Photographer and filmmaker Mark Holtze has shared a video explaining ‘5 Reasons Why You Need Vintage Lenses in 2020.’
Throughout the eight-minute video, Holtze highlights five particular reasons vintage, manual lenses still make sense despite increasingly impressive lenses manufacturers are making nowadays. Holtze says in a comment beneath the video ‘I could have made a list of top 100, but honestly…nobody is sitting through 90 mins of this,’ so eight minutes it is.
Not all of the reasons will make sense for all photographers or filmmakers, but each is valid in their own way. You can find more videos from Holtze on his YouTube channel and keep up with his work on Instagram and Twitter.
I shoot for fun mostly and old lenses are a blast. Everything from the old Pentax screw-mounts to their interchangeable 110 lens line. I recently started using an Argus Lens on my Fuji's and MFT cameras. I shot a "save the date" photo for my niece and her fiancee using a Pentax K-1 and K5IIs with 43mm and 77mm Limited but the photo they chose was from my Pany GH-1 using the 65 year old Argus 35mm. I think it renders almost a "filtered" effect which works well in capturing portraits and beauty where you don't want to do a lot of post work.
I have a few old Nikkor lenses from the 1970s as well as a K&F M43 adapter for my Olympus E-M5 II. Played with a 50 f/1.4 a while back, but focusing was a task. I probably just need to get the hang of focus peaking with the help of magnification. Not exactly conducive for casual shooting, but that 50 f/1.4 may end up being a good portrait lens for M43!
After reading a feedback on the title of the article, perhaps a more appropriate title is: "5 Reasons Why I am Keeping my Vintage Lenses". As posted earlier, all my vintage lenses, specially those designed and built for Nikon SLR, are my preferred lenses.
Problem with your title suggestion is who is the author of the video and why do we care? It's a video describing a few reasons why me, you, him or anyone might want to still use legacy lenses in 2020. It's a catchy title, I wouldn't go as far as call it click bait, but I understand why it was titled as such.
@BrownieVet It's not a problem for you, I have no problem with his title, you made a title suggestion on a "more appropriate" title and I'm simply debating you on that suggestion. Did you read what I wrote? I'm not sure why you're getting defensive.
well, on 16MP MFT pixel density is equal to 64MP on a Fullframe sensor (neglecting different aspect ratios). My experience is, that even on APSC some (mostly wideangle) legacy lenses do not fare too well, afterall they're designed for fullframe. I own the Canon nFD 1.4/50 and on my A7ii its comparably sharp (@f8) as the highly regarded Sony FE 1.8/55ZA. oh yeah i hope you know how to use focus magnifier/peaking etc, IBIS helps alot too.
I often use all my Nikon lenses for my Nikon SLR on my DSLR. All are pre-Ai, except for the NOCT 58mm f/1.2 Aspherical. My NOCT is my prized lens. I turn-down an offer for $6,000 on that lens.
Next to these vintage lenses, I prefer the Nikkor lens with the D suffix. I think the correct designation is Type S, but I just refer to it as Type D. I know that the D suffix refers to the "Distance" feedback to the camera body. These Type D lenses ar built like a tank. The AF is driven by the camera. I prefer using it in Manual Focus.
reason 6 they are a blast , i love nikon glass ais \ai\ af \af-d , the rest less as they often lack proper machined brass heliciods or a non computerized aperture mechanism i left nikon bodies long ago but actively watch for good buys on vintage nikon glass
and with speedboosters can recover the light gathering characteristics and orig FOV of full frame lenses and apply them to apsc sensor based cameras and bring almost the same to m43
the most fun and the most speed i enjoy with my many fuji cameras is with nikon glass .... and of course with cosina voigtlander lenses too ;)
Nice! I like to use old canon and Pentax lens, And new voigtlander lens too. I have 21,24,35,50,85mm and canon did 70-200 f/4 It’s fun to explore those lenses
People tend to think vintage lenses are all old, manual focused glass. While in fact there are many older AF lenses that have been discontinued, but are still plenty good once AF tuned and set. For example I have a Tokina 20-35mm 2.8 ATX Pro that renders sharper stopped down than even a Nikon 20mm 1.8 G lens, plus it exhibits amazing light points and flaring, which was later suppressed in more modern lenses.
I have “vintage” sigma lenses from an old Sony a700 camera. I cannot imagine a single scenario where this nice old lens could possibly, remotely, be better than what I have now, a Nikon z50 standard zoom lens. Better in every respect, have a nice day. Greetings from 2020.
Depends on what old lens is being used. A mid 2000s Sigma lens for a DSLR likely wasn't the best resolving glass in its day or a unique look to return to.
I have about 60 vintage lenses from Leica, Nikon and Pentax....use them all...love them all. The Leica 50mm f/2 Summicron Rigid is the best lens I have ever used for 35mm. Generally the Pentax PK (1975 vintage) bayonet lenses are the most mechanically sound and smooth with a great lens mount. And of course the original Pentax optics are second to none. The old Nikkors are mechanically crude with focusing that varies from loose and squeaky to super tight but the images have that lacy, poetic appearance unique to Nikkors. And the lens mount is about equal to Pentax; both are far superior to the Leica. All have "character" and feel connected and un-antiseptic especially when used with film cameras.
No one needs anything except air, food, water and shelter. Don't be so literal with the interpretation of the title, it doesn't serve any argument at all. Discuss the merits, arguments of the video, at least that would be adding something to conversation.
@MatchBox50, my potentially thought provoking comment taken to an extreme. Well done. As well as adding to the conversation, you failed there as well. Well done for nothing.
Honestly, you don't need any lenses. You can just drill a very small hole in a camera mount cap. Or get one already drilled, like from these guys: https://thingyfy.com/pps/
I have a whole pile of old (and new) manual lenses.
Some I use regularly, some never.
One of the best things about using mirrorless cameras, after reasonably sized camera bodies and full-time live-live view, is their ability to use lenses from nearly any camera system over the past 60 years (or more?).
My favorites are Nikon AI-S macro lenses, Pentax SMC Takumar, Jupiter (L39 mount) and Voigtländer rangefinder (though they’re not old).
For me, having a physical connection to my creative tools, manual lenses in this case, is important. How they work and feel makes a difference… the focus ring, the aperture ring. Do I like them, or not. I just feel more engaged using manual lenses vs. electronic. Some lenses just put a smile on my face when I’m using them. That’s as important as anything else.
I’m not looking for “perfection” in image quality, which is impossible to attain.
you add some great points there. If i think about using a cheap modern 50mm with loud autofocus motors and plastic feel i literally cringe, while any good old manual lens or especially high quality modern manual lenses i consider really joyful to use. Anyone used to focus by wire should try a real helicoid sometime, it's a huge difference.
I also like the old Takumar lenses, especially the 55mm F1.4. It has a unique look, with the yellowish Cobalt coating. The lens is also Radioactive, like all Takumars from the early 60s :-D I measured it with a giger counter and calculated, that in the 60s it must have radiated quite a bit. But in 2020 it's completely harmless (only 2.5x the background radiation)
the cool yellow tone is because of the effects of the radioactivity on the glass
it can literally be bleached out to a more neutral color with sunlight in a process that can take weeks and can be done safely by following some simple instructions [ google it ]
@grafli the 8 element Takumar 50 1.4 wasn't actually radioactive. The Planar killer, they lost money on every one sold, but they achieved press when they "beat" the Contax Carl Zeiss 50mm 1.4 as the "better 50".
They modified the design later to the 7 element version which cost less and used thorium in some of optics.
@MatchBox50: I measured all my Takumar lenses for radioactivity. Every single one was radioactive! The 24mm F2.8, the 50mm F1,4 the 55mm F1,8 and the 135mm F3.5. The 24mm had the highest radio activity, but still harmless nowadays.
@grafli - Did you measure the 8 element 50mm 1.4? It was made just prior to the 7 element and has a different font type for aperture numbers as well as a protruding rear element.
I love my old cameras but after buying a leica M262 with lenses, I sold the lot after a year, I couldn't believe how often my focus was out down to me I'm sure, autofocus is too good an improvement to ignore now
MF sure is a skill one has to master first, especially on those rangefinders. I've never really used one but i have a feeling MF with focus peaking on a modern MILC with good EVF is much easier, especially with the help of IBIS. It took me only a few weeks to get very satisfying results from a 1.4/50 lens on a mirrorless camera. It's never gonna be point and shoot tho...
MF is most satisfying not looking at a terrible EVF but through a huge split prism.
I mean that in a 'could be' still relevant way.
If there was a camera body with the old, big, beautiful split prism and digital sensor we would be claiming it as far more enjoyable to use than a modern EVF.
I have never had very good resuls with a split prism. It works, but not as precise as I expected, also you need an excellent eyesight which is often a problem with age. Also, good light conditions and suitable target to adjust against. EVF will work in almost complete darkness. Magnification + peaking is pinpoint precise.
dr.noise, It would ceretainly depend on the lens, how good the prism is.
I didnt consider when our eyes start to fade. Does the diopter not work the same?
EVF will be more precise of course. Just as AF has many benefits.
My point is that its very enjoyable to use a huge, quality split prism.
I think that Leica or others could do well make a fixed lens MF digital sensor camera instead of all the "collector" versions. 28mm f2 would be very bright and easy enough to MF focus.
Diopter can help with focusing the eye but there are other issues. With split wedges you basically don't watch if the image is sharp, you watch that the two split parts are coming together as precisely as possible. And that is where the hard part begins, because you need to see the slightest difference. I.e. your eyes have to literally resolve sub-hair-thin lines. But if the viewfinder is big enough, as you propose, it would not be such a problem.
I do not have any lens that could classified as Vintage. But I know that most lenses and gears from old times are making their ways back into the system, because most of us now want to have a feel of the old time vibes.
I am using a bunch of vintage lenses because I see since years the benefit of using them both on high MP FF sensors and on film. These kind of lenses have a certain character I like for example in they way they render the background and/or softer focus. They also have a built quality which is no longer common in the industry. I am more into vintage rangefinder M- and LTM-mount lenses, and they are now quite expensive in good condition. It is important to know which ones are collector items and therefore additionally marked up in price. There are still a few less known vintage rangefinder lenses available which provide excellent image quality, but you need to grab this opportunity if one is available for a decent price.
For those interested in lab testing of vintage lenses, Lenstip, Ephotozine and Optical Limits (formerly Photozone.de) had made a few reviews.
Lenstip's test of the old Nikkor-S 50mm F/2 pitched against Nikkor AF-D 50mm 1.8 (special occasion review made for 50th anniversary of the F-mount) concluded with the following:
"Old Nikkor-S boasts better performance, better correction of chromatic aberration, coma and astigmatism. The new lens gives us better resolution, less vignetting, better work than harsh light and transmission. Distortion and focusing categories can be considered draws. As a result, the whole duel also ends in an draw.
It is very interesting and showing how important a good lens performance is, and what effects the optics can have on the plastic abuse in the housing. The new Nikkor already has serious problems with coma and astigmatism, i.e. off-axis defects that like to "explode" when the optical elements of the system are not where they should be. To be fair, both lenses should be used in the same conditions for those 40 years and only then carry out such a test. I'm sure that then the Nikkor AF 50 mm f / 1.8D would have huge problems to defend this draw."
The Nikkor 50/1.8D can be tested in 40 year old form, it's optically the same lens as the Series E that launched back in the late 70's as a budget alternative to the 50/2's even better successor (the 50/1.8 AI 'longnose')
I've been using a Nikon 200mm f4 and a humble 135mm f3.5 for a while, which I had to buy urgently (for pennies) when my equipment was stolen on a trip. the result is fantastic, I made copies of 700x105cms with amazing quality details. Beyond the discussion about more or less resolution compared to modern lenses, except for sports photographers or even wedding photographers, for two centuries the photography left its wonderful testimonies without the need for autofocus. I do not criticize progress, of course, if I criticize the marketing techniques that "force us to buy and buy to keep the wheel moving. I think it's about using the system intelligently, and using many of those excellent prime lenses that nobody wants today, which can be bought for a few dollars is a good example
Just because newer lenses are better corrected doesn’t mean the older ones suddenly got worse. Nor is a picture better because it is sharper. If you pixel peeping, you’re wasting your time.
I also have the NIkon 200mm F4 and the 135mm 2.8 AI lenses. They are very well made, compact, sometimes with built in hoods, and that wonderful aperture ring. I wouldn't sell them! Plus on the old FM and FM2 bodies, they are perfect -- Leica like on a budget.
Myself, I'm a fan of vintage 50 and 100mm macro primes. Sure, they aren't as sharp and CA corrected as modern macros, but they often come at 1/10 of their price; and the newer ones aren't 10x better optically, while often worse for manual focusing, which is usually how macro photography is done.
My favourites are Micro-Nikkors, SMC Takumars and Kiron 105.
Although there wasn't many CRC macros back then, within declared optimal magnifications many vintage macros are as good both resolution-wise and on CA correction as the latest macro lenses
Who do you think would win, vintage Olympus Macro 80mm F4, or the modern Nikon micro-Nikkor 105/2.8 VR?
The Kiron 105mm is really one of the best, it stands it's ground even against Sigma 105mm or Canon 100mm L if used in a way remembering it is the granddad of those lenses. IMO Olympus OM are the best vintage macro lenses and they come in a wide variety.
i need to mention the Tokina AT-X 90mm macro, which is an outstandingly sharp macro and landscape lens. its only 1:2 flares quite easily though but has great bokeh, hence the name "bokina". https://phillipreeve.net/blog/tokina-x-macro-90mm-12-5-review/
ahhh, the Tokina AT-X series. I bought a 70-210 for my father's Canon AE1. A beautiful lens that was very sharp and I could afford as 17 year old. I have never had a better one on my later cameras.
I also have a Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 with an adapter. The store sold the lens (in 1990) for Fl 7,- (that is EUR 3) and another store sold the adapter, which I could get for another FL7,- Of course they did not know this from eachother.
In 2006 I bough my Nikon D50 and attached the lens. With its smooth Bokeh and soft pastel color rendering I was able to capture a scene of early morning asparagus pickers. It won first prize in a local competition (EUR 450,-) which I invested in a nice Sigma 10-20 I still use.
I use a few Mamiya 645 medium format lenses on my fuji xt2. First a dumb adapter to nikon and then a focal reducer to fuji x. The focal reducer makes the lens more universal, and you gain approx a stop as well, plus the image is still way in the middle of the image circle hence no issues in the corners. I am very happy with them and regularly use this combination. Yes the look big vs the camera but handholding is ok. There is a nice look to the pictures.
Both photos were taken with the Mamiya 80mm f2.8, full 24mp jpgs:
My favorite is the Helios 44 it has the most epic character for me. From my best film photography era the Nikon lenses has a special thing to me, nice bokeh nice smooth character and because my hand just got used to the focus direction on the the Nikon lenses, the other direction always makes me confused. So I have a 50 1.4 ais might be not the cheapest but an amazing lens. And of course the fact you can buy any adapter for e mount for 10 usd on ebay it is like a never ending xmas. TIP: You an buy tilt adapter also for Nikon and Helios mount a lot fun and cost like 25 usd. Just type "tilt adapter for Nikon f to sony e" on ebay ;)
I'm sure he is quite right when it comes to video. However, when he says that old lenses have their own character, in still photography language it's called lens fungus :) Isn't there an issue with film era lenses in that they aren't coated or coated enough on the camera side so they often reflect back ghosts onto the sensor which is more reflective than film?
Fungus isn't as common as many think, it can also be quite easy to clean out, unless the fungus has reach horrific levels its one of the lesser worries to anyone who knows what they're doing. Some lenses are more prone to reflections off the sensor reflecting back off the rear element and therefore ghosting back on the sensor, its most certainly not every lens by a long shot and shouldn't be a problem outside or shooting into a bright light source or similarly shooting a backlit subject.
fungus is not really an issue when you store lenses in a normal environment, and keep the fron cap off, because fungus can only grow in dark/damp environments. if you know what you're doing you can even buy lenses with fungus for very cheap, clean them and have a really good lens for almost free. I've bought a whole batch once and it was quite fun reviving a Minolta Rokkor 1.7/50 which turned out to be a very sharp lens even though i had to disassemle it completly to get rid of the fungus. But then there were lenses with glued lensgroups, unfortunately i didnt find a way to clean those...
My eyes usually glaze over when a presenter introduced themselves by name then launches into a joke that nobody wants to hear but he did it quite well.
Mighty MIKE! I'll be there! The BIG ONE in may at the very least! Bob: I had recently watched The Last Jedi again and the "let old things die" just hit me so I modified my less "funny" intro with it. It's more a way to capture a little imagination, using eyeliner to break time and space in an edit than trying to make people laugh.
I totally understand where you're coming from though. :)
Mark has some great videos, I've been following him for a while. Vintage lenses are so much fun. I've been using Pentax and Minolta lenses on Canon and Panasonic cameras since the 5D Mark II.
The best legacy lenses are Canon EF L lenses. They can be adapted to every mirrorless camera, they usually have very good image quality, and they cost half of the latest and greatest lenses. Some of the non-IS lenses are sold for very little, but the optics is very good and IBIS brings a new life to them.
how is manual focus/auto focus though, probably not great i guess? I'd rather go for FD L-glass. Its even cheaper and often its the same lens formula as the EF, but theres no motor that can die and a real nice to handle helicoid.
Pentax 6x7 105mm 2.4 my lucky vintage lens , stellar quality on my Sony A7 Minolta 100-400 apo miserable crappy quality lens , fuzzy details ,wrong colors etc... I bought quite a few vintage lenses , most of them are poor quality , I'm done buying them. I'll Ebay most of them soon.
Indeed the Pentax 6x7 105 mm is REALLY a lens to test on a modern FF camera, especially when making video : - Superb bokeh, - Very good IQ from center to edge (as only the center from the 6x7 image is used). - Really pleasing manual focus, well damped.
Vintage lenses are great for artists or enthusiasts. Sometimes it's nice to play with that old (nostalgic even) and unusually flawed look. However, most people mistake old stuff for vintage. For example, there are tons of cheap old Soviet knock-off optics, which are mostly old junk rather than vintage. But, after the mirrorless came to be, even those went up in price multiple times (at first). I'd call some of those lenses "classic", but not "vintage". The Helios 44-2 is fun. But if you want vintage you go for the original Zeiss, or like a 58F1.2 Nikkor, or 50F0.95 Canon or some Leica optics. Of course there are many other classic options like Asahi Takumar, Minolta Rokkor, etc. For me, "vintage" means something exceptionally special, rare or luxury, from the old times. Not whatever made before the autofocus was invented. Old manual lenses are good for videos and you can save a lot of money that way. That still doesn't make them vintage.
Semantics aside, I can't think of one modern lens that renders as smoothly as the Helios. It's the Film look while holding very good (more than enough) detail. There's more to life than counting eyelashes and brittle sharpening. Mind you my experience is limited to a Helios budget !
It's the film that gives the "film look", not the lens. "very good (more than enough) detail" - No such limits exist. "There's more to life than counting eyelashes and brittle sharpening" - Counting fungus on old glass is much more fun? Quality image and image quality are not the same thing. The image quality of a quality image does matter and they both have value. If you are here to tell me that nothing matters but your skills, then I have news for you: You don't know what you are talking about. "Semantics aside, I can't think of one modern lens that renders as smoothly as the Helios" - You are contradicting yourself, because your Helios superiority fantasies are the actual "semantics". Have you ever used the old Sigma 50F1.4 EX DG HSM? It has one of the creamiest rendering, far better than Helios. It lacks the roughness, the character of the Helios. So, in comparison, the Helios doesn't render smoothly at all. it's a different beast. Or did you mean that it is soft? Which is bad.
Some are good. I like the Minolta MD lenses, some inherited, FREE is always good & some bought as digital was taking off I possibly got a reasonable deal.The 35mm f1.8 is a favorite & all the 50's, the 105mm f2.5 & 135mm f2.8, PG late version 58mm f1.2 (OMG) work well with my Sony A7s.No need to modify either & never would. Possibly should look at some Nikkor but in no hurry.
"Vector" He's my daughters, but last minute thought he might be cool to have in the video. I showed her what I did with him in the morning and she loved it, so I decided to use those bits hehe.
Even Zeiss lenses are comparatively easy to come by if you shop for C/Y editions from the late 20th century. I have three for my Sony and they cost $800 total. They're as sharp and contrasty as the Fuji 35mm/1.4, which itself is an excellent lens. Nice video, and I'd have to agree with his statements.
C/Y Cntax Zeiss are often modded for commercial cinema use as well. They're very relevant and even at the higher prices are quite a good deal consider the image they render on a Arri/Red/BM etc.
I fully agree. Currently, I only have old manual lenses. I had a modern canon lens. It looked fragile compared to old lenses. I prefer simple and solid gear. By the way. I just bought a Zenit-B film body. No electronics. Totally mechanical. Built like a tank. That's The Way (I Like It) - (KC And The Sunshine Band)
Let me see ... I play bongos ... I have a kodak film sign on my wall ... I love the look of the Kodachrome 64 film ... I have a collection of songs from the 70s...you are full correct! 70s was a "super duper" era! :)
Legacy lenses, made before WW2, don't have lens coatings. Those made just after WW2 have single coatings. Live modern, and have the lens coating removed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFmeMQ-oeGs from your modern lens, if you love flare.
The lenses used in the opening D-Day scene of Saving Private Ryan had their coatings stripped. It's a big reason why you get the look. Motivated by the narrative of course. That's "character". The term is so widely used it's almost impossible to really define. When you shoot with intent though, it can be a powerful creative tool.
Most buying "legacy" lenses would avoid those without coatings, and there are plenty of coated manual lenses available. Even the Pentax Takumar lenses had a coating.
S Yu, those were older lenses they used as well, I didn't mean to imply it was simply removing the coatings made them "vintage"...vintage is just a term to describe age. They wanted that scene to feel war time documentary and there are definitely some shots in there where you can see strange reflection properties especially when fire is present. They used older lenses and stripped the coatings to further bring an optical level of authenticity to the frame.
Colour rendition, optical properties, image clarity all those choices were taken into account when deciding what to shoot that scene on.
I find it hilarious that people stll compare old vs new in terms of "better". Old glass is a treasure trove of looks and effects at bargain prices, what else does it need to do ? https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYX22a35sKhA0T6ee7uZfvg
i own the FD 50 1.4, that i paid €60 for, i also own the FE 55 1.8ZA, that i paid €600 for, thats 10folds. In 9/10 images, you wont notice the difference. I just won't get the 10th shot at all with the old lens because of MF or be dissapointed by flares from the much inferior coatings, but in many scenarios, the difference is not noticeable.
I don't know for sure, but they seem oversaturated, fake and almost neon-like(yes it was on RAW). They looked cheap yet it's not just a case of dialing down the saturation. I remember trying different color profiles but the colors remained difficult to work with. I was able to observe them on my old NEX-7 with the kit lenses, also first gen RX100. I believe I may still have some files in my archive but my archive is unavailable to me right now. It was gone from my NEX-7 when I moved on to Contax and the next RX camera I tried out was already the RX10IV, it was gone from that series by then too.
@S Yu Plasticky sounds fair, it may well be accurate too. Some of my A-mount budget lenses (say the 55-300) can run to a slight purplish veil unless you push the exposure pretty hard. It's totally absent in Minolta Glass, even the cheap stuff. The E-mount 16-50 can show it, too. Maybe there are compromises in non-glass elements ?
its astonishing really how rendering can differ from lens to lens. I dont think it's a major issue, but often enough i find colors more pleasing from my older lenses. Sony glass usually renders cooler (not the 1.4/85GM tho).
@Ron Poelman I don't trust the transmission properties of plastics, but some(many) legacy lenses have their own issues. I had a Kiron 25/2 that had quite a yellow cast.
I only have one vintage SLR manual lens: the nifty 50mm f1.7 Zeiss Planar for Yashica mount. Lovely output but the truth is that my Fuji primes are better in every possible way.
I'm old enough that I have difficulty understanding how MF is a negative or barrier to be overcome or avoided, assuming a photographer doesn't have vision problems. I shoot using MF and 'needle-match' metering as often as I use AF and aperture priority on my DSLR. An 'Automatic' feature on most devices means 'convenient' rather than 'more precise' or 'more durable'.
90% of what I shoot is moving, much of it rapidly moving. Think you can manually focus on a subject that moves through your entire DOF every 50 milliseconds? My camera can.
And my first camera was a Canon AE-1, which I shot with exclusively for 13 years. So I know what MF is. What it is is a way to limit what you shoot to stationary or slow-moving subjects. I always hated that.
Some of the best combat photographs I've seen were shot on manual focusing lenses. Lets not pretend that auto focus has made the rules of composition more meaningful.
These are simply an option for photographers/videographers. Nowhere in the video is it said these are to REPLACE modern lenses. If they're not for you, fine...but a lot of people love manual focus, especially in the video world. Focus by wire is impossible, your muscle memory has a much harder time because the lens is always trying to adjust your inputs.
Cinematic videography is generally done using manual focusing. You can't take a chance that the camera will auto focus on the wrong subject, or change its "mind" in the middle of a clip. True cinematic lenses have a long focus throw and calibrated markings on the barrel.
Rather than twist the lens itself, a follow focus gear is preferred. Most of these devices have a white ring which can be marked for easy return to preset distances in a scene. This takes skill and planning, but can even accommodate an actor walking toward the camera. Most of the time you will see it as a focus shift between two actors.
Shooting a jazz concert this afternoon, I alternated between auto and manual focus, the latter when the key subject was partly behind other persons or objects. AF is 3x faster and easier for a single operator, when the results are. unequivocal.
Autofocus in video is generally reserved for children and professional athletes.
Speed! Try shooting moving fast-paced street photography subjects with manual focus. In can be done with great DOF and zone focus. But not as effectively, at least how I want to do it.
While off af of camera will beat manual focus but to say one can't use manual focus for fast stuff is plain wrong.
Personally I only have 1 af lens and I don't miss af. I am used to manual focus and I prefer it even when things move.
Also in Pentax there is something called catch is focus that can easily capture fast moving things even in manual for people not comfortable with manual focus.
Good for your Camera Lee Jay. So for those of us not shooting that? Why can't we enjoy "slowing things down" and shooting manual focus? Jesus, did someone torture you with old glass when you were young. Relax.
So much of this "my camera can do better" argument is about pushing limits. We've had other threads, articles, on how a $250 camera can match a $5,000 camera, except the latter can perform in some extreme conditions. This isn't really any different.
What's missing in this argument is about the process of learning, what might be termed an apprenticeship. How many courses will make the student work in manual mode to make them understand the Triangle of Exposure? How many will make them use manual focus in a setting where they can learn about aperture and depth of field and about hyperfocal distance?
Yes, composition is important. Yes, it's nice to have all the technical stuff 'automated' so you can concentrate on composition. But issues like DoF translate into Bokah, the lens-apeture can affect the perspective. You DO need to know the technical stuff.
"So for those of us not shooting that? Why can't we enjoy "slowing things down" and shooting manual focus? Jesus, did someone torture you with old glass when you were young. Relax."
Read the comment to which I responded:
"...I have difficulty understanding how MF is a negative or barrier to be overcome or avoided..."
I answered that, and the answer is fast-moving subjects.
For some reason people seem to think that moving images did not happen in the MF days. Beg to differ. I shot motorsports long before there was even AF much less IBIS or OS or digital sensors. From all the way back to the late 60's Trans-Am and all the way forward to the Rolex 24 only a couple of years ago. I even won a prop bet in the AF films days using a MF Pentax body, a big zoom, motordrive and 250 frame bulk film back and got over 60% keepers. All in the technique.
For some reason, people seem to think that because they were able to get an image or two in focus using MF that getting way higher keeper rates on way harder subjects isn't desirable.
I use digital cameras and one of my often used lenses is a 50 yo Nikkor 35mm 2.8 PC lens. It is good enough once the CA is corrected, but I only use it because there is no "modern" version. After processing, the images look about the same as with my newer Canon and Sony lenses. I use many modern MF lenses (Canon TSE) and often focus my auto lenses manually.
I have at least a dozen old Nikkor, Pentax, and Canon vintage lenses with adapters for my Sonys and Canons. I rarely use them but certainly don't think there is anything special about them or the process of using them. I frame the shot, set the aperture, and focus (automatically or manually) and shoot the same way with any lens.
Like you a vintage 35mm PC lens is among my most used - it’s perfect for exterior architectural photography without too much perspective distortion. That said, my copy is only marginally better than the Canon TS-E 24 + 1.4 extender.
I’d love to see a modern 35mm TS-E/PC-E as I’m sure it would be spectacular. I also imagine it would sell quite well. The common 24mm is a bit of a compromise and can be too wide for ‘building portraits’ and not quite wide enough for interiors.
great video, i can second all of that. I've started using vintage lenses on the A5000 then A7 when i was on a student budget, by now i have a full set of FD primes from 17 to 300mm and some of them are so good i don't know why i should buy a modern version. It's really great, you can pretty much get image quality that looks "pro" for <$400 nowadays (used A7+50mm prime) My most favourite lenses i personally own. Canon FD 35mm f2.8 (extremely sharp for landscapes stopped down) Canon FD 50mm f1.4 (cheap, small, sharp) Tokina AT-X 90mm f2.5 macro (excellent bokeh and sharpness) Canon FD 300mm f4L (very sharp, well corrected for CA) all lenses with an extremely good price/performance ratio, if youre a little lucky/patient. BTW: go to phillipreeve's blog if you want to learn more!
The best thing about that "pro" look is that you can get it with almost any lens. It's about composition, the subject...the image clarity is never something that I particularly pay attention to over the other elements of a photograph.
thats kind of true, but i'd like to point out from my experience that getting a pro look is much harder with a beginner APSC-DSLR with Kitlens (that most people have) than a used FF-Mirrorless with a good old manual lens. And both setups are around the same monetary investment. You could get that plastic fantastic 50mm f1.8 AF lens ofc, but its guaranteed your beginner DSLR will miss focus, which won't happen if you practice a bit and focus peak with a nice helicoid prime on your MILC.
Many of the things that make the most difference in the look of a shot - such as the character of the bokeh - are difficult if not impossible to change or add in Lr and even Ps. Retro looks are mostly about things that are easy to do such as color cast and "grain", but that's mostly not what using vintage lenses is about.
Besides, that only addresses one of the "reasons" proffered. Cost is one of the first he mentions, and "I can't use PS/LR well enough" does not necessarily correlate with "I can't afford $1.5k for a single lens".
I DO NOT own PS or LR—why would I, I'm a photographer... not a lab-rat. If you can't get-it-right in camera, how can you call yourself a photographer?
Henri Cartier-Bresson said: "It is an illusion that photos are made with the camera... they are made with the eye, heart and head." HCB was an artist not a gear geek.
Ming Thein said: "... the last thing the world needs is another shallow depth of field cat photo." Got that right!
@cdembrey If you shoot digital taking the photo is only half the picture. It takes a bit to get yourself setup nicely, but once youve got a workspace sorted out it shouldn't interrupt your workflow much. Yes editing can be uninspiring sometimes, but for the photos you love it's a must. If you shoot film half the hard work has already been done for you in your choice of film
@3pgrey, I hire a professional retoucher to do the scut work (Google it). Your Mileage obviously does Vary. Because I get-it-right in-camera the retoucher has little to do. Curve tweeks and clipping paths mainly.
BTW I'm Color-Blind, but my retoucher isn't—clients appreciate proper color.
"I DO NOT own PS or LR—why would I, I'm a photographer... not a lab-rat. "
This is what old people who're stuck in their time don't seem to be able to appreciate - PS/LR is our darkroom.
And like anything similar - it's a tool. The better you can use it, the more options you have.
It's the same (but a reverse timeline) argument to people waxing lyrical about how digital rangefinders "force you to slow down and consider the essence of photography" or some such nonsense when the reality is that they can't use one. I can slam-focus an M faster than some Fujis take to lock on while also being aware of what my next subject will be.
I really, really, hope when I'm the median age of the people that I took my nick from on this forum while I was still a lurker, that I'm nothing like you guys.
@cdembrey Have you considered black and white photography as a way around the color blindness? Capture one lets you tweak the saturation of colors while black and white, the same way a filter would with film
Why can’t I be both a photographer and a lab rat? I enjoy both, and I don’t think that calling oneself a photographer requires doing all processing with the same device that is used for acquisition. If it’s convenient and sufficient for your purposes, then why not, but otherwise, why restrict yourself to it? Just so that you can continue gatekeeping? I call myself a (hobbyist) photographer because I enjoy making photographs. Simple as that.
And personally, I prefer to get it right on the calibrated monitor of my PC, from an ETTR shot with maximal SNR and with plenty of time, over getting it “right” in camera by conflating exposure and lightness in a setting where I can’t even evaluate it properly, relying on the manufacturer’s color processing, etc. The result will be both better (relative to my own taste, anyway) and less accidentally so. Not to mention the situations where getting it right in camera is not possible in the first place (e.g. stitching, or advanced exposure blending).
@TheClueless, I detest a Wet Darkroom as much as I dislike PS/LR. Therefore I've ALWAYS had my lab work done by a PAID professional. For me photography was a well paying business, not a hobby. If you are a hobbyist, do what you enjoy. You need to remember that I'm just relating what I do, not trying to tell you what to do. While you seem to be interested in insulting people.
I have no need to evaluate anything—I have no problem setting the key with an incident light meter. Why expose-to-the-right when you can expose it right?
@3pgrey, I started shooting B&W way back in the 1940s. I have Blackie on my iPhone https://apps.apple.com/us/app/blackie/id904557761 I'm familiar with B&W photography. The problem for me is that there were few paying clients that wanted their ads shot in B&W. So I payed talented retouchers to do color correction for me. It's just a cost of doing business.
I'd encourage you, to-do a "Analog Photography Review (APR)" or "FPR, Film Photography Review", column, say monthy, with topics about Analog Photography, perhaps also Beginners, i do know, that many people into their early to mid 20's are using, trying out Film Gear, because they've never had such a thing, into their childhood, teeny days, and often found their fathers old camera "in the Attic", overtaken old gear from their grandparents, etc.
Topics about Film Reviews, vintage SLR/Rangefinder/Lenses, Darkroom, Developing, etc.
There are also Magazines out there, just for analog, Film Photography. Something like the "Throwback Thursday", why was this being canceled, btw? No more old & interesting gear?
(edit) Personally, i do read for instance 35mmc, Emulsive, i still shot film, Japan Camera Hunter, etc.
@marc petzold: Thanks for the suggestion. We have actually been working on something behind-the-scenes a bit. I'm not sure if it'll be a column, but we have an idea or two in store and are working to develop them further (pun entirely intended).
I learnt a lot from the "Throwback Thursday" columns. They prompted me to investigate things I'd not looked at before, altered my attitude to some things about the meaningfulness of, for example, the race to more megapixels.
@marc petzold: I second the idea. Problem on a ".com" website is that it relies on advertisement of new gear and that gear companies support it. With film and older camera gear this market is not available - or only to a very limited amount, for example film manufacturers. Leica for example is interested to see that latest and newest of their gear pushed forward but certainly not interested to see how older Leica film cameras work nicely in many aspects in a competitive way, too.
Way often, when i am going for a walk, and unpack my SLR, people do ask me about that old Minolta, or Yashica, or Contax, i am using. Sometimes, there are good chats about gear, Film usage, and about Photography into general.
Film is a physical Medium, unlike a digital file on your Harddrive, or -SSD, one does interact, -connect with it. You load your Film cartridge into your camera, then you wind it, or it gets autom. being loaded, but at the End of the Day, you do have a Negative, or a Slide into your bare Hands, someday, after developing it. It develops patience, within the whole process. I'd wish to have my own Darkroom.
And this means so much more, weights at least for myself more, than having a file floating somewhere on my harddrives....
I'm happy, interested into new Films, ne Emulsions, to push the limits, take Kodak Portra 400, Ektar 100, T-Max 100....really fine grain....i'd wish for, i could afford a digital Leica without LCD, but i'm not wealthy.
Greatest quote from the video in using vintage lens (and vintage camera) ... "There is nothing better than the feeling that you shot the image you perfectly exposed it you nailed the focus you own that shot"
I don't see what shooting film has to do with it. Strictly speaking, perhaps not even vintage lenses ...
Somewhere on the web, not necessarily DPR, there are articles bemoaning shooting using 'automatic". OK, so that the only way you CAN shoot with some phone cameras. "Intelligent Auto" it's labelled on my Sony. The Camera makes all the decisions based on its evaluation of the scene. Except composition. Artificial Intelligence by another name. Welcome to the machine.
So flip that off, turn the control to "M" for manual. Turn of autofocus. So 'focus peaking' is the substitute for a reticulated grid. Eat it up.
"There is nothing better than the feeling that you shot the image you perfectly exposed it you nailed the focus you own that shot"
The best part about vintage MF lenses is how incredibly smooth the focus ring is. It is really a joy to use.
Also, if anyone's shot with the old MF SLR cameras like the Nikon FM2 with a split-prism focusing screen, you will appreciate how big and engaging the viewfinder is. It really pulls you into the image.
I've always said, that if they make an FM2 equivalent DSLR that is manual focus only, I'd buy it. I just don't like processing film.
Agree. My old kit Olympus Zuiko 50mm f/1.8 is a peach compared with my plasticky Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. The old Olympus has a lovely rubbery knurled focus ring with an oily smooth resistance, and the aperture ring on the end is far more usable and better placed than any dial behind a shutter release.
Exactly this was the reason I bought a Nikon Df but its OVF was a total disappointment. I expected OVF experience from the top quality film cameras. That disappointing Df experience was when I decided to go mirrorless full frame. OVF in digital cameras are pathetic. I gave a try to Fuji X-PRO2, and it was even more disappointing.
@ Mike. And this was the exact reason I passed on the Nikon DF. I was expecting a proper focusing screen, but it wasn't there. But, any auto focus SLR (digital or analogue) will not have the same quality of OVF that the MF SLRs do. The reason is the auto focus apparatus that is necessary forces the OVF to be much smaller. Hence, the OVF in my old Nikon FM2 is way nicer and larger than on my Nikon F100.
So, one really needs a manual focus DSLR to get the same type of OVF that the old MF SLRs had. Sadly, I don't think any manufacturer will ever create a MF DSLR. If they did though, I bet they could revive the dying DSLR market. I doubt any mirrorless camera would offer the same shooting experience.
I completely disagree with the assertion of this video. People who have time to track down, purchase and evaluate old lenses, people who have time to waste sentimentalizing over the subjective “character” of an old lens, and people who have time to waste with manual focus and missed shots, are people who are not 100% focused on creating worthy works of art. You only get one life. Don’t be obsessed with the little details that your audience will almost certainly not notice, like bokeh quality and “character”. Obsess about the content and subject of your work and the overall impression that you work will impart. These are what will win you an audience.
You sound like you are a salarymen stuck in traffic.
For you photography is all about the result. The paycheck at the end of the month, the new subscriber, the amount of "engagement". Nothing wrong with that, I guess.
But for many others it's a hobby. While we can enjoy much of the same things, we don't see them to be as important. We learned to derive value and satisfaction from the *process*. Don't get me wrong: I like good pictures. I like mine, and I like those fellow photographers make. But what I really love, is making them.
Not every photographer is trying to create works of art. For many of us, photography is a hobby, a fun pastime, and the act of taking the photo is as much part of the fun as the final result. And for those who enjoy doing everything manually, it's certainly not a waste of time, rather it's a good time.
You can make ' worthy works of art' with any lens. You obviously know nothing about art, but only about optical performance. Many modern lenses are very sterile in their rendering. Subject is only one part of the equation. Visual content is just as important and often enhanced by bokeh and character.
Ravduc I disagree. Good planning, good framing, good editing, etc. are all far more important than some quite minor and subjective “character” that could be added by an old lens.
Of course they do. I never said that good framing etc are not important, but the rest , such as bokeh can be equally as important. I am not excluding anything, but you seem to be. A good picture is a combination of many things, including the character that some lenses render, if used properly.
ever since i got rid of my Minolta Mad lenses in 1985, when the company came out with AF cameras and lenses - i have not ever twiddled a darn focus ring manually. AF all the way. And yes, i am a hobbyist and i like to create photographs and i like the process. and i am not a machine operator, not a dial tutner, knob pusher, whell spinner, aperture and gocus ring twiddler.
i want zo focus on scene, idea, moment and light. not on mundane photo technical issues any AI can handle for me.
Wow, so you perform for an audience you mokey you. You fail to remmeber the roots of photography which was manual focus to begin with. This elitist mentality that manual focus and vintage is not a valid "tool" for people to explore and utilize. You obviously have your preference, but that is your opinion and you are entitled to that. Manual focus has many advantages including slowing you down, being more deliberate, adn in most instances, alowing the photographer to be more meticulous with their work. Tools such as focus peaking has made manual focus easier to implement, and the charcter that these vintage lenses afford, is priceless. Get off your AF high horse, your assumptions, and they are assumptions, hold no validity for those of use that use "old" lenses.
Yes, but we're all different, aren't we? One person's waste of time is another person's having a great time. There's no right or wrong here, just different preferences.
Personally, I enjoy the whole process: walking about looking for interesting subjects, setting the exposure, focusing, composing and timing the shot, and of course enjoying the final image.
Completely disagree. I'm not sure why you believe the thesis of the video is somehow assaulting your creative use for photography. It's simply an option. Missed shots? What do you think people did in photography for decades before autofocus? lol.
With the advent of auto focus and digital cameras people now throw out more shots than were ever missed in the entire history of photography before these conveniences. People most certainly didn't waste film, that would have been too expensive, they planned and prepared and executed a few excellent photos if they were any good. Now people just machine gun off hundreds in a row, pick one maybe and toss the rest... thats a lot of waste if you ask me! When was the last time you went out with your latest and greatest equipment and deliberately only took 24 or 36 photos? Or maybe I should ask when was the last time you came back with that many really superb keepers from an outing? Just because the classics are still appreciated by some is now reason for you to get all defensive about it!
Mighty mike and Steve Anderson, you two are the ones attacking individuals with personal criticisms and disparaging comments. Xeppelin and I were just stating our opinions in the spirit of friendly debate. I believe if you make an assertion and your opponent responds with an insult, it means your opponent knows they don’t have a coherent counterargument but still want to walk away with a bittersweet taste in their mouth (a rush of dopamine in their brain), so they instead choose to insult their opponent. I’m very reluctant to ever be friends with such people for obvious reasons.
yes i am a bit angry. Not with the folks who prefer to use old clunker lenses because they believe modern lenses have "no soul". LOL
I am angry with the consumer electronics/imaging gear industry that is only willing and able to launch either pickle-jar sized lenses at 1,2,3 grand a pop or sorry variable aperture consumer zooms. And a gazillion of 3rd party makers that either also produce large expensive lenses or manual focus glass that vast majority of market is not at all interested in.
I want to buy modern lenses, calculated from scratch to optimally leverage , "mirrorfree/short flange focal distance mounts", with decent IQ, moderately fast primes (eg f/1.8 - 2.0) and fixed aperture zooms (f/4) that take full yadvantage of 21st century AF capabilities, are as compact and light as possible (good quality plastic mount and tubus no problem for me) and AFFORDABLE.
Yes, I am angry because an entire industry is off chasing pink unicorns rather than catering to mainstream demand.
I use a manual focus lens for street photography. "Missed shots" (because of manual focus) are not a thing. Even when I started using manual focus, all my shots were in focus.
ravduc, BossOfSony: if you love your work, your equipment & tools, view it as 'art' and 'creation' rather than 'production' then that love shows in the result and in your dealings with clients/customers. What's the alternative? Automation and sterile production by an inexperienced worker-doid who considers this to be 'just a job'? Yes, those are extremes. But for many of us photography is a hobby and we are in the first category, and many of us who are professionals came to that because we love what we do and see it as art. When we stop enjoying it you can tell by the change in the result.
Of course some people are in it 'cos they like playing with technology. The newer, the niftyer, the better. "My gear is more X than yours" where X might be any of "expensive", "newer", " technologically advanced", "bigger", ...
@BossOfSony I'm sorry but could you show me where I've been "attacking individuals with personal criticisms and disparaging comments." because I can't see that anywhere in my only other comment in this thread. You're implying a lot more personal criticisms in your original comments than I ever was, therefore it is you who have a weak argument. So why the chip on your shoulder? Are you maybe envious of those of us who take the time to enjoy the classics that you've deemed worthless? Aren't you really suggesting that because its your opinion that the old classics are worthless then that nobody should be allowed to enjoy them? It sure comes across that way! You're not the first person I've encountered who comes across that way either. They always seem to insult anyone who enjoys the classics because they've deemed the classics for whatever reason as worthless. I remember a guy who got on my case for enjoying medium format film just because he figured it was worth shooting anymore.
I think I should correct the last part of my last post "just because he figured it was worth shooting anymore." should read as "just because he figured it wasn't worth shooting anymore." I forgot the "n't" in the word wasn't, I wish I spotted that sooner so I could have edited my remark.
Boss of Sony: So you might not like the term character in the video, but Build Quality, Photo/Video usage and Education plus price and accessibility are all great points to experiment with older lenses. Character is subjective clearly, but when you say you disagree with the assertion of the video, you should elaborate on the actual video, not just a single point out of 5.
Manual focus doesn't slow you down. It is as fast, or faster, in many cases, since once you get used to it you can adjust the focus throw during or before raising the camera.
@SteveAnderson One of the benefits of the Pentax system is the ability to focus trap or catch in focus. When the camera is set to non-continuous AF (AF-S) and the correct custom settings are set, the camera won't take a photo until something in the center point is in focus. Now there are a few minor quirks I don't care to get into but what I'm pointing out is the ability to take pictures of a hockey game with a Samyang 135mm F2.0 and have 2 out of 3 come out in focus (perhaps not perfect timing all the time as its the user that has to move the focus ring with the subject) But it allows me a decent number of keepers in a dim arena. I also used one of those Rokinon 800mm F8.0 mirror lenses to shoot one of the rounds of the red bull air races, the pictures were in focus but a bit weak in sharpness and contrast as it was a mirror lens. A zoom lens may be more difficult to operate unless you pick the focal length and work the focus ring only. one touch zooms may be easier.
MightyMike, Very nice option. I can imagine there could be quirks.
My 7Dm2 has multiple settings set to only take a picture when focus is confirmed. It doesnt quite work out that way though. Just blitzes off 10fps with 40-60% in focus.
SteveAnderson, the nice thing with the Pentax is once you go out of focus it stops taking pictures... of course I mentioned quirks, they're usually related to the spherical aberrations of the lens and false positives that are near focus, where an electronic lens would have an offset for correct focus known to the camera and not be fooled by false positives the fully manual lens doesn't have this and therefore will lead to occasional miss focus. There are some ways around this but its not a perfect system.
@SteveAnderson, my situation is different from that. I mostly use a prime (e.g. 40 mm) with a focus tab for street photography, where manual focus by instinct is faster and more accurate than AF, especially when there are different layers of moving subjects in the frame. (It is a rangefinder but there is usually no time or necessity to bother checking the rangefinder patch.) Also for landscapes that have many layers manual focus is faster and easier. I am sure the long zoom you mention is a different story, and the lens having a good focus tab is essential.
As if anyone truly cares about any title, ever. If you Watch the video though, it matters that it is well executed. And funny. We all "need" a gentle push to remind us to use our vintage glass sometimes.
Unfortunately I didn't watch the video, but I am sure it made well. I just don't care for videos that tell me I "need" something or "10 thing you didn't know about....". Again, no one needs to use vintage glass or be pushed towards it. If you have a full line up of modern lenses with autofocus, image stabilization and ED, SLD, BR, etc glass that corrects everything, you don't need vintage lenses. And this is coming from someone who owns only 4 modern AF lenses, and 30+ vintage lenses. They are fun to use, but for any type of photography that makes me money, I use the 4 modern AF lenses.
After 40+ years of existence, little things happen. Aperture rings get jammed, lubricants evaporate onto inner lens surfaces, mold and mildew corrode coatings, not to mention focus helicoids seizing up as grease congeals. The list can go on and on. I like modern versions such as the KamLan 50mm F1.1 (original version, since the mark II is too much like modern lenses), Mitakon 35mm F0.95, and 7artisans 50mm F1.8. With these, you get the sought-after vintage character with clean elements and working mechanics. Other manual focus primes from Samyang/Rokinon such as the 85mm F1.8, or the 12mm F2, or the 21mm F1.4 aren't too bad either. These are modern optics at half the price of electronic autofocus/auto-aperture lenses. And all these fit my Fuji X-T3 without clunky adapters!
Old lenses are very easy to repair, lubricate and modernize. With no working electronics to fuss up it's never been easier if you have the right tools and are armed with a little knowledge. This isn't a dig at modern photography/videography, it's an alternative creative option for those willing to explore it.
I'm happy to see more content like this, takes me back to my days of photography and why I fell in love. It wasn't about the peeping of the pixels like so many people do now, it was about the process.
It's refreshing to see people appreciating the older stuff vs more articles of why the iPhone is the best camera on the market.
I’ve got about 100 vintage lenses in various formats and mounts. It is NOT easy to disassemble them and re-lubricate / refurbish them. Tiny screws corroded in place that are easily destroyed when you apply too much torque. Just getting the correct lubricants and applying them correctly requires a lot of skill and knowledge. Google Richard Haw and view some of his articles on disassembling some common lenses, it will discourage you immediately from trying it yourself on anything valuable.
Yes, this is my understanding also. To find this out I tried working on some lower cost vintage lenses. Gus Lazzari is recommended by Ken Rockwell, and I have used him a couple times with satisfactory results. His services do not come cheap: http://tlccamerarepair.homestead.com/
In my opinion, the older the lens, the easier to repair. Older lenses use more robust parts with screws, unlike lenses made during or after the 80's that use plastic and glue. They also are mechanically simpler.
First party manufacturers like Asahi and Leitz are going to be much easier to repair than third party lenses like Sigma, etc which used inferior construction methods.
To the person commenting on stripping screws. Use penetrating oil and the right screw driver. Japanese lenses use JIS screws and will be destroyed when using common phillips screw drivers.
I don't care how many lenses you own Old Cameras, if you have the right tools and the knowledge it's NOT hard. You make it sound like "why bother" but that's not the right attitude. User beware, but pretty sure anyone who's going to open a lens is going to do it with a degree of caution.
Nikon's combined the best of its DSLR and mirrorless cameras into one tough-built body, equally well-suited for stills as it is for video. For effectively modernizing one of the brand's all-star camera lines, it receives our silver award.
It's not cheap and the initial setup is time-consuming, but the Loupedeck+ improves on its predecessor in some important ways and makes a lot of sense for those with demanding photo editing needs.
With a slew of significant updates, the Fujifilm X100V's formula remains the same as the previous models; it's stylish, engaging to use, and takes great pictures. Find out what Fujifilm's added to (and taken away from) its fifth X100-series camera in our initial review.
The S1H is a full-frame mirrorless camera designed with videographers in mind. It brings features both from the GH series and Panasonic's professional Varicam line to create the most capable video camera we've ever tested.
What's the best camera for travel? Good travel cameras should be small, versatile, and offer good image quality. In this buying guide we've rounded-up several great cameras for travel, and recommended the best.
If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.
If you want a camera that you can pick up and use without having to page through the manual first, then this guide is for you. We've selected seven cameras ranging from compacts to full-frame, all of which are easy to operate.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry-level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Looking to get in on the instant camera fun? We tried every model and think the Fujifilm Instax Mini 70 strikes the right balance between price and feature - the Instax Wide 300 is our choice if you crave a larger format.
Today, Moment, a company that creates gear and accessories for photographers and filmmakers, released 67mm filters and a mount that works with any modern smartphone.
The 2020 Sony World Photography Awards recently removed active links to images from three separate finalists due to their 'sensitive nature. All have a common theme: the Hong Kong protests. The move has raised concerns about possible censorship.
Join seasoned wildlife photographer Adam Jones as he tries out Canon's high-speed flagship in South Texas, where a colorful range of bird species occupy the inland habitats and coastal regions of the lower Rio Grande Valley.
The X-T200 is Fujifilm's most promising entry-level camera in some time. With a feature set tailored to casual photographers who might bring the camera on a trip somewhere warm and sunny, well, we did just that.
Nikon's combined the best of its DSLR and mirrorless cameras into one tough-built body, equally well-suited for stills as it is for video. For effectively modernizing one of the brand's all-star camera lines, it receives our silver award.
Firmware version 3.00 for the Z6 and Z7 camera systems brings major new and improved features, including updates to the AF tracking implementation, expanded CFexpress support, animal-detection autofocus and more.
Earlier this week, Judge Joseph Farah ruled in favor of Jason Harrison. He was arrested for a legal flight at a Genessee County park (Michigan, U.S.) in December 2018. The ruling is expected to set a precedent for the rest of the United States.
At last month's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas we sat down with Yosuke Yamane, Director of Panasonic's Imaging Business Division, to discuss market reaction to the S1-series, full-frame strategy and the state of the L-mount alliance.
Three new lenses from Leica for the M system, including a pair of limited edition Safari options (28mm F2 and 75mm F2) and a silver version of the 75mm F2.
The Timelapse+ View is a sophisticated device that aims to solve a common challenge for time-lapse photographers: shooting through extreme changes in light levels, such as day-to-night transitions. As we discover in our review, it works really well.
The DPReview TV team recently traveled to Costa Rica where they had an opportunity to shoot with the new Olympus 12-45mm F4 Pro lens. Check out their sample images in this gallery and see how it performed.
It's not cheap and the initial setup is time-consuming, but the Loupedeck+ improves on its predecessor in some important ways and makes a lot of sense for those with demanding photo editing needs.
The FAA recently proposed rules that could impact all drone operators in the US, virtually requiring an internet connection to fly and a requirement to broadcast personally identifying information. Here's what's at stake and how to make your voice heard.
Comments