Old Film SLR Lenses

**TomB_tx** · 03-20-2016, 05:08 PM

People are often dismissive of old lenses from the 1950s and 60s as being for collectors only, not digital work. After all, they had barely started using computers to design lenses then. I recently added a Pentax K from about 1957, with its Zebra (semi) Auto Takumar 55mm f1.8. Here's a 100% crop of a "mirror" shot with this lens wide open (where it is known to be a bit soft):
Name: KLens1.jpg
Views: 871
Size: 346.8 KB

Name: KLens1.jpg
Views: 871
Size: 346.8 KB

I also tried my 35 f3.5 (semi) Auto Takumar from the same period, also wide open. 100 % crop:
Name: Early 35.jpg
Views: 829
Size: 197.9 KB

Perhaps modern lenses are incrementally better, but you can still get great pictures using the really oldies. Even my 1934 Leica Summar f2.0 is surprising.
These are taken with a Sony A7, which is fun as it can use so many of these old lenses Full Frame, and compare them on the same system.

Eyewanders · 03-20-2016, 05:45 PM - **3 Likes**

Originally posted by TomB_tx

People are often dismissive of old lenses from the 1950s and 60s as being for collectors only, not digital work.

I'm personally dismissive of people with that opinion.

**pepperberry farm** · 03-20-2016, 05:52 PM

I have an 'ignore' button ready for those dismissives.....

dmc · 03-20-2016, 05:56 PM

+1 lol

**Odinz** · 03-20-2016, 06:38 PM

Originally posted by chickentender

I'm personally dismissive of people with that opinion.

Couldn't have said it better myself!

**ChrisPlatt** · 03-20-2016, 06:48 PM - **1 Like**

Classic manual focus lenses just ooze quality.
What pleasure then in using a plastic fantastic?

Chris

**patrick9** · 03-20-2016, 07:18 PM - **2 Likes**

If I had to give up my old film era lenses I wouldn't have many left to use

**monochrome** · 03-20-2016, 07:32 PM - **1 Like**

Dismissers can send any old film lenses they want to dismiss right on over here.

**EssJayEff** · 03-21-2016, 02:29 AM

Originally posted by TomB_tx

People are often dismissive of old lenses from the 1950s and 60s as being for collectors only, not digital work.

Nice illustrations . . . class dismissed!

Wild Mark · 03-21-2016, 03:33 AM

Some of my best photo are with Takumars. If you can control contrast and flare by using a hood and positioning the sun correctly, you can actually get extremely good colour and sharpness. Also, the number aperture blades on the older taks give very nice oof character.

Crazy to discredit the M42s

**WPRESTO** · 03-21-2016, 05:51 AM

Newer lenses do have some advantages. One that is almost universal is the advancement in coatings to reduce flare and increase transmission (=maintains contrast when the number of elements starts to rise). However, many old lenses have good to excellent IQ. I have multiple times praised the qualities of a well-made Tessar design lens of near normal focal length. Not fast, generally limited to f2.8, but stopped to f4~f11 a good Tessar can produce excellent images. For a short time I had a 40mm f3.5 Steinheil Cassaron in M42 mount, regrettably only usable on a manual extension tube because of a big lug on the back that prevented it from screwing directly into an M42 to K adapter*. I took a few close-ups with it, and the results were very good. It is a Cooke triplet design. If I can find a scan I made of the best of those close-ups I'll post it here later today.

*OK to use for close-up, but not nearly as convenient as a modern macro and being 40mm, with a very short working distance. Aside from no aperture linkage, the diaphragm was fully manual, no pre-set mechanism and no click-stops, and was operated by the front most ring of the lens which had no filter thread, no way to attach a hood. I suspect from the age of the lens it probably had no coating. The mechanical quality of the lens was outstanding, 10 curved aperture blades and buttery smooth focusing that actually made me gasp the first time I turned it. I suspect 80% or more of the original price was in the metalwork, not the glass. The lens was in its original plastic case and looked unused. It came in a batch with multiple other lenses, bits and pieces.

Flylooper · 03-21-2016, 07:05 PM

So, if you have money to burn and liked to fly, would you buy a F-16 on the assumption that an old P-51 Mustang is just, well, obsolete?

Really, the heyday of lens grinding was probably in the 1960s and 1970s, no?

**WPRESTO** · 03-22-2016, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by Flylooper

So, if you have money to burn and liked to fly, would you buy a F-16 on the assumption that an old P-51 Mustang is just, well, obsolete?

Really, the heyday of lens grinding was probably in the 1960s and 1970s, no?

Certainly not with computerized grinders and laser guidance & checking of curvature, presuming both of those are used (have never seen details about modern lens manufacturing machines and methods). But I suspect there's a touch of sarcasm in your response.

Flylooper · 03-22-2016, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by WPRESTO

Certainly not with computerized grinders and laser guidance & checking of curvature, presuming both of those are used (have never seen details about modern lens manufacturing machines and methods). But I suspect there's a touch of sarcasm in your response.

Yes, but just a touch. To continue with the analogy, the P-51 was a hell of an airplane even thought they didn't have computers to design and make them. All they had was slide rules.

As for me, I'm having a great time doing film photography. My collection of Super Takumars and SMC Taks is, I think, up to 8 lenses now. Yesterday I just picked up a Super-Tak 35mm f3.5 wide angle at my favorite (family owned) camera shop for 45 bucks. A very good lens.

When I was a kid and had no money, just my little Spotty with a 55 mm on it, and an off-market 28 and 200, I used to drool for those Takumars. But they were always beyond my reach. (I think I'm catching up on lost time!) You could actually feel the quality in your hands.

God knows what they sold for in their day!

Xmas · 03-24-2016, 09:32 AM

I normally use old single coated lenses, '53-70 street shooting with mono or colour film.

Adaptive compression
Flashing of shadows

Yes I use deep hoods as well...

I don't mind flare or high light artifice that was also in the period shots.

03-20-2016, 05:08 PM	#1
TomB_tx Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: Texas Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,446	Old Film SLR Lenses People are often dismissive of old lenses from the 1950s and 60s as being for collectors only, not digital work. After all, they had barely started using computers to design lenses then. I recently added a Pentax K from about 1957, with its Zebra (semi) Auto Takumar 55mm f1.8. Here's a 100% crop of a "mirror" shot with this lens wide open (where it is known to be a bit soft): I also tried my 35 f3.5 (semi) Auto Takumar from the same period, also wide open. 100 % crop: Perhaps modern lenses are incrementally better, but you can still get great pictures using the really oldies. Even my 1934 Leica Summar f2.0 is surprising. These are taken with a Sony A7, which is fun as it can use so many of these old lenses Full Frame, and compare them on the same system.

03-22-2016, 04:35 PM	#14
Flylooper Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: McKenzie River Valley, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 80	Originally posted by WPRESTO Certainly not with computerized grinders and laser guidance & checking of curvature, presuming both of those are used (have never seen details about modern lens manufacturing machines and methods). But I suspect there's a touch of sarcasm in your response. Yes, but just a touch. To continue with the analogy, the P-51 was a hell of an airplane even thought they didn't have computers to design and make them. All they had was slide rules. As for me, I'm having a great time doing film photography. My collection of Super Takumars and SMC Taks is, I think, up to 8 lenses now. Yesterday I just picked up a Super-Tak 35mm f3.5 wide angle at my favorite (family owned) camera shop for 45 bucks. A very good lens. When I was a kid and had no money, just my little Spotty with a 55 mm on it, and an off-market 28 and 200, I used to drool for those Takumars. But they were always beyond my reach. (I think I'm catching up on lost time!) You could actually feel the quality in your hands. God knows what they sold for in their day! Last edited by Flylooper; 03-22-2016 at 04:42 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Old film lenses and white balance	Murfy	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	15	05-22-2015 05:39 PM
Additional lenses for a film SLR newbie	chiaroscuro	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	5	11-16-2014 12:02 PM
Using old lenses on digital SLR	vinjosau	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	23	01-13-2012 10:42 PM
Old Film SLR to Digital SLR	PentaxDilemma	Pentax DSLR Discussion	16	03-11-2011 06:25 PM
Question about an old SLR film lens?	Thumper473	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	8	02-17-2009 05:42 PM

03-20-2016, 05:45 PM - 3 Likes	#2
Eyewanders Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Land of the Salish Sea Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,343	Originally posted by TomB_tx People are often dismissive of old lenses from the 1950s and 60s as being for collectors only, not digital work. I'm personally dismissive of people with that opinion.

03-20-2016, 05:52 PM	#3
pepperberry farm amateur dirt farmer Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: probably out in a field somewhere... Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 41,678	I have an 'ignore' button ready for those dismissives.....

03-20-2016, 05:56 PM	#4
dmc Forum Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Calgary, AB Canada Posts: 76	+1 lol

03-20-2016, 06:38 PM	#5
Odinz Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Virginia, USA Photos: Albums Posts: 259	Originally posted by chickentender I'm personally dismissive of people with that opinion. Couldn't have said it better myself!

03-20-2016, 06:48 PM - 1 Like	#6
ChrisPlatt Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Rockaway Beach NYC Posts: 7,694	Classic manual focus lenses just ooze quality. What pleasure then in using a plastic fantastic? Chris

03-20-2016, 07:18 PM - 2 Likes	#7
patrick9 Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: Murfreesboro Tennessee Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,458	If I had to give up my old film era lenses I wouldn't have many left to use

03-20-2016, 07:32 PM - 1 Like	#8
monochrome Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Working From Home Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 26,276	Dismissers can send any old film lenses they want to dismiss right on over here.

03-21-2016, 02:29 AM	#9
EssJayEff Site Supporter Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: near Saxapahaw, NC Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 969	Originally posted by TomB_tx People are often dismissive of old lenses from the 1950s and 60s as being for collectors only, not digital work. Nice illustrations . . . class dismissed!

03-21-2016, 03:33 AM	#10
Wild Mark Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Newcastle Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,954	Some of my best photo are with Takumars. If you can control contrast and flare by using a hood and positioning the sun correctly, you can actually get extremely good colour and sharpness. Also, the number aperture blades on the older taks give very nice oof character. Crazy to discredit the M42s

03-21-2016, 05:51 AM	#11
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,107	Newer lenses do have some advantages. One that is almost universal is the advancement in coatings to reduce flare and increase transmission (=maintains contrast when the number of elements starts to rise). However, many old lenses have good to excellent IQ. I have multiple times praised the qualities of a well-made Tessar design lens of near normal focal length. Not fast, generally limited to f2.8, but stopped to f4~f11 a good Tessar can produce excellent images. For a short time I had a 40mm f3.5 Steinheil Cassaron in M42 mount, regrettably only usable on a manual extension tube because of a big lug on the back that prevented it from screwing directly into an M42 to K adapter. I took a few close-ups with it, and the results were very good. It is a Cooke triplet design. If I can find a scan I made of the best of those close-ups I'll post it here later today. OK to use for close-up, but not nearly as convenient as a modern macro and being 40mm, with a very short working distance. Aside from no aperture linkage, the diaphragm was fully manual, no pre-set mechanism and no click-stops, and was operated by the front most ring of the lens which had no filter thread, no way to attach a hood. I suspect from the age of the lens it probably had no coating. The mechanical quality of the lens was outstanding, 10 curved aperture blades and buttery smooth focusing that actually made me gasp the first time I turned it. I suspect 80% or more of the original price was in the metalwork, not the glass. The lens was in its original plastic case and looked unused. It came in a batch with multiple other lenses, bits and pieces.

03-21-2016, 07:05 PM	#12
Flylooper Forum Member Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: McKenzie River Valley, Oregon Photos: Gallery Posts: 80	So, if you have money to burn and liked to fly, would you buy a F-16 on the assumption that an old P-51 Mustang is just, well, obsolete? Really, the heyday of lens grinding was probably in the 1960s and 1970s, no?

03-22-2016, 03:02 AM	#13
WPRESTO Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Massachusetts Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 59,107	Originally posted by Flylooper So, if you have money to burn and liked to fly, would you buy a F-16 on the assumption that an old P-51 Mustang is just, well, obsolete? Really, the heyday of lens grinding was probably in the 1960s and 1970s, no? Certainly not with computerized grinders and laser guidance & checking of curvature, presuming both of those are used (have never seen details about modern lens manufacturing machines and methods). But I suspect there's a touch of sarcasm in your response.

03-24-2016, 09:32 AM	#15
Xmas Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2015 Posts: 617	I normally use old single coated lenses, '53-70 street shooting with mono or colour film. Adaptive compression Flashing of shadows Yes I use deep hoods as well... I don't mind flare or high light artifice that was also in the period shots.