Old manual focus lenses on DSLRs

[blaze]

Anybody out there like to play with old manual focus lenses? They are fast, and inexpensive, and there's a decent market for them... so if you get tired of one, you can usually resell it for about the same amount that you paid.

Fun for macro work too, with an extension tube, or a macro filter, or a reversing ring.

Plus, they look cool!

Here are a few I've acquired recently. All of these have an M42 (screw) mount. With an inexpensive adapter (I got the "focus confirm" type), they work very well on my Canon XSi. Of course with the crop factor the focal length is not 50mm.



Yashinon DX 50mm F2.0:

----

SMC Takumar 55mm F2.0:

----

Meyer-Optic Gorlitz Oreston 50mm F1.8:

----

I make no claim as to whether these particular lenses are the "best" normal lenses to use. There are endless threads out there in which photographers debate, at great length, the sharpness, bokeh, contrast and CA of various makes and models... that is so not me. I just want to take pictures and have fun.

I probably won't keep all three of these. And I own these lenses in addition to, not instead of, a modern autofocus zoom lens, which really is a decent lens and much more practical for hiking.

I suppose using these lenses is sort of like driving a classic car... not a concours quality example, just a good "daily driver." It's certainly not the fastest or most reliable way to get you from point A to point B. But if you appreciate well-made equipment, and can accept it for what it is and live with its shortcomings, you will enjoy the ride. It won't set you back and arm and a leg to give it a try!

 

[Grumpy]

Interesting idea.

Going back to work as a regular freelancer in the newspaper photo business a decade ago -- after a decade's layoff -- the first thing I had to do was update my gear. It almost broke my heart to sell off a half dozen Pentax camera bodies and well more than a dozen cherry-picked Pentax manual focus lenses that had served me faithfully for 20 years, 10 of them as a working pro. I went back to Nikon (which had served me well in my pre-Pentax era), and retooled first with F-5 (film) camera body and carefully selected kit of autofocus "prime" lenses. Since then I have upgraded to Nikon digital SLRs and a set of first rate auto-everything Nikon zoom lenses.

One thing I discovered through all this is that the viewfinder screens in today's autofocus SLRs certainly are optimized for autofocus operation, and do not seem especially good for manual focusing. (Of course, that also may be a personal matter, a function of aging eyes.)

I am not a gear geek, but also seem to recall reading that older lenses designed for film may not perform as well as newer lenses optimized for digital imaging. But I'm not at all sure most of us are such critical users that we would notice much real difference. I do know that today's lens coatings are superior to those in use 20 years or more ago, which might make a more noticeable difference in image rendition.

One thing I think most folks will find different about older manual focus lenses is the relative stiffness of their focusing mechanisms. High end lenses always moved more freely because of superior (closer tolerance) machining, while the cheapos relied on grease to "tighten" the fit and reduce wobbling. Heavy grease would congeal in colder weather, producing focusing stiffness that would challenge Garth.

The nicest thing about stiffness in the focus mechanism is that focus would stay put once you got it whjere you wanted it. The resistance or stiffness in autofocus lenses is hugely reduced, almost eerily so in some cases when you focus them manually.

None of this is to suggest that giving those old manual focus lenses a whirl on a digital SLR is a fool's errand. To the contrary, it might be very interesting, and might lead to a new -- perhaps more deliberate and thoughtful -- way of doing photography. I'm glad this subject was raised.

(BTW, even though my newer zoom lenses carry most of the workload these days, my latter 1990s vintage "prime" lenses (optimized for film) still get some play. Their smaller bulk and heft makes those lenses just the ticket for some kinds of jobs. I even use them as manual focus lenses now and then!)

G.

 

[blaze]

One thing I discovered through all this is that the viewfinder screens in today's autofocus SLRs certainly are optimized for autofocus operation, and do not seem especially good for manual focusing. (Of course, that also may be a personal matter, a function of aging eyes.)

Thanks for responding!

Re. the focus issue - I agree completely. I used to own a Pentax K100D, for which you can actually retrofit a split screen viewfinder (either brand new or salvaged from a film body) to make manual focusing easier. I did not do that, and am not advising anybody else to. I found that the red light/beep still gave me adequate feedback. But I believe that in turn depends on the exact variety of K mount lens you are using.

In the case of the Rebel XSi, one has to buy an adapter to use M42 or K mount lenses (just two examples of lenses that can be adapted to EOS DSLRs). As I mentioned above, there is a "focus confirm" variety that gives you a red light and a beep when you have achieved proper focus. My eyes are old too!

I actually got rid of the first M42 adapter I'd bought, which did not have this very helpful and reasonably priced feature. I know there are also "focus confirm" adapters for K mount to EOS, but I have not purchased one. I am going to stick to M42 manual focus lenses, at least for the time being.

For more on adapting non-EOS lenses to EOS DSLRs, check out this page. One caveat is that this info was written a while ago, and at the time "focus confirm" adapters were still quite new. So in his July 2006 "update" he sounds a cautiously optimistic note about a technology that is now proven, and the focus confirm adapters are readily available and reasonably priced.

Again I'm not suggesting these lenses are for everybody. For many (perhaps most) photographers, modern autofocus lenses may be your best bet. But I do think a good quality prime is probably sharper and faster than a zoom, at least a consumer level zoom, and these older manual focus lenses are a good way to pick up a prime for not very much money!

 

[DougPaul]

FWIW, Ken Rockwell seems to be having a retro-phase where he is using (and extolling/ranting on the virtues of) old film cameras including a Kodak Brownie and old manual lenses. Perhaps some of you will find it amusing: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm and http://kenrockwell.com/trips/2010-02-rt-66/index.htm.

My fully manual film SLR certainly has a better aid on the focusing screen than my modern DSLR. Once the automation goes in, the quality of the aids and controls for manual operation seems to diminish...

Doug

 

[Grumpy]

FYI, on all my old manual focus SLRs (and I had a bunch over the years) I replaced the stock focusing screens with a ground glass screen of some kind. The stock or "original equipment" screens invariably had some kind of "focusing aid" in them (fresnel or split image, or a combination, usually).

Some of my ground glass replacement screens were plain, but others had etched grids. I was consistently able to focus very accurately with such screens. All worked better for me than screens with focusing aids in them because I could focus across the entire frame, very quickly and decisively.

G.

 

[DougPaul]

FYI, on all my old manual focus SLRs (and I had a bunch over the years) I replaced the stock focusing screens with a ground glass screen of some kind. The stock or "original equipment" screens invariably had some kind of "focusing aid" in them (fresnel or split image, or a combination, usually).

Some of my ground glass replacement screens were plain, but others had etched grids. I was consistently able to focus very accurately with such screens. All worked better for me than screens with focusing aids in them because I could focus across the entire frame, very quickly and decisively.

Mine had a microprism in the center and ground glass elsewhere which worked well enough for me. I never tried replacing it with full ground glass.

I find I virtually always use the autofocus on my DSLR, even though I may be using manual aperture and/or exposure time.

At the other end of the spectrum, my digital P&S with manual controls is so awkward to use manually that I virtually never use the manual modes. Manual focus consists of measuring the distance with a tape measure (or estimating) and dialing it in on a menu. Yetch!

In some ways, I miss the full manual controls--you always knew what the camera was doing and could easily make the trade-offs. It is too easy to be unaware of the details when using automatic modes--instead of operating them you have to monitor them and it is too easy to miss something.

Doug