[GibbyTheMole]

Most older lenses, while they may be very sharp, leave something to be desired when it comes to colour and contrast. These are qualities that can be quite easily added in PP, but it's much nicer when that's not necessary, and somehow the results don't seem the same.

True, dat. There are some exceptions, though. In addition to your list, I'd add:

Pentax-M F1.4 50mm
Ricoh Rikenon XR F2.8 28mm
Pentax-A F3.5 35-105mm
Tamron SP model 23A 60-300mm

These are some older lenses that are deadly sharp with great contrast & vivid colors on my DSLRs.

[jamesm007]

Last fall sending in my K20D for a small problem CRIS of USA checked and adjusted AF. I was kinda shocked by that becuase all of my lens worked perfect enough to make me happy. My DA55-300mm was dead on... Ahh but what a difference it made with one lens, my DA18-55mm WR. It was night and day. Before it needed +8 AF tune and was an OK lens. Now it needed no AF tune and came back shooting pretty sharp wide open at 18mm. I really could not believe it becuae all of my other lens were the same. The body/lens combo, especialy today with high mega-pixels (the K20D was high for its time with 14.6mp) is a complex subject best left for an open minded non-biased tester/reviewer to speak about. But in my IMO its your body that has changed if not? And BTW all of the above is documented in real time with pics at the other Pentax forum and maybe here. I speak the truth.

Here is the highest (IMO) expert read all of his writings and take them to heart. He could save a lot of people a lot of time if everyone who bought a dSLR where forced to read his papers.

There is gold to be found here...
LensRentals.com – Technical Discussions

[magkelly]

Maybe I just don't have the best AF lenses in the world but IMHO most of my old MF primes make my Tamron/Sigma AF zoom lenses look like crap by comparison. I don't have any digital primes. I can't afford those so I can't really compare but none of my digital lenses with the exception of my 18-55 kit lens can touch my MF lenses for quality. That's why I use them. That being said I have some old glass that's really nice and some old glass that's not really. Old lenses can vary a lot in quality. I know which lenses I like, which I don't. But overall I'd have to say my old primes do more than hold their own against my digital glass.

[vrrattko]

Testing Da 70 vs. M100 without having a M 100 is a bit odd.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the Thread starter:

Good lenses will not be worse on aps-c
Whats really a difference from the film days, is the angle of view because the crop factor.
The M28 f/2,8 used to be a nice wide angle lens, with nice color.
On aps-C its almost a normal lens, and because of that the colors are a bit less rich.

The 50, 100 and 200 would be from normal to telelenses on film.
They are tele lenses on aps-c
colors app. as in the film days.

THIS IS MY HYPOTHESY and not very well documented.

I myself am not using the M-28 anymore. It does not work as it used to.
My M and A 50, 100 and 200 are as good or better than in the filmdays.

So if you want to test my hypothesy, try an A or M 50/1,7

In deed it is....therefore I compared DA70 to K85 instead
Anyway I do agree with A50/1,7 .....great lens and definitely not easily intimidated by the Limiteds

[reeftool]

The biggest thing to keep in mind is that with our film cameras, we mostly looked at 4x6 prints and on occasion, enlarged one to to 8x10 or larger. Today, we pixel peep 100% crops on large 1920x1080 monitors. We never did that with film. Even viewing slides on a large screen doesn't show that much detail. When I first made the switch to digital, I was viewing on a 17" 1024x768 monitor. When I look at some of my "good" shots from 6 years ago on my new monitor, they aren't as good as they used to be. Sensor resolution is better too and mistakes or lens imperfections are more obvious. I use most of my manual lenses on my K10D.

I regularly use my M135/3.5 and 28/3.5 Tak. Although I don't use them as much, I always get fine results with my 200/4 Tak and 55/1.8 Tak. Another thing to keep in mind is that older lenses don't meter the same so it requires a little extra histogram and LCD checking and a focusing aid like a Katz Eye is invaluable. I also find I have to use a lens for a while to learn how to use it best. Taking a couple of dozen shots on a single outing isn't enough time to determine the quality of a lens.

[bassek]

The M 28mm, assuming it's the more common first version, is sharp enough but, yes, leaves images looking very flat and boring, more so than any other lens I've tried. The version II (same as the A version) is much better. Don't assume that all older lenses will be as bad as the M 28.

Most older lenses, while they may be very sharp, leave something to be desired when it comes to colour and contrast. These are qualities that can be quite easily added in PP, but it's much nicer when that's not necessary, and somehow the results don't seem the same.

The old lenses I've tried that compete with the very best in terms of colour, contrast and producing generally vibrant photos are:

• Pentax M or A 50mm f/1.7
• Pentax M 85mm f/2
• Pentax K 28mm f/3.5
• Pentax SMC Takumar 55mm f/2.0
• Pentax SMC Takumar 35mm f/3.5
• Sigma Super-Wide 24mm f/2.8 (older MF version seemed better than AF version)

Much of the fun of using these old lenses is the tactile feel while in use, something I enjoy immensely. I'm willing to sacrifice some small degree of quality in the results in order to enjoy the process of photography more, though others may not feel the same.

I sold my M28/2.8, but I do have both the M and A 50/1.7, the M85/2 and the K35/3.5. The fifties are really good, but I still have to learn to use my M85 and my K35/3.5. But I would like to add that the M135/3.5 has great colors as well.

Before anyone says it, I do not think I have a bad copy of the M85. The bad copy is on the other end of my K-x.

Seb.

[Ikarus]

I would have to disagree. The better of the old lenses are still better than the average among the new ones and that's even more true once you take the price/performance ratio into account.

Super-Takumar 1:1.8/55:



SMC Takumar 1:3.5/28:

[Alizarine]

This image was shot with a K-x + M 50 f1.4... shot in raw but not much PP except a little slide to the right of the Recover tab (some highlights were clipped)



for an 80's lens, I think it can still render amazing colors

[azdustdevil]

As a general rule, I'm rather disappointed in the newer lenses I find these days. Maybe it's the economy. Maybe it's something else. They just don't make them like they used to unless I spend over a thousand bucks for a new lens, I seem to have to compromise more so than I did some 40 years ago. The old lenses have character, at least the Nikons do. My son just gave me a new Pentax K-30, so I cannot speak too much for Pentax lenses except those I know who use the older lenses rave and rant about how damn good they are. Guess I'll find out.

The photo of Freedom Street at night is absolutely superb.

[Sagitta]

As a general rule, I'm rather disappointed in the newer lenses I find these days. Maybe it's the economy. Maybe it's something else. They just don't make them like they used to unless I spend over a thousand bucks for a new lens, I seem to have to compromise more so than I did some 40 years ago. The old lenses have character, at least the Nikons do. My son just gave me a new Pentax K-30, so I cannot speak too much for Pentax lenses except those I know who use the older lenses rave and rant about how damn good they are. Guess I'll find out.

The photo of Freedom Street at night is absolutely superb.

FWIW, one of my favorite lenses is the cheap-o FA28-90mm. Its basically a bunch of plastic bits cobbled together and feels like it could implode under its own lack of weight at any moment, but the colors and sharpness are outstanding if you use it properly within its own limitations.

Considering it was about as budget a lens as you could get back in the day, and straddled that gap between the heavy 80's glass and the newer digital stuff its definitely packing a luster all of its own.

[azdustdevil]

Glad to hear that! Your photos are living proof that it is not which camera you are holding in your hands, it's what is between your ears that makes the difference! I just bought an old 70-210 FA lens rated by many as a "sleeper" which has gone unrecognized because the thing is ugly. Ugly is as ugly does and I suspect this lens will look like a diamond after a few shots!

[stevebrot]

The M28 f/2,8 isnt the best old lens.

What he said...

It was not even that great a lens when it was new! (Was bargain-priced at about half what the Tamron 28/2.5 went for and even a little less than a Vivitar.)

The better vintage glass can still hold its own against the newer stuff, but that being said, most of the new stuff is pretty good!


Steve


(...has a fair number of older lenses...)

[azdustdevil]

Well, I'm old so I guess I'm still pretty good.