Old Glass versus New Glass: Discuss!

[PASM]

Which MF lenses have you got Ron?

 

[Ron Evers]

Which MF lenses have you got Ron?

Check my signature. I have a Canon FD 300 prime coming in the mail.

 

[PASM]

I picked-up an XR 2/50 Rikenon today. I had the non XR a while ago - crappy, plastic build but fantastic resolution lens. The XR is talked-up as being better still. I bought it on a Ricoh KR-10 for about $15. I thought the camera was busted (shutter failure) but setting it on X (mechanical) has just released it. Seems to work now. I'll use the XR on a NEX-5. Nikon flange-distance is too long for walk-around use with it.

 

[dylanstraub]

You guys are a bunch of crazy old camera lens nuts and I enjoyed the thread. I can see that you all have been infected with the collecting old equipment bug and I better clear out of here before my wife gets wind of this. She might think that I'm actually spending money on my hobby.

 

[Ron Evers]

This might be fun to try for street shooting, a Jupiter-8 (M39 mount) on my wife's camera.

 

[PASM]

One day, I'll buy 2 or 3 top Zeiss and be done with it. I struggle to go in a thrift-store/junk shop and not buy lenses when i see them!

 

[PASM]

Of Sonnar type? Best Soviet I have is Industar 61L / 3-MC. Copy is sharp and build is excellent.

This might be fun to try for street shooting, a Jupiter-8 (M39 mount) on my wife's camera.

 

[GooniesNeverSayDie11]

Newer lenses ( due to improvements in technology ) would probably have better coatings for suppressing flare, and CA. With that said, if old lenses work for you and are cheaper for you, then thats all that matters. You mention manual focusing faster than most lenses, but I think you should rent a true Ring USM "L" lens and give it a whirl. You may change your tune on the faster to manual focus thing. Now granted in certain situations ( if you mostly shoot in low light ) this would be an option.

It all boils down to what you like and what works for you and your aspirations. Its just like any other art. I mean, there are musicians in multi-million dollar studios with probably 100k worth of instruments, and they plug in a cheap as hell guitar or total garbage miniature amp because they are looking for some unique wierd sound they can't get anywhere else. Maybe those lenses will give you some screwy distortion, or low contrast look that you have a hard time replicating realistically in post. You never know if you don't experiment. Some people love that stuff. Personally its not for me, but as I said, stick with what YOU like. Don't let any of us tell you different.

 

[PASM]

61L/3-MC. Curious label on the bakelite drum "Fotoobjectiv..Jupiter 12..Fotoapparat "Kiev" (KMZ factory, Ukraine)..Jena (DDR) *r.(ubles) 00 k.(opeks). Lens fits the drum exactly.

Star-shaped bokeh..

Rikenon XR 2/50

 

[Ron Evers]

I have the Industar-61 LD as well & tested it against the Jupiter-8 & found the Jupiter to be slightly sharper in the corners.


1. Industar-61LD @ f4

2. Jupiter-8 @ f4

I took a crop of the upper right corner of each - Industar on left:

They were shot at minimum focus distance, the Jupiter actually focuses a bit closer than the Industar.

 

[PASM]

Yes, copy-variance perhaps.. the LD is the M39, single-coated. I had one but thought my copy pretty average lens TBH. I find this LZ (Z=M42) multi-coated is much better 'sharpness' (contrast) and color.

 

[DerekSalem]

Nice answer sir! So, for the why not? I don't use auto-focus at all for the reason that I can manually focus quicker generally than the camera can automatically. If its a still subject, its about the same speed. If its a moving subject, you have to move with the subject long enough for the camera to lock focus. My eyes can lock in much quicker. I don't see any other benefit of new glass. Obviously, I'm usually wrong, but its simply an opinion I guess.

Well high-end lenses will focus *much* quicker than you could if there's even acceptable amounts of light and there's usually a pretty large increase in IQ with newer lenses.

For reference, a USM L lens can usually focus from infinity down to the minimum point in under a second flat and usually requires almost no searching (meaning it will focus to where it needs to and stop). I've had my lens completely out of focus, brought it up to a football player running directly toward me (around 40ft away) and focused and released shutter in about a second. The shot is perfectly focused. That's usually one of the big benefits of the more expensive glass.

 

[Ron Evers]

I use hoods always to minimize the chance of flairs.

Here is a shot with the 61 LD

 

[PASM]

No question, the top-of-the-line AF systems are phenomenally fast. It's a professional requirement. I'm a hobby snapper..of no particular intent..I can take my time

 

[PASM]

That's a lot better than the LD I had, Ron. You got a winner there!

You are using a 4/3s sensor which benefits a lot more from the center qualities than the much bigger APS-C sized sensor in the Canon I used with my M39 copy. Also, the Jupiter 8 being of Sonnar formula should beat the 61 L at f4. Being a Tessar, the 61 L would perform better than it does in the test when stopped down more. So would the Sonnar too Sonnar is the bokeh king though - not something Tessars can compete so well at.