Vintage lenses on digital cameras. How good are they in reality compared to modern

**interested_observer** · 11-03-2020, 07:10 PM - **4 Likes**

I should have made this clear that I didn't make the video, I just came across it on YouTube, found it interesting and made the post.

You Tube

Last edited by interested_observer; 11-05-2020 at 03:06 PM.

maw · 11-03-2020, 10:44 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by interested_observer

Vintage lenses on digital cameras. How good are they in reality compared to modern

There are well made vintage lenses that give excellent results even now in the digital age, are perhaps more suitable for those who make an art of photography,
in the sense that they give you time to reflect, frame and focus on the subject and parameters, in short they are more suitable for a type of reasoned photography, is the philosophy of Pentax.

On the other hand, they are less suitable for those who take action, sports photos, or without thinking about it much. Many people, including myself, have beautiful lenses both for quality and focal length,
if you feel like taking this trip, you can buy some of them (you know that they are cheap) and try them does not cost much more than inviting friends to the bar.

cit. There are no bad originals, only bad Photoshop operators 'Dan Margulis' the same for photographers.

Good shots, Mario

stevebrot · 11-03-2020, 11:47 PM - **1 Like**

Thanks! He pretty much nailed it on all points. What has surprised me is how well some of my vintage glass performs at my K-3's pixel density. At release, the K-3 was famously capable of presenting technical challenge to a user's skill level in terms of focus and camera motion. Similarly, many lenses, even "digital" lenses simply did not rise to the demands of the sensor. Never mind that they probably would not have risen to the demands of many film stocks either. So it was that I was extremely surprised to have my Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye deliver in spades on the K-3 and to find that very few of my manual focus lenses fail at task for what I put them to. I have no doubt that the D FA* 50/1.4 would totally blow away the best of my fast 50s, but on the other hand, I can currently finish the day without ibuprofen and deep tissue massage from the exertion of shooting with my current lenses.

Steve

(...would really like to do a direct comparison between my Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 and the new D FA 70-210/4.0...my lens has PF, but it is otherwise quite capable...IIRC, I paid $35 USD for it...is the new one 30x better?...)

HoutHans · 11-04-2020, 01:16 AM - **1 Like**

Very nice; thanks for sharing this. I love how someone is willing to talk for 22 minutes about lenses these days where apparently we all have 5 minute attention spans.

**Michail_P** · 11-04-2020, 10:05 AM

Very interesting video, thanks for sharing. There's a lot of useful information , compressed. Lenses are in some ways more important than the body. I didn't quite catch the "graininess" part though... I thought this was a medium thing, not an optical characteristic... If someone would enlighten me...

**pepperberry farm** · 11-04-2020, 11:49 AM

has anyone mentioned to the creator of the video that it's been posted here?

he's a regular contributor here...

**Kevin B123** · 11-04-2020, 01:20 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by pepperberry farm

has anyone mentioned to the creator of the video that it's been posted here?

he's a regular contributor here...

I'm pleased to hear it. I loved the video, well made and concise. Liked and Subscribed!

Last edited by Kevin B123; 11-04-2020 at 01:21 PM. Reason: Liked too

house · 11-04-2020, 03:04 PM

In my experience photos by vintage lenses fall apart quite quickly when recovering shadows. Detail is lacking or you get colour casts.

My hunch is that this is due to the generally lower contrast of older lenses.

Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Vintage lenses are fun, cheaper and give nice results if you are shooting for "effects" or looks.

shyrsio · 11-04-2020, 03:16 PM

Vintage lenses are quite a lot to unpack: the different touch feel, the built the looks, hell ven the smell of old grease. Personally I take all that into consideration, I cant do otherwise. it affects the shooting experience, and the creative drive. Somehow you never know what you get with those old coatings, or radioactive ones. one thing is for sure you get something extra. If a modern lens replicates reality, a vintage lens has one of its own.

mikeprotts · 11-04-2020, 03:36 PM

Originally posted by house

In my experience photos by vintage lenses fall apart quite quickly when recovering shadows. Detail is lacking or you get colour casts.

My hunch is that this is due to the generally lower contrast of older lenses.

Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Vintage lenses are fun, cheaper and give nice results if you are shooting for "effects" or looks.

I think there's a difference that's not purely technical, and probably not ideal for pixel peeping, but the effect seems to be a little more natural to me. I agree about shadow problems though, and I don't like having to over process to recover these.

stevebrot · 11-04-2020, 06:27 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by house

Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations?

Originally posted by mikeprotts

I agree about shadow problems though, and I don't like having to over process to recover these.

Are you folk shooting JPEG or something? This is something I have not encountered, though I have to admit that I generally don't attempt to pull shadows and prefer instead to provide enough light so that there are data rather than hints of data in the file. (Pulling shadows involves best guess dithering on the part of our PP tools...voodoo photography.)

As for lower contrast with vintage lenses, it depends what lenses one chooses to shoot with. Many with cult status today were very poor when they were new.

Steve

**MSL** · 11-04-2020, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

...would really like to do a direct comparison between my Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 and the new D FA 70-210/4.0...my lens has PF, but it is otherwise quite capable...IIRC, I paid $35 USD for it...is the new one 30x better?...)

That's a really interesting comparison and I'd be interested in the answer, especially towards the 210 end where I find the Pentax-A isn't nearly sharp enough. I picked up this lens as my second or third acquisition and so at the time I liked playing with it, especially the macro like feature (only 1:4 but it's a start). However, when I compared using it to my K135 there was no comparison. The 135 was just so much lighter, brighter and colorful.

**pres589** · 11-04-2020, 07:09 PM - **1 Like**

I'm now subscribed to his Youtube channel after having watched a couple of his videos. They seem very well done to me. Another great resource.

**Tony Belding** · 11-04-2020, 08:54 PM

ehh… I felt conflicted while watching this video. It seems to be a hodgepodge of useful explanations, keen observations, subjective opinions, myths and superstition.

**pepperberry farm** · 11-04-2020, 09:33 PM - **2 Likes**

Originally posted by house

In my experience photos by vintage lenses fall apart quite quickly when recovering shadows. Detail is lacking or you get colour casts.

My hunch is that this is due to the generally lower contrast of older lenses.

Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Vintage lenses are fun, cheaper and give nice results if you are shooting for "effects" or looks.

Originally posted by mikeprotts

I think there's a difference that's not purely technical, and probably not ideal for pixel peeping, but the effect seems to be a little more natural to me. I agree about shadow problems though, and I don't like having to over process to recover these.

I'd have to disagree - I have no problems with shadows and vintage lenses.....

Originally posted by stevebrot

Are you folk shooting JPEG or something? This is something I have not encountered, though I have to admit that I generally don't attempt to pull shadows and prefer instead to provide enough light so that there are data rather than hints of data in the file. (Pulling shadows involves best guess dithering on the part of our PP tools...voodoo photography.)

As for lower contrast with vintage lenses, it depends what lenses one chooses to shoot with. Many with cult status today were very poor when they were new.

Steve

I agree, and I shoot jpg's - no problems with shadows....

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
A comparison between modern digital lenses vs analog vintage prime lenses.	interested_observer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	03-13-2021 02:50 AM
Pentax prime lenses - a guide to great vintage and modern lenses, from Takumar to tod	interested_observer	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	6	11-04-2020 07:20 AM
The "Vintage Digital Camera" thread (celebrating old, obsolete digital cameras!)	BigMackCam	General Photography	48	11-18-2019 04:46 PM
Do older "film" lenses underperform on digital cameras compared with new lenses?	vagabond79	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	131	09-18-2015 04:38 AM
vintage M and K lenses verses modern lenses	cadart	Pentax DSLR Discussion	10	02-02-2013 10:16 AM

11-03-2020, 10:44 PM - 1 Like	#2
maw Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Sassari (Italy) Posts: 1,118	Originally posted by interested_observer Vintage lenses on digital cameras. How good are they in reality compared to modern There are well made vintage lenses that give excellent results even now in the digital age, are perhaps more suitable for those who make an art of photography, in the sense that they give you time to reflect, frame and focus on the subject and parameters, in short they are more suitable for a type of reasoned photography, is the philosophy of Pentax. On the other hand, they are less suitable for those who take action, sports photos, or without thinking about it much. Many people, including myself, have beautiful lenses both for quality and focal length, if you feel like taking this trip, you can buy some of them (you know that they are cheap) and try them does not cost much more than inviting friends to the bar. cit. There are no bad originals, only bad Photoshop operators 'Dan Margulis' the same for photographers. Good shots, Mario

11-03-2020, 11:47 PM - 1 Like	#3
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Thanks! He pretty much nailed it on all points. What has surprised me is how well some of my vintage glass performs at my K-3's pixel density. At release, the K-3 was famously capable of presenting technical challenge to a user's skill level in terms of focus and camera motion. Similarly, many lenses, even "digital" lenses simply did not rise to the demands of the sensor. Never mind that they probably would not have risen to the demands of many film stocks either. So it was that I was extremely surprised to have my Zenitar 16/2.8 Fisheye deliver in spades on the K-3 and to find that very few of my manual focus lenses fail at task for what I put them to. I have no doubt that the D FA* 50/1.4 would totally blow away the best of my fast 50s, but on the other hand, I can currently finish the day without ibuprofen and deep tissue massage from the exertion of shooting with my current lenses. Steve (...would really like to do a direct comparison between my Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 and the new D FA 70-210/4.0...my lens has PF, but it is otherwise quite capable...IIRC, I paid $35 USD for it...is the new one 30x better?...)

11-04-2020, 01:16 AM - 1 Like	#4
HoutHans Pentaxian Join Date: Aug 2016 Location: Appingedam Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,119	Very nice; thanks for sharing this. I love how someone is willing to talk for 22 minutes about lenses these days where apparently we all have 5 minute attention spans.

11-04-2020, 10:05 AM	#5
Michail_P Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2019 Location: Kalymnos Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,006	Very interesting video, thanks for sharing. There's a lot of useful information , compressed. Lenses are in some ways more important than the body. I didn't quite catch the "graininess" part though... I thought this was a medium thing, not an optical characteristic... If someone would enlighten me...

11-04-2020, 11:49 AM	#6
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,678	has anyone mentioned to the creator of the video that it's been posted here? he's a regular contributor here...

11-04-2020, 01:20 PM - 1 Like	#7
Kevin B123 Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2016 Location: Hampshire Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,176	Originally posted by pepperberry farm has anyone mentioned to the creator of the video that it's been posted here? he's a regular contributor here... I'm pleased to hear it. I loved the video, well made and concise. Liked and Subscribed! Last edited by Kevin B123; 11-04-2020 at 01:21 PM. Reason: Liked too

11-04-2020, 03:04 PM	#8
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	In my experience photos by vintage lenses fall apart quite quickly when recovering shadows. Detail is lacking or you get colour casts. My hunch is that this is due to the generally lower contrast of older lenses. Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Vintage lenses are fun, cheaper and give nice results if you are shooting for "effects" or looks.

11-04-2020, 03:16 PM	#9
shyrsio Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2016 Location: Tirana Posts: 780	Vintage lenses are quite a lot to unpack: the different touch feel, the built the looks, hell ven the smell of old grease. Personally I take all that into consideration, I cant do otherwise. it affects the shooting experience, and the creative drive. Somehow you never know what you get with those old coatings, or radioactive ones. one thing is for sure you get something extra. If a modern lens replicates reality, a vintage lens has one of its own.

11-04-2020, 03:36 PM	#10
mikeprotts Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2020 Posts: 66	Originally posted by house In my experience photos by vintage lenses fall apart quite quickly when recovering shadows. Detail is lacking or you get colour casts. My hunch is that this is due to the generally lower contrast of older lenses. Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Vintage lenses are fun, cheaper and give nice results if you are shooting for "effects" or looks. I think there's a difference that's not purely technical, and probably not ideal for pixel peeping, but the effect seems to be a little more natural to me. I agree about shadow problems though, and I don't like having to over process to recover these.

11-04-2020, 06:27 PM - 2 Likes	#11
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by house Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Originally posted by mikeprotts I agree about shadow problems though, and I don't like having to over process to recover these. Are you folk shooting JPEG or something? This is something I have not encountered, though I have to admit that I generally don't attempt to pull shadows and prefer instead to provide enough light so that there are data rather than hints of data in the file. (Pulling shadows involves best guess dithering on the part of our PP tools...voodoo photography.) As for lower contrast with vintage lenses, it depends what lenses one chooses to shoot with. Many with cult status today were very poor when they were new. Steve

11-04-2020, 06:31 PM	#12
MSL Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Greater Toronto Area Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 4,749	Originally posted by stevebrot ...would really like to do a direct comparison between my Pentax-A 70-210/4.0 and the new D FA 70-210/4.0...my lens has PF, but it is otherwise quite capable...IIRC, I paid $35 USD for it...is the new one 30x better?...) That's a really interesting comparison and I'd be interested in the answer, especially towards the 210 end where I find the Pentax-A isn't nearly sharp enough. I picked up this lens as my second or third acquisition and so at the time I liked playing with it, especially the macro like feature (only 1:4 but it's a start). However, when I compared using it to my K135 there was no comparison. The 135 was just so much lighter, brighter and colorful.

11-04-2020, 07:09 PM - 1 Like	#13
pres589 Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2014 Location: Wichita, KS Photos: Albums Posts: 4,529	I'm now subscribed to his Youtube channel after having watched a couple of his videos. They seem very well done to me. Another great resource.

11-04-2020, 08:54 PM	#14
Tony Belding Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: Hamilton, Texas Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 781	ehh… I felt conflicted while watching this video. It seems to be a hodgepodge of useful explanations, keen observations, subjective opinions, myths and superstition.

11-04-2020, 09:33 PM - 2 Likes	#15
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,678	Originally posted by house In my experience photos by vintage lenses fall apart quite quickly when recovering shadows. Detail is lacking or you get colour casts. My hunch is that this is due to the generally lower contrast of older lenses. Anyone else noticed this or has other explanations? Vintage lenses are fun, cheaper and give nice results if you are shooting for "effects" or looks. Originally posted by mikeprotts I think there's a difference that's not purely technical, and probably not ideal for pixel peeping, but the effect seems to be a little more natural to me. I agree about shadow problems though, and I don't like having to over process to recover these. I'd have to disagree - I have no problems with shadows and vintage lenses..... Originally posted by stevebrot Are you folk shooting JPEG or something? This is something I have not encountered, though I have to admit that I generally don't attempt to pull shadows and prefer instead to provide enough light so that there are data rather than hints of data in the file. (Pulling shadows involves best guess dithering on the part of our PP tools...voodoo photography.) As for lower contrast with vintage lenses, it depends what lenses one chooses to shoot with. Many with cult status today were very poor when they were new. Steve I agree, and I shoot jpg's - no problems with shadows....