Jump to content
Jill Morgan

Using old 35mm lenses with digital camera

Recommended Posts

Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7.

 

Try not to shoot with the lens wide open. You've also got plenty of leeway for downsizing images with the big a7 files. Minolta lenses have a pleasing colour balance, I think you will find. It's a good lens for the price. Better than mortgaging the farm for now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7.

 

 

Try not to shoot with the lens wide open. You've also got plenty of leeway for downsizing images with the big a7 files. Minolta lenses have a pleasing colour balance, I think you will find. It's a good lens for the price. Better than mortgaging the farm for now.

No farm left to mortgage! Besides, stock doesn't warrant an investment in $2500 lenses. The birds will have to go unshot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common?

 

Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses?

 

I am rarely entirely happy with the default exposure produced by the NEX, and particularly so using heritage glass. If anything, my old lenses tend to produce rather underexposed results. I have, on occasion, dialed in over 1 stop of compensation, and it can happen either way. If there is time I always take a look at the exposed histogram and modify the exposure to suit. I find that, as a general rule that is very much made to be broken, that a 1/3 stop over is about right for my particular older lenses.

 

Putting this into context, the NEX is far more accurate than my old Canon 450D, where my guesses at the exposure were generally more accurate than the camera's efforts - when using heritage glass.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common?

 

Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses?

 

I am rarely entirely happy with the default exposure produced by the NEX, and particularly so using heritage glass. If anything, my old lenses tend to produce rather underexposed results. I have, on occasion, dialed in over 1 stop of compensation, and it can happen either way. If there is time I always take a look at the exposed histogram and modify the exposure to suit. I find that, as a general rule that is very much made to be broken, that a 1/3 stop over is about right for my particular older lenses.

 

Putting this into context, the NEX is far more accurate than my old Canon 450D, where my guesses at the exposure were generally more accurate than the camera's efforts - when using heritage glass.

 

 

You know what, I meant "underexposed" rather than "overexposed." Shall have to experiment and remember to check the histograms more often.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7.

 

Lynn, I came across this article in my surfing. Don't know if you've read it. No long lenses are mentioned, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Days after buying my first digital camera body (Nikon D100) I took it to Italy with my old manual lenses to get picture for the Blue Guide to Southern Italy. It worked fine and the pictures (some of them at least) were used in the book.

I still use an old shift lens for a Mamiya 645 occasionally with a home-made mount (part of a Nikon extension tuse stuck to a mount from a useless Mamiya converter).

 

It's a bit more hit and miss but at least you can see the results immediately and adjust as necessary.

I wouldn't recommend it for sport or wildlife.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7.

 

 

Lynn, I came across this article in my surfing. Don't know if you've read it. No long lenses are mentioned, though.

Thank you John, interesting article but it left me wishing he would test his other long lenses as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Thanks John. I really want to find a zoom that works well with the A7.

 

Lynn, I came across this article in my surfing. Don't know if you've read it. No long lenses are mentioned, though.

Thank you John, interesting article but it left me wishing he would test his other long lenses as well.

 

 

No doubt, the a7's FF sensor is very demanding on long zooms, etc., which might explain the shortage of tests out there. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've used old Leica Lenses no problem....they're incredible in fact.

 

I've used old Pentax lenses on Pentax film cameras.  Worked great!

 

I used Canon FD lenses on a Fotodiox adapter to Fuji - the results were incredibly awful.  My suspicion is the adapter ads space between things where space was not originally intended which causes issues.

 

I hope your experience is better than mine was.  The Canon FD lenses worked fine on a Canon AE-1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I went NIKON in 1989.  I have NIKKOR's from the 70's that I still

use on current NIKON DSLR's with no problem at all.

 

Chuck

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I used Canon FD lenses on a Fotodiox adapter to Fuji - the results were incredibly awful.  My suspicion is the adapter ads space between things where space was not originally intended which causes issues.

 

I hope your experience is better than mine was.  The Canon FD lenses worked fine on a Canon AE-1

As i explained there is an optical component in the adapter to correct the difference in FFD. One is dependent on the quality of that. it's effectively a teleconverter- they are very variable- so the focal length is increased as well.

The AE-1 has an FD mount.

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji

 

It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes.

 

It was an aweful waste of time.  I'm just glad I was able to get my money back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji

 

It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes.

 

It was an aweful waste of time.  I'm just glad I was able to get my money back.

 

The one I plan on ordering comes with glass, although I am not putting big hopes on the focus except for infinity. If that works, then I will be happy. I am searching around before I commit to one, but only those with the glass are supposed to help with the focal adjustment due to the space created by the mount.

 

Jill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is why I went NIKON in 1989.  I have NIKKOR's from the 70's that I still

use on current NIKON DSLR's with no problem at all.

 

Chuck

Yes. As I said in my original post on this thread, it's the reason I have stuck with Leica for way over fifty years. I can still use my oldest screw lenses on my new digi M's and they are still superb. Friends and colleagues gasped with horror way, (way) back when I was buying my first Leica stuff at the amount I was spending. (Made me gasp too). As I am still using that stuff though I think I got the best deal. I write a little bit about this on my blog, link below, entry for 26/04/2014.

 

I don't have any use for all my Nikon stuff any more so I sold this. Folks bit my hand off for all my good prime lenses, presumably for the same reason as Chuck mentions. All excellent and useable due to Nikon's compatibility policy too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji

 

It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes.

 

It was an aweful waste of time.  I'm just glad I was able to get my money back.

My mistake. The original post was about the EOS which has a longer FFD and needs a lens. THe Fuji-X is shorter so doesn't.

Can't see what the quality problem would be caused by. As you say it's just tubing. Must have thrown off all the corrections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was no "optical component" in the Fotodiox Adapter I purchased.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Fujifilm-Fuijifilm-Arca-Swiss-Mounting/dp/B00D9BL1XC/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1421764025&sr=8-4&keywords=Fotodiox+Canon+to+Fuji

 

It was simply a tube....Canon FD mount on one side and Fuji X Mount on the other.....could have been considered an "extension tube" for all intents and purposes.

 

It was an aweful waste of time.  I'm just glad I was able to get my money back.

 

The inexpensive "made in China" adapters for the Sony mirrorless cameras are also just metal tubes with no glass. Fortunately, they seem to work fine, at least the one I purchased ($9.95) for Minolta MD/MC lenses does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't need or have glass if they're fitting a longer FFD lens to a shorter. Except for C-mount, everything  has a longer FFD than NEX,

Edited by spacecadet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The $9.95 adapter I bought online doesn't look much different from this one. How can they charge so much for a metal tube?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see merit in paying extra for a precision piece of kit that used harder, longer wearing, material, but a user is saying that lenses are focusing beyond infinity with this product. I interpret this as meaning that it is not possible to reliably use the distance scale on the lens. I have cheap adapters that allow me to do this, and would expect a quality product to have sufficiently tight tolerances to enable this to be the case. Can't see any good reason to spend the considerable extra cash.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could see merit in paying extra for a precision piece of kit that used harder, longer wearing, material, but a user is saying that lenses are focusing beyond infinity with this product. I interpret this as meaning that it is not possible to reliably use the distance scale on the lens. I have cheap adapters that allow me to do this, and would expect a quality product to have sufficiently tight tolerances to enable this to be the case. Can't see any good reason to spend the considerable extra cash.

 

After doing some tests recently, I've discovered that the inexpensive NEX-Minolta MD/MC adapter that I bought from Rainbowimaging does focus slightly past infinity. It is easy enough to compensate for this, but it means that the distance scale is off. Not a big deal in the scheme of things. However, if I had paid 200 bucks for this metal tube, I might have felt differently.  

Edited by John Mitchell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common?

 

Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses?

Maybe try an old hand held light meter.  It might be the coatings on the older lenses are throwing off the camera meter. Just guessing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

A question about exposure. I'm noticing that photos taken with a legacy manual focus lens on my NEX-6 are sometimes a bit overexposed. Is this common?

 

Any tips on getting accurate exposure with these old lenses?

Maybe try an old hand held light meter.  It might be the coatings on the older lenses are throwing off the camera meter. Just guessing.

 

 

Thanks. Good idea, but I sold my handheld light meters a number of years ago. I actually meant "underexposed" rather than "overexposed." I've started setting the exposure compensation to plus one-third stop when using legacy MF lenses. This helps a lot. You're right, the coatings look very different. Images are much warmer than my Sony lenses, more "filmy" looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has a Pentax smc 28 3.5  (NOT the M 28 2.8) at a reasonable price (located in europe) I might be a shopper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has a Pentax smc 28 3.5  (NOT the M 28 2.8) at a reasonable price (located in europe) I might be a shopper.

 

MIke, 

 

There are at least two versions of the 28mm SMC 3.5 that I am aware of, the older type without a letter but generally known as type K SMC and the more recent M 3.5 SMC.

 

I have both, as well as the M 2.8. My feeling is that there is less distortion and CA with the older K lens, but, for infinity shooting, the more recent M 2.8 provides sharper edges. I don't particularly rate the M 3.5, although it is better than the standard Sony zoom on the NEX..

 

Edit - The usual caveat applies, these are old lenses, so, in addition to sample variation, we have the ravages of time to consider!

 

Sorry, not selling at this time.

Edited by Bryan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.