Old, manual lenses...anyone else still play around with them?

jcdeboever · Nov 4, 2015

ruifo said:
My old beauties: 28mm f/2.8 AI-S + 50mm f/1.2 AI-S + 105mm f/2.5 AI-S

Do those work on a D3300?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

ruifo · Nov 4, 2015

jcdeboever said:
Do those work on a D3300?

Yes, in manual mode, but without metering.
To meter you'll need: to use the liveview mode, or to use an external metering, or to use the the "sunny 16" rule.

480sparky · Nov 4, 2015

And although some of these aren't Nikkors............

I have no clue what I'd use these for:

....and I must have been drunk out of my skull buying these stupid things:

480sparky · Nov 4, 2015

Oh, and these ancient, can't be used cameras....

My grandfather's Kodak 3A and my dad's Tenax Automatic. I must have been asleep when dad took all those photos of me when I was a kid since they're all in focus.

jcdeboever · Nov 4, 2015

480sparky said:
Oh, and these ancient, can't be used cameras....

My grandfather's Kodak 3A and my dad's Tenax Automatic. I must have been asleep when dad took all those photos of me when I was a kid since they're all in focus.

No, they had you loaded up on ritalin.[emoji13]

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Jim Walczak · Nov 5, 2015

Auslese said:
No, a waste of time, if I am wrong, then you can manually focus this image http://biganimals.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/017-perfect-hunting-approach-Eagle13611.jpg

So...if we were actually stupid enough to accept your logic without question, then the following shot, also taken at the Cleveland Museum of Art, simply shouldn't exist...

In YOUR mind, such a shot is a "waste of time"...should I not take offense to such an insinuation?

I'm sure that with a shot like your eagle pic, yes, most people would probably want a really good autofocus, HOWEVER, as we have seen with your comments in the past, that's simply NOT the ONLY way to shoot. After all, what about still life or studio work or even conceptual photography? You seem to have a substantially narrow view of what photography is all about...it's a shame.

Even in the case of that eagle shot (which I seriously doubt is your own work), yes, I do believe that such an image could in fact be captured with a manual lens, assuming the photographer actually knew what he/she was doing. You seem to completely over-look the fact that wildlife photography has been around LONG before the days of digital, let alone your precious 30+ megapixel cameras. MANY people shot some incredible images back in the days of film, using manual lenses...one only need thumb thru some old National Geographics from the 50's, 60's and 70's to see this is true.

Further, if you really want to compare images, lemme dig back into the archives here...

The above image was in fact captured NOT with a 16 or 20 or 30+ megapixel camera with top of the line lens, it was captured back in the day with a humble little 8 mp Rebel XT and a cheap $40 Tamron lens. I'm quite sure that to you, such an image is certainly "inferior" and obviously a "waste of time".

Or wow...how about this shot also captured with the Rebel...

Yep...that one's gotta be a waste of time too. Probably should have just deleted it right after I took it. Can't imagine why I ever bothered framing that for an exhibition...what was I thinking...

Then there's this shot...

That wasn't even captured with a DSLR...that was shot with a 5 mp Sony H1. I've even sold several framed prints of that image...but again I have no doubt at all that you would simply think such a shot is of course a waste of time.

And wow...how about this one also shot with the Sony H1...

That squirrel shot has actual earned me a couple of awards...clearly a total waste of time.

Or how about this shot of a barred owl, also captured with that horribly antiquated Sony...

And wow...then we have this shot...

That shot of the pup was actually captured with my first digital camera...a simple Polaroid PDC700 -1 megapixel- point and shoot...and it's an image that I'm very proud to say is still used to this day as part of the logo for a local humane society. Clearly that was a "waste of time" huh? Again by your standards and your logic, based on your comments here and elsewhere, that image shouldn't even exit.

I'm sure that you see such images as absolutely pointless. After all, you just can't capture ANY decent images at all without owning the latest, most expensive gear, right? RIGHT??

Oh...and that Rebel XT was a refurb from Ebay (the Tamron lens was used, also from Ebay) and the Sony was an "open box special"...the camera had been purchased and returned to the store where I bought it. No clue where or how the Polaroid was purchased...it was a holiday gift from my father. Guess that must of been a waste of time too.

BTW...unlike yourself sir, I would point out that EVERY image posted here is MY OWN WORK. If you are really going to try and debate your point, perhaps you should USE YOUR OWN IMAGES INSTEAD OF LEACHING THE WORK OF OTHERS!

I have no doubt that you do in fact believe that older manual lenses are a waste of time...and for you, I suspect they are. As we've seen time and again, you ONLY believe people should use the newest, bestest, coolest, fastest toys that YOUR money can afford, yadda, yadda....hell, you even believe a 16 mp camera is somehow "inferior". As we've seen from other posters here and elsewhere however, again that's just clearly NOT the case. You have once again proven yourself to be under the horribly misguided impression that it's about the gear...it's not. It's all about the person using it.

Regardless, understand this; my post was NOT intended for gear snobs such as yourself as a means to crack on those of us who are in fact a bit more creative and open minded. It was a question to see how many others such as myself do in fact still use such lenses. Perhaps you should stop and actually consider such things before responding to people's posts.

I would apologize to the OP here for having high-jacked the thread, however since I started this thread...and started it with a fairly specific intent, I felt obligated to make a point and while I sincerely doubt Auslese is really capable of understanding that point, I do hope others will excuse the rant, I thank everyone else for their comments and support and sincerely hope that the rest of ya'll enjoy the additional pics I've posted here for what they are.

480sparky · Nov 5, 2015

I'm thinking Auslese's mother has turned off his wifi.

jcdeboever · Nov 5, 2015

480sparky said:
I'm thinking Auslese's mother has turned off his wifi.

Now you went and did it...

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

Jim Walczak · Nov 6, 2015

480sparky said:
Oh, and these ancient, can't be used cameras....

My grandfather's Kodak 3A and my dad's Tenax Automatic. I must have been asleep when dad took all those photos of me when I was a kid since they're all in focus.

Then of course, there's this old gem...

I guess, technically speaking, it's not really much more than a paper weight or a cool knickknack these days, but it's kind of nice to keep around. I had actually snagged it at a local Goodwill Thrift store for a staggering $8....I bought it for the flashes, flash mounts and old color filters that were in the case (as well as the case itself)...all of which were WELL worth the money, so the camera was just a bonus.

Maybe I'll turn it into an mp3 player some day :winksexy:

.

sabbath999 · Nov 6, 2015

Jim Walczak said:
I thank everyone else for their comments and support and sincerely hope that the rest of ya'll enjoy the additional pics I've posted here for what they are.

Great shots... I especially like the barred owl, those are such lovely birds!

Jim Walczak · Nov 6, 2015

sabbath999 said:
Jim Walczak said:

I thank everyone else for their comments and support and sincerely hope that the rest of ya'll enjoy the additional pics I've posted here for what they are.

Click to expand...

Great shots... I especially like the barred owl, those are such lovely birds!

Thank you for the kind words...and yea, I love barred owls too! Living here in the inner city, I don't really get too much exposure to them (pun intended), so it's one of the things I look forward to on camping trips. It just don't seem like a real camping trip without a night of sitting around the campfire listening to the owls.

vintagesnaps · Nov 6, 2015

Well dammit then I've been shooting hockey wrong for years! lol and apparently other things as well.

Didn't take me long to find this. LeRoy Grannis. Surf Photography. Gallery. TASCHEN Books

Mr.Photo · Nov 6, 2015

No more worries all, Auslese has apparently decided that we all know nothing, and has moved on to terrorize others as is explained here.

Jim Walczak · Nov 6, 2015

There are just sooooooooo many good "come backs" that have come to mind, however I shall simply consider discretion as the better part of valor and simply say that I do feel kind of sorry for that guy. As stubborn and thickheaded as I can be sometimes, even when I don't necessarily agree with someone, I do try to listen and consider their comments, at least when they can back up their claims with substantial evidence. I really don't know where Auslese came up with his info or opinions, but he REALLY seemed misinformed about a few things...I sincerely hope he straightens himself out some day (or at least finds the right medications? Sorry......j/k....sort of....).