Old Lenses

[chuasam]

Love 'em or leave 'em
I see lots of people put (and modify and adapt) old lenses for their slightly more current cameras.

Do you simply get a new (or current) lens and not bother with adapting or do you like fussing with old lenses?

 

[astroNikon]

how does one "fuss" with an old lens?

My "old" lenses work just fine
80-200/2.8 AF-D
50/1.8 AF-D
18-35 AF-D
24-85/2.4-4.0 AF-D
etc etc etc

saves me a TON of money not getting the NEWER, BIGGER, HEAVIER lenses that I have to Fuss with so much. And I can get more lenses.

 

[robbins.photo]

I guess it depends entirely on your definition of "old". On several lenses since I have a camera body with a built in focus motor I've saved a ton of cash by buying older versions that do not have a built in AF motor.

I've found in general the optics are every bit as good, in some cases even better than their more modern counter parts.

As for lenses that are even older, MF lenses? I avoid them. My eyesight isn't sufficient to allow me to MF anymore with any accuracy.

 

[cherylynne1]

I just got the Nikkor 105 2.5 AI for my Sony a6000.

It definitely takes some practice, and I don't think it'll ever be my first choice for my main subject (constantly moving toddlers.) However, for still subjects and adult portraits, it's GORGEOUS. Between the focus peaking and focus magnifier, it barely took any time to figure out how to use it. It's not that much different than autofocus, tbh.

 

[chuasam]

how does one "fuss" with an old lens?

My "old" lenses work just fine
80-200/2.8 AF-D
50/1.8 AF-D
18-35 AF-D
24-85/2.4-4.0 AF-D
etc etc etc

saves me a TON of money not getting the NEWER, BIGGER, HEAVIER lenses that I have to Fuss with so much. And I can get more lenses.

My only "OLD" lens is a Macro 105 f/2.8 D I've been hankering for the new VR model but I don't shoot macro very much. Maybe I'll just convince myself it's a portrait lens.

 

[astroNikon]

ahh .. getting lenses that weren't originally designed for your system.
I would think that would be a more specific question.
As Nikon you can get old lenses. Canon not so much as with the mount changes; though you can get an adapter for certain lenses.
MFT/Mirrorless adapters you can get various lenses.

 

[astroNikon]

My only "OLD" lens is a Macro 105 f/2.8 D I've been hankering for the new VR model but I don't shoot macro very much. Maybe I'll just convince myself it's a portrait lens.

So if you bought the VR version what would you do if a VR2 version came out?
Upgrade immediately so you don't deal with old fussy lenses ?

 

[chuasam]

My only "OLD" lens is a Macro 105 f/2.8 D I've been hankering for the new VR model but I don't shoot macro very much. Maybe I'll just convince myself it's a portrait lens.

So if you bought the VR version what would you do if a VR2 version came out?
Upgrade immediately so you don't deal with old fussy lenses ?

regular VR would do fine with me. I'm also hankering to ditch my Nikon 50mm f1.4G for the Sigma 50mm ART

It's not about Gear Acquisition. It's about wanting to not let mucking with lenses get in the way.

 

[Flyercurt]

I am new and probably not doing this right, but I need a 42MM coupler with a 42MM x 1.0 MM pitch on one side and a 42MM by .75 MM pitch on other. Is there such an animal? I am adapting a Pentax
100 lens to a Canon EOS t3.

 

[Flyercurt]

Sorry Pentax 1000 camera lens.

 

[cherylynne1]

I am new and probably not doing this right, but I need a 42MM coupler with a 42MM x 1.0 MM pitch on one side and a 42MM by .75 MM pitch on other. Is there such an animal? I am adapting a Pentax
100 lens to a Canon EOS t3.

If you don't get an answer here, you could try the Adapted Lenses forum on DPReview.com. They probably have more people that have done something like this.

 

[petrochemist118 143]

I am new and probably not doing this right, but I need a 42MM coupler with a 42MM x 1.0 MM pitch on one side and a 42MM by .75 MM pitch on other. Is there such an animal? I am adapting a Pentax
100 lens to a Canon EOS t3.

One way round is common - that's T2 (m42x0.75) lens to M42 (M42x1.0) body
The T2 mount has a rear flange distance considerably longer than M42 (just under 10mm difference).
Going the other way is not generally available probably because the lenses would be unable to focus anywhere near infinity (i.e. Macro use only)

Mind you M42 to EOS, T2 to EOS & PK to EOS are all readily available on e-bay.

 

[petrochemist118 143]

I guess it depends entirely on your definition of "old". On several lenses since I have a camera body with a built in focus motor I've saved a ton of cash by buying older versions that do not have a built in AF motor.

I've found in general the optics are every bit as good, in some cases even better than their more modern counter parts.

As for lenses that are even older, MF lenses? I avoid them. My eyesight isn't sufficient to allow me to MF anymore with any accuracy.

I wouldn't class any lens that has AF to be old!
One I've used is apparently from 1932, and I have several others that are probably older. My manual PK mount lenses don't seem old at all next to these

MF with AF bodies is often more difficult than it was with SLRs designed for MF - They had focusing aids like microprisms, which made MF fast and reasonably accurate...
Focus confirm can from the bodies AF system can be a help & more recent bodies though have added magnified live-view & focus peaking...
AF is quicker (most of the time), but my eyes can manage accurate MF with these aids reasonably well.

 

[robbins.photo]

I wouldn't class any lens that has AF to be old!

Which might explain why I started that post with, "I guess it depends entirely on what you consider "old".

 

[480sparky41 41]

...........................................