[lakeshore]

Why persist in using legacy manual lenses?

I have a number of M series lenses and when I use them my shots lack consistency. The colours seem more faded etc.

Do I just need more experience in using these lenses? Are there some tricks to using them of which I am not aware?

My DA lenses seem to give me more consistent results, better colour saturation etc. They are also easier to use.

Thoughts?

[robgski]

Do I just need more experience in using these lenses?

My guess is that when using DA lenses, the camera is doing more of the work of making a technically good picture.

I can only suggest practicing using the legacy glass in Program Mode, Av Mode, and Manual mode, to see if there are any noticeable differences in the images.

[luftfluss]

Because I like 'em.

[BigMackCam]

Why persist in using legacy manual lenses.

Because, for some, they remain an excellent source of inexpensive glass that - in the right hands - can produce awesome photos.

I have a number of M series lenses and when I use them my shots lack consistency. The colours seem more faded etc.

Contrast on some older lenses can be lower than with some modern lenses... especially if you're not protecting against flare. But choice of lens and technique (like a hand held just so to block unwanted sunlight) can help massively.

Do I just need more experience in using these lenses? Are there some tricks to using them of which I am not aware?

Probably. Given that so many folks get great results from vintage glass, it's probable that your choices of legacy lenses and techniques in using them are impacting your keeper rate.

My DA lenses seem to give me more consistent results, better colour saturation etc. They are also easier to use.

Sure. And if you're happier using modern AF glass, there's nothing wrong with that. Older manual glass takes more work, but can be worth it - though not for everyone. Find your own way, that's my advice

[pres589]

M-series glass gives great colors in my experience. I do agree that they are usually not as easy to shoot with due to manual focusing on a DSLR unless you're using live view and focus peaking and those sorts of aids.

Post a couple shots with EXIF data attached if you want some help.

[pepperberry farm]

there's an entire cadre here that will take those old manual lenses off your hands....

[jbinpg]

Seeing as how you can mold any raw file into the image you want (within reason), I take it you are a jpeg shooter? I love my old Taks and M-series lenses specifically because the lower contrast allows me more latitude in post-processing.

[GUB]

When you become fluent at manual focusing-
operating in raw so half the camera settings are irrelevant-
Manual exposure courtesy of the "sunny sixteen" rule in conjuction with your histogram-
and an understanding of Iso invariance by which you leave your Iso at base and a lot of fine tune exposing becomes unnecessary-
Then you will be amazed at how simple photography can be--
Leaving you to concentrate on your subject.

[thazooo]

1- Some of the finest glass made.
2- For Fun

[Ronald Oakes]

Why Persist ?
Why Not ?
I have a Ricoh Rikenon P 50mm 1.4 that I paid $5 for at a Auction ......Stellar Performer !
Also a Rokinon 135mm f2.8 that I paid a whole $1 for at a swapmeet ……Extremely Sharp !
And a really nice SMC Takumar 35mm 3.5 that I traded for a Breakfast Burrito and soda at a Swapmeet,.....Very Nice Landscape Lens!
Also a Ricoh Rikenon XR 28mm f2.8 that is Mint for $8....Very Nice !

So for less than a Breakfast at Denny's including a Tip..... I have a 4 lens set that performs Great !
If I ever had nothing more than these 4 lenses I could live the rest of my life and feel satisfied.
How dare I complain ?

[stevebrot]

Why persist in using legacy manual lenses

Because they work well, are fun, are inexpensive, and require scarcely any more skill to use than has been part of my photography for the last fifty years. In other words, they fit well into the hobby aspect of my practice and do not interfere with the artistic elements. Given that, one might ask in return...

Why persist in the purchase of a full quiver of sophisticated and expensive modern lenses?

I already own a quite modern and competent walk-around zoom (Sigma 17-70/2.8-4.0 (C)). Would adding the D FA* 70-200/2.8 provide me with better images on a more consistent basis than my early-1980s vintage Tamron SP 70-210/3.5 or my Pentax-A 70-210/4?

A few months ago, I was on the side of Steptoe Butte in Washington State's Palouse Hills gazing out at the impressive view to the south. Around me were about a hundred other photographers attempting to take advantage of golden hour light. People had come from all over the world just to encounter this time and place. The guy next to me had about $15,000 in top-shelf Nikon gear mounted on at least $1000 worth of high end tripod. His investment was duplicated in various brands and flavors across the parking lot as we all contended with an increasingly gusty stiff breeze and dense haze down below. The guy with the Nikon expressed that my aluminum tripod, undersized head, and inadequately-supported 1980's vintage zoom were not up to the challenge, but I kept shooting anyway and came back the next morning for blue and golden hour again.

When I got back home, I worked through the Steptoe images and found several from the windy and hazy evening that I was pleased to upload to Flickr and to share here. One of the morning shots was actually "explored", though I must admit it was taken with the Sigma, not my vintage zoom. It was gratifying, however, to get a very positive response to shots with the old Tammy. The haze made for a "painterly" effect and I was keeping that in mind while I was shooting. Since that time, I have periodically done searches on Flickr for images taken that evening from that location, but have come up dry except for mine. I would have thought that at least a few of those very avid photographers might have gotten usable results, were Flickr members, and also posted up, but such has not been the case. I suspect that if I had been shooting with the D FA* 70-200/2.8, I might have done about as well, though probably not using AF; the haze was reeking havoc on AF performance and nobody was able to get a lock. As it was, there was just enough contrast to allow manual focus with my split-image screen with purely old-school technique. Gear would have bought me nothing.

Earlier this last spring, I had a photo of some tulips "explored" on Flickr. I was quite surprised, not because it was taken with a 50 year-old Auto Rikenon 50/1.4, but because I did not feel it was that special. It is possible that if I were doing my flower photography with the D FA* 50/1.4 I might I might get even more "killer" shots at that focal length, but I have my doubts. To tell you the truth, I doubt if investment in the highly advanced D FA* lens would improve my output at all, though it most definitely would not hold me back; assuming of course that it can be easily used with manual focus when needed.*

To be honest, I in doing a quick audit of the lenses I used the most, I don't see any of the vintage ones that might be improved from a creative perspective by updating to a recent AF equivalent.


Steve

* I do a fair amount of fine focus work with narrow DOF.

[kevinWE]

I'm loaded down with old lenses and truly love all my Fujinon EBC glass. I run in full manual mode and get basically what I try to achieve, so my keeper rate usually falls to composition being hit or miss and not so much glass underperforming.I can't complain; the bang for the buck can't be beat. If you have any M42 Fujinon glass you wish to part with, drop me a pm.

[automorphism]

I have a few cheap lenses. You can do a lot of great photography with a 50 dollar 50mm, and it's also a great way to experiment with focal lengths without buying an expensive modern lens, to see if you like a certain style.


In terms of quality, let's take the Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7. It produces great portraits. It has its downsides and flares weirdly, and the bokeh from f/2.0 to f/2.8 is pretty bad (shuriken-style). However, if you eliminate some of these edge cases, it can produces images as nice as a modern lens.

[monochrome]

Why persist driving a legacy car that doesn’t have electronic LCD gauges, Nav, backup camera, proximity sensors, active cruise control, remote start, phone integration, WiFi, auto-dimming lights and mirrors, power/memory BarcoLoungers and all the other gimmickry on a modern car?

I like to actively pilot my vehicle - using both hands, both feet and both eyes - rather than riding around in Program* Mode.

Manual photography is contemplative relaxing and fun. It has a hobby aspect, and it allows me to use lenses that cost a few ten or hundreds of dollars.

AFA soft colors on your legacy lenses, the best thing you can do is use a proper hood to increase contrast / decrease sidelight.


* I started to type Green Mode but that would have Overtones

[ChristianRock]

I would be interested in knowing what vintage and modern lenses the OP has... Some vintage lenses, especially zooms and some off brand wide angle lenses can be pretty uninspiring.
But my SMC-M 28mm f3.5, for example, and my SMC-A 24mm f2.8 have great color and contrast. And my SMC-M 50mm f1.7 produces gorgeous pictures, even if they are not quite as bold as some modern lenses. So does my Rikenon P 50mm f1.4...
Lenses are all different....