# Old Glass versus New Glass: Discuss!



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Is there really any reason for me to go out and buy one of dem dere fancy mcfancy pants new lenses with dem fancy built-in motors or should I stick with old glass if I plan on manually focusing.  And why?


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

Probably. Why not?


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

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.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 16, 2011)

The higher-end new glass will probably provide slightly better IQ, greater flare and CA reduction, but for the amount of old glass you can buy on Craig's List, at Pawn Shops and/or garage sales for the price of one new, fast lens, based on what you've said, I'd go with the old stuff.  Some of it is awesome!


----------



## Patrice (Mar 16, 2011)

Old glass vs new glass is a personal decision based on taste, economics, necessity, preference, .... 

Old glass is not necessarily bad glass. New glass is not necessarily good glass. The technology in photography, as for other fields, is continually evolving. The glass formulations, the coatings, the grinding techniques, the micro circuitry and the machining precision used in todays newer lenses, mid range and high end as well, is miles ahead of what was available 15-25-35 years ago. This of course is reflected in the cost of these new lenses. Now weather all this technology is necessary to take a good photography is a question best answered by yourself.

Does this answer your question? Probably not!


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

I don't need AF. I'm a happy snapper amateur. I got all day  I'm not doing nature or sports. Often, I could just zone focus and snap away (in fact, with a few of my cameras that's what I have to do anyway). But I like manually focussing. Same as I like combing through the wavebands of old analogue radios. Same kind of thing. Plus all the old magic IMO of researching and using lenses like Takumar, German optics, Soviet glass, obscure M42s.

But AF is great!  bzzzzzzz click. cool! 



AgentDrex said:


> 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.


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Oh man!  I used to love using my uncle's short/long wave radio...hours and hours of fun listening to music all over the world...

My favorite, favorite favorite lens I have, is my Pentacon Multi-coated 1.8/50 I bought for 10 bucks off of keh.com 
Great little multi-purpose lens...not good for close-up really...but not too bad for landscapes and headshots...if I have my camera with me, chances are really good its either on or with me


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

on me?  eww!


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

The 1.8/50 Pentacon. If that's your favorite you have some wonderful discoveries ahead  ..without even leaving the factories of Jena. But I just looked at your profile and saw the Praktica TL. That's the way I got into it too. TL/MTLs, ME Super, F3, D1X. Now defected from the SLR and became EVIL.


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Yeah, I would love a Carl Zeiss


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Well, now I wish I hadn't spent money on something else, I could have bought this: Pentax Screwmount 400 F6.3 MAMIYA/SEKOR PRE-SET (72) WITH HOOD, CAPS, 35MM SLR MANUAL FOCUS TELEPHOTO LENS - KEH.com a 400mm 6.3 Mamiya for around $140


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

Yes. Lots of interesting optical works, later absorbed into the 'collective'. 
Captain Jack's Exakta Lens Page


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Gotta love primes!  I'm an elitist, what can I say...I'm also the guy ranting about people using other distros when all anyone needs is slackware


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

..Never noticed these before..
Old Delft Lenses for Exakta


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

I think I may have just happy spilled...wow...that is a sexy lens


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

A photo of some more old glass I found on the 'net:


----------



## PJL (Mar 16, 2011)

If you plan on manually focusing, older lenses would probably be better.  AF lenses, generally, are geared to make greater adjustments with smaller movements of the focus ring.


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

You're an elitist with a variable-copy 1.8/50, knocked-out for hard-currency by a marxist, gangster state? I think a Leitz or Angenieux might be more up your street. (or at least the faster of the Flektogons)


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Point taken PASM...I have also updated my signature to account for my current lenses...


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

You own these..or know what they are? Look interesting


AgentDrex said:


> A photo of some more old glass I found on the 'net:


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

AgentDrex said:


> I think I may have just happy spilled...wow...that is a sexy lens



I don't know. These ARE good lenses - Cooke. (maybe the best?)
Cooke Optics Limited : Products : PS945 Large Format


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

Thanks for enlarging your sig. Interesting to read !

I sold most of my latest lot, recently. They kind of come and go in collections of 40-50. I use them for a while then trade them.  One lens I have got at the moment - a Kowa 2/50. From a leaf shutter SLR. Doesn't have an aperture ring on the barrel - the body has the control. I'll post a picture of it here a bit later. It's an ok lens. I use it on a digi - wedge the aperture at a f..whatever using bluetack (putty)


----------



## PASM (Mar 16, 2011)

Wasn't meant as a put-down..meant as an ironic truth.



PASM said:


> You're an elitist with a variable-copy 1.8/50, knocked-out for hard-currency by a marxist, gangster state? I think a Leitz or Angenieux might be more up your street. (or at least the faster of the Flektogons)


 
I gotta go. TTYL


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

Nice meeting you man...take care and see ya around on TPF...the photo I posted was one I found on the 'net...just something interesting I'd share...


----------



## AgentDrex (Mar 16, 2011)

BTW...I got your point right away and in no way found myself offended...you are an intelligent guy sir...thank you for giving me a laugh today...


----------



## PASM (Mar 17, 2011)

Likewise 






Hoping to test this lens tomorrow if the weather's ok.

Kowa leaf-shutter SLRs
Anybody knows Kowa?::Manual Focus Lenses


----------



## molested_cow (Mar 17, 2011)

Why stop at old glass? Man up and get a 35mm!

You will not believe what you have deprived yourself of after experiencing the luxury of true full-frame.


----------



## PASM (Mar 18, 2011)

A couple of snaps, I just made with the Kowa. Iris lever is stopped open at about f5.6 with a blob of Blu-Tack


----------



## PASM (Mar 18, 2011)

Kowa 2/50


----------



## Ron Evers (Mar 18, 2011)

When I bought my Panasonic G1 I got the 14-45 kit & the 45-200 auto lenses.  The 14-45 resides on my wife's GF1 (she shoots full auto) & the 45-200 sits on the pool table.  The other 26 manual lenses get use on my camera.   I shoot mostly nature/wildlife & like the OP I can select the focus I want fast enough & pin-point it where I want that auto never could.


----------



## PASM (Mar 18, 2011)

Which MF lenses have you got Ron?


----------



## Ron Evers (Mar 18, 2011)

PASM said:


> Which MF lenses have you got Ron?


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


----------



## PASM (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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


----------



## PASM (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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



Ron Evers said:


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


----------



## GooniesNeverSayDie11 (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

AgentDrex said:


> 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 (Mar 18, 2011)

I use hoods always to minimize the chance of flairs. 










Here is a shot with the 61 LD


----------



## PASM (Mar 18, 2011)

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 (Mar 18, 2011)

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.


----------



## Ron Evers (Mar 18, 2011)

Derek, I will give you your argument out in the open but I think I will best your auto lens shooting wildlife on the move with limbs/brush in front & behind the subject.  Manually I can isolate the subject while the auto will focus on something else.


----------



## cliffy13 (Mar 20, 2011)

I use old MF lenses and a  30 year old canon 70-210 EF the results are fine and i would only move to the new stuff if I was financially able to replace it with L glass


----------



## enzodm (Mar 20, 2011)

Mmm... dangerous thread .
Some of mine:


----------



## DerekSalem (Mar 20, 2011)

Ron Evers said:


> Derek, I will give you your argument out in the open but I think I will best your auto lens shooting wildlife on the move with limbs/brush in front & behind the subject.  Manually I can isolate the subject while the auto will focus on something else.


 
I was remiss to not mention the biggest exception, wildlife photographers. Sorry about that Ron, I thought about it immediately after seeing your first reply.

There absolutely are times when Manual focus will be better, but for a vast majority the higher-end USM lenses can usually do a faster and incredibly accurate job. The first time I threw a USM lens on my camera I couldn't believe it was focusing that quickly.


----------



## altitude604 (Mar 20, 2011)

I love my old MF glass... the Tele-Takumar 300mm some nice snappy pictures and the Mir-1v is a really nice prime too. I find I almost enjoy shooting more with them as it's more involved and makes me slow down and think through everything.


----------



## grandad66 (Mar 20, 2011)

I mainly use cameras over 50 years old and the glass has not improved that much obviously a cheap lens is not  quite as good as a expensive lens. consistent quality is the main thing today. I am just as happy using my Rolleiflex with a Planar lens or my Contax with with the Planar or Sonnar  lens, or a folder with a 3 element lens. Do'nt get bogged down with having the latest kit its just a waste of money.


----------



## djacobox372 (Mar 21, 2011)

Prime lenses have been fantastic for nearly 100 years... new pro-quality primes don't perform any better then ones made 50 years ago.

Zooms are a different story, modern zoom lenses are a lot better then those made 20 years ago, zoom lenses didn't really get good until around 10 years ago, and they are still improving with each new version.

But to put things in perspective the sharpest and fastest glass nikon ever made is still the 58mm f1.2 noct-nikkor released in 1977.


----------



## PASM (Mar 21, 2011)

Edit: It isn't a sonnar formula lens..it's 5 in 4 (possbily made by Chinon)

Jap Pentacon 2.8/135 MC. Just found it in a charity shop. Mint.

Handheld, SOOC (resize, raw, no sharp)

f8






f8





f2.8


----------



## PASM (Mar 21, 2011)




----------



## PASM (Mar 22, 2011)

Still digging it, all the same


----------



## Ron Evers (Mar 22, 2011)

Industar-50 on tubes


----------

