live with MF in this focal length...

Regards,
Scott

 

[amalric]

Funny, you have the knowledge, but also the bad will.

I have a modded Industar 69 tessar, 28/2.8 for half frrame, which is a delightful lens, the smallest pancake available for 30 EU, big as a wrist watch.

Should i give it away for a massive 25mm, with motors and noise? It's a bit like comparing a smalll sailing boat vs. a huge motorboat. A matter of art, not of money.

If you don't understand, give up stalking those who have tastes you can't comprehend.

Am.

--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[Anders W]

Funny, you have the knowledge, but also the bad will.

I have a modded Industar 69 tessar, 28/2.8 for half frrame, which is a delightful lens, the smallest pancake available for 30 EU, big as a wrist watch.

Congrats! Surely a bargain, given your criteria. Here's an extract from a recent review from another enthusiastic user who bought it for his/her NEX:

Image quality is a mixed bag. This lens never gets sharp, but it's sharp enough to still get useable results. The edges & corners are always blurry. The center sharpness gets better around f4, and peaks at about f8. My copy has uneven blurring around the perimeter. It's stronger on the right side than the left.

This lens also vignettes badly at all apertures. There are even some color shifts. Hues of purple & yellow in different areas of the frame.

When shot wide open, there is a noticable drop in contrast. I still prefer shooting wide open with this lens. The contrast issue is easily fixed in post process.

This lens has swirly bokeh. The out of focus areas seem to spin around the middle. You can see it a little in the second example shot at the bottom of this article.

But....for some reason, I love this lens. It's probably a compromise because of it's small size. When used properly, the blurred edges & vignetting can accentuate the subject matter. Yes, you can do this in post-processing as well. But there's just something fun about shooting a lens like this.

Source:
http://www.onemorelens.com/2011/07/industar-69-28mm-f28.html

Should i give it away for a massive 25mm, with motors and noise? It's a bit like comparing a smalll sailing boat vs. a huge motorboat. A matter of art, not of money.

Different strokes for different folks. Personally I have no need for either a 25 or a 28 so I make do with the Pany 20/1.7, which does have a motor but is even smaller and lighter than your wonky boat (with its adapter-dinghy) and can take me to optical lagoons you can't even dream of.

If you don't understand, give up stalking those who have tastes you can't comprehend.

Sorry but now you are really asking too much. Hard to give up something I haven't even started. BTW: Have you stopped beating your wife yet? I bet she doesn't understand you either (to the extent that she exists).

 

[jeffharris]

Drive the prices down. Please most especially DO NOT buy the Nikkor 105mm f/2.8 AIS macro lens until I can afford one.

Too late! Bought one a few months ago.
I LOVE this lens!

 

[ennemkay]

that bug macro is awesome... and that om-1 camera is beautiful.

 

[ajwan]

Owen wrote:

Yes, FUD.
FUD = Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt

It was an old Microsoft tactic to stifle sales of competitors' wares.... before they thankfully... and deservedly... slid into well deserved and vigorously earned irrelevance.

Really??? I always thought FUD referred to Intel (A.K.A Chipzilla) bashing AMD (A.K.A. Chimpzilla) Athlons back in the good old Coppermine vs. Thunderbird days of the late '90s and early '00s!!! LOL!

Regards,
AJW

--
Panasonic G3

 

[amalric]

That defines you very well as a sorry character feeding on others' sorrows, down to calomny. BTW I-69 is not suited to NEX, it doesn't cover the image circle.

Caught yet talking about things you don't know.

Rudeness = ignored.

Am.
--
Photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/amalric

 

[lensblade]

IBM marketing tactic from the days when they dominated the mainframe, and hence computer, market. FUD was used to scare people off considering alternatives to their established offerings. "No-one ever gets sacked for buying IBM".

 

[hammer9]

I agree the 2X crop is ok with a 50/1.4 because you get a 100mm f1.4 great for portraits or candid and closeups

But most legacy of short focal length just dont work
ie a 28/3.5 etc

For most the 2X crop make no sense and is not useful

The new Pany and Oly primes make far more sense they AF and are fast + sharp to boot.

I simply would not buy any legacy lenses.

28 f3.5 is 56 on a MFT and don't think that focal length works? Never heard of the 55mm Takumar or the 58mm Biotar?
*************************
Tom in Delaware
Photoblog: http://homepage.mac.com/galoot_9/blog/momentary.html