[Katier]

Hi All,

First proper post on the forums and it's a post likely to promote debate ...

I've long been an advocate of Pentax's partially due to the ease of which legacy lenses on modern bodies. From my point of view the use of lenses like the classic f1.7 50mm manual focus lens is a no-brainer and the images produced are excellent...

Unsurprisingly I got into a bit of a debate (which sadly turned heated) on another non-photography forum.. when someone posted this contentious statement :-

Can I remind people that not only has technology improved the quality of cameras over the years, it's also done the same for lenses.

followed quickly by

Well the lenses I currently use are 100000x (At least) better than the lenses I used when I first started photographing - nearly 40 years ago. There may be some old lenses which are better than their modern counterparts, but it's a some rather than your implied norm. Improved quality of manufacture improves optical and mechanical components.

Given the popularity of many legacy lenses my experience and research would indicate that many old lenses are at least as good as their modern compatriots.. but I wondered what peoples actual experience was?

[Lowell Goudge]

You will get similar debate here too. But note many of the beloved characteristics of the legacy lenses may not have been deliberate. Specifically bokeh. Lens designs have evolved and materials have improved but many old lenses still get used because they a) still out resolve the sensor and b) have a differen look to them. Most of the advances that I see in new lenses are in the area of chromeric aboritions and coatings, not outright sharpness, but then I'm biased. I have 18 M42 lenses and 14 K mount MF lenses

[joe.penn]

Many legacy lenses do not produce the same on Digital as they do Film. Advancements in coatings has helped modern lenses perform "AS GOOD ON DIGITAL" as legacy lenses perform "WITH FILM".

[GhoSStrider]

It depends what he or she is referring to. Modern lens design has improved the performance of optics like ultrawides and zooms dramatically. Lenses like the Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 or Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS Mk II would blow away anything close to them from 40 years ago. The same is probably true of super speed lenses.

However, a lens like the M 50mm f1.7 should hold up very well against modern medium speed fifties. The new Nikon 50mm f1.8G is probably a little better than the M 50 f1.7, but it's definitely not "100000x" better. Shooting wide open, the new lens will probably be a little better in the corners and such. I'd be willing to bet that discerning difference between the two lenses at anything smaller than f2.8 would be almost impossible.

As for me, I shoot about half and half with modern optics and classic optics. Sometimes the latter offers advantages that newer lenses simply can't no matter how good they are. For example, no modern 135mm can compete with my M 135mm f3.5 in size and weight. Some of them may be slightly better, but that doesn't earn them any points for me. When I want to take a 12 mile hike in Colorado's back country, I'll reach for the M 135 every time.

It's all a matter of perspective I guess.

[alphanerd]

My understanding (via forum wisdom) is that zooms have progressed a lot in the intervening years, and primes have not changed a whole lot in terms of quality.

From my point of view the use of lenses like the classic f1.7 50mm manual focus lens is a no-brainer and the images produced are excellent...

I agree.

Improved quality of manufacture improves optical and mechanical components.

Is this person implying that construction quality has improved over time?

[TaoMaas]

I'd take that "100000x better" comment with a grain of salt. The lenses I use today are vastly better than the lenses I started out with 38 years ago, too. But that's mostly due to the fact that I couldn't afford much of anything besides cheapo lenses when I was 20 yrs. old.

[RioRico]

I have a zillion lenses. Most are old. Some are quite new. The differences I notice:

* Newer zooms and ultrawides and even fisheyes are better optically.
* Older glass seems to have 'character'; newer glass is more uniform.
* Newer lenses tend to be made of lighter and more resilient materials.

[Katier]

I'd take that "100000x better" comment with a grain of salt. The lenses I use today are vastly better than the lenses I started out with 38 years ago, too. But that's mostly due to the fact that I couldn't afford much of anything besides cheapo lenses when I was 20 yrs. old.

Oh I did - I just got rather annoyed when he threw "I've been taking pictures for 40 years and after 0.5million photos do know the difference"..

then his rattle quickly followed out of his pram!!!

I suspect GhoSStrider is probably pretty close to the truth, although even then 100000x better is probably not true, but given legacy primes can be had for a bargain, who wants a legacy zoom?

[boriscleto]

If you really want to stir things up just mention Full Frame.

[photocanadian]

Here is my friendly comment regarding the newer lenses being 100000x better ... not. If they were indeed, 40 year old lenses would fetch 100000x lower prices ... which they do not.
Zooms aside, most vintage lenses (Takumars, for example) in 28-200mm range hold their own against their modern counterparts.

Vintage zoom do, however, suck (for the most part, anyway) in my experience.

[Sagitta]

I only own one zoom that would be classed as 'vntage' and it definitely doesn't hold up to the newer stuff optically.

That said, it has this wonderful retro funkiness to it I love.

[rawr]

It would be handy to have a site that did technical reviews of older glass.

Unfortunately, there aren't a lot of 'modern' reviews of old glass (complete with MTF, distortion and CA tests etc) about. A useful one however is Photozone's test of the K 135 /2.5.

In a test result that would probably be typical of many older primes, the old glass holds up decently when tested today, certainly on build quality, distortion, resolution and vignetting. Where it falls down optically compared to modern glass is CA, which modern glass and coatings deal with better. But balancing that downside of old glass is the fact that modern software like Lightroom is excellent at eliminating CA...and can also help fix up a lot of other issues that might crop up with older glass too.

Personally I find a lot of my older glass performs very well compared to my modern lenses. Sometimes however the convenience features of modern glass - AF, full AE support etc - may trump any optical properties of the older glass, since sometimes it's important to just get the shot (or shots). After all, if you don't get the shot it doesn't matter how great the lens may be, old or new.

[Katier]

If you really want to stir things up just mention Full Frame.

*giggles* I see your Full Frame and raise you a MF!!! :-D *chuckles*

[RioRico]

Vintage zoom do, however, suck (for the most part, anyway) in my experience.

For the most part, yes. I've kept a few that don't. Vivitar Series 1: Kiron 70-210/3.5, Komine 70-210/2.8-4, Cosina 19-35/3.5-4.5. Vivitar-Kiron 80-200/4.5. Samyang-Sears: 70-210/4, 80-200/4. Schneider Betavaron 50-125/4-5.6. Sears-Tokina 55-135/3.5. Tokina SD 35-200/4-5.6.

*giggles* I see your Full Frame and raise you a MF!!! :-D *chuckles*

I raise you an LF, and call. Show yer cards, pardner. [/me whips out dad's old Conley Model XI 8x14cm view cam]

[Aristophanes]

I find some have lower contrast and wider ones suffer from flare. Former can be fixed in post, latter, not.