Are Older Lenses Better Than Newer Lenses?

[snegron7]

This is definitely not a topic I can post on any other photography forum, because it would turn into mud-slinging fiesta.

Most, if not everyone, here uses older, manual focus lenses. Lots of experience here, so I'd like to hear your opinions regarding which lenses you think are better; older or newer lenses.

Here's my thought process and my reason for posting this question. Like many here, I have a bunch of film cameras and lenses (Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Konica, Mamiya, and Minolta). In addition to my old film cameras and manual (plus some AF) lenses, I also own newer digital equipment (Sony A7c, Sony A7iv, Canon R6II, Canon 7dmk2, OM System OM-5, plus several lenses for these cameras.

Most of my lenses for my digital cameras rely heavily on in-camera software to yield good results. When shooting RAW, I can see the images without the enhanced software applied. Needless to say, the images need PLENTY of processing software to be even usable. Vignetting, softness, etc., are very noticeable.

On the other hand, whenever I look through the viewfinder of one of my film cameras (except of course from my Nikon S2 Rangefinder), the image I see is usually 99.9% what I get. If there is vignetting or softness, I'll see it even before I snap the first picture. If lenses back then showed any optical "characteristics" of newer, software-enhanced lenses for digital cameras available nowadays, they would never have been sold.

So, the physical characteristics (optics) of older lenses prevented them from looking like what newer lenses today look like without in-camera software applied. I do understand that AF and vibration reduction requires motors in newer lenses, so they "have" to be made lighter/smaller for ease of use (although my older Nikon AF-D lenses were pretty small compared to newer lenses).

I am currently in the process of buying a couple of lens mount adapters to fit my older manual focus lenses on my newer mirrorless bodies, so I'll have a better idea of how older lenses compare to newer lenses.

What are your thoughts; are older lenses better (optically) than newer lenses?

 

[Freakscene]

What are your thoughts; are older lenses better (optically) than newer lenses?

It depends on what you call good and what modern and old lenses you mean. Modern Leica lenses for interchangeable lens 24x36mm sensor cameras generally don’t rely on software correction. Others do to varying degrees. What people here think of software has been discussed before: Do you care about in camera lens corrections? but often software correction is used to make lenses cheaper, lighter, smaller or gain other factors. If you are willing to carry a giant brick, sure, no software correction might be ideal, but there are other considerations.

Expectations about what lenses can do has also shifted enormously. Compare a v4 35mm Summicron, the APO-Summicron 35mm, and then the high end 35mm lenses for mirrorless cameras from Nikon, Canon and Sony. Modern lenses for mirrorless cameras are phenomenal, at the cost of relaxing size and weight limits as most casual photography is done with phones (which rely entirely on software for quality).

 

[Out to Lunch]

are older lenses better (optically) than newer lenses?

I like 'em all.

 

[TenEleven]

It depends... there is no clear answer here.

On one hand you have rangefinder lenses from Leica and Cosina/Voigtlander and a smattering of Chinese makers which use modern technologies and are corrected to a degree that would just not have been possible back in the day. They also command a price to go with that correction, especially since even today assembling lenses requires manual (expert) labor which is not cheap these days. Also unlike digital, once a latent image is formed you are committed. You can't correct the distortion or other vices away in "post" (vignette being the exception here).

As you have said a lot (not all! - there's Zeiss Otus etc.) of "made for digital" lenses - especially entry level zooms, or lenses that try to attain characteristics that would be impossible in combination with full correction (tiny & high speed) - so digital post processing comes in as a clutch. This of course also helps making these things cheaper and with more loose tolerances, such as most modern plastic auto-focus lenses having no hard infinity stop, etc.

However, there is also the (imo very important) consideration that digital sensors are so much more demanding on lenses than film ever used to be. The situation has improved a bit with BSI sensors but it is still an issue. The rays of light have to come in much more perpendicular to the sensor to avoid visible optical defects such as vignetting, reflections off the sensor, color distortions etc.

Here's an illustration I made almost a decade to demonstrate. It's still relevant today:

(Ignore the lens diagram, back then I just grabbed whatever illustration off the net and added to it)

 

[Freakscene]

However, there is also the (imo very important) consideration that digital sensors are so much more demanding on lenses than film ever used to be. The situation has improved a bit with BSI sensors but it is still an issue. The rays of light have to come in much more perpendicular to the sensor to avoid visible optical defects such as vignetting, reflections off the sensor, color distortions etc.

A major driver of size in mirrorless camera lenses is the need to make them telecentric. Leica M lenses get around this by matching cameras with angled microlenses, but this comes with other imaging compromises.

 

[Bolo Kukus]

I also prefer the older lenses. Mostly as they are usually what I can afford.

My collection of Nikon D lenses grew from a decade of careful and cautious buying. Now and then I lucked into a second copy of a lens I already had (= 28/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 Ds) and I bought it. Usually to trade/resell at a reasonable profit to later buy another lens I wanted.

Which is how I acquired a stash of 13 Nikons, (11 Ds and 2 Zs.)

My latest goal is to somehow find an affordable Z 24-70 zoom. Last year I located a used one in as new condition in a Melbourne retail shop for AUD $600 with a 1 year guarantee - and I stupidly passed on it. Six months later these lenses go for AUD $800-$850. Ebay has 'em cheaper but for any purchase online of >$100 I prefer to handle the goods before I cough up the cash.

To return to a comment closer to the gist of this thread, I've used my old (F, AI, AIS) Nikkors on all my digital cameras, and I've not seen any great differences in the images they make. The Z 40/2.0 I have renders a tad 'soft' compared to the more robust sharpness of the Z 28/2.8, but closed down to f/8 which is usually where I keep mine, the results are pleasing to my eye. Which is what my photography is about.

I console myself, sort of, with the thought that any two lenses of a 'batch' (= my two 28/2.8 Ds or 50/1.4 Ds) will make images that differ slightly between the two. Whether or not those differences will be immediately visible, is obviously a moot point.

To my eye the colors between the Ds and the Zs look about the same. Maybe my Zs produce a tad more 'pastel' look than the older lenses. This is entirely anecdotal from me - I've yet to make prints of the same image taken with two or more of my Nikkors. To me this seems the only way I'll see any differences, by eyeballing two or more finished prints.

 

[ellisson]

I suspect the improved coatings and their benefits are seen with modern lenses compared with older, especially very older, lenses. Colors, flare resistance and contrast.

 

[boojum]

I shoot both. I like the older lenses because they are lless exact. I do not need somethnig to make engravings with, I need something that adds something to the image. I have some old Sonnars that are nice and the Cooke Amotal which is great. Some newer CV that are OK and newer "replica" or "clone" lenses. On balance I'd say that on M bodies I prefer the older lenses. On HB's I use what they make now and they make good ones. In this particular case I'd say the HB body and lens is tops.

But on an M body it is the old or retros. For flowers and portraits the Amotal, for portraits the Skyllaney Berteles or the '42 CZJ 1,5 from the 272nnnn series.. Otherwise itis whatever I feel like. I am nor knowledgeable enough to select a lens for a shoot on any regular basis.

 

[Cascadilla]

I don't think there is a definitive answer to your question but I can share some experiences that I have had. I have been photographing small antiques for an organization of collectors for almost 30 years. It is a very hectic day and a half of shooting followed now by a lot of time in Photoshop as well as relabeling images to correspond with their filing system, which now goes back 80+ years. Pre digital I shot this on both slide film for their publication and color negative film so that their members could order prints. Labelling and numbering by hand wasn't much fun. My film set up was two matching Pentax LX bodies with 100 mm bellows macro lenses (the camera bodies could rotate around the axis, a great time saver) since I didn't dare to use zoom lenses for this given their optical limitations. Now I shoot with a Pentax K 1 DSLR and a Pentax 70-210 f/4 zoom and watch the small amount of distortion and vignetting go away in Camera Raw in Photoshop. I am able to photograph many more objects and from different angles because of the zoom lens that I never could have done with macro lenses and the quality is better than what I could do with film. So in this case, the modern lens combined with post processing is a clear winner. That said, I still have a Pentax 85 mm f/1.8 from nearly 50 years ago that looks great on digital as well as film. Not all of my older lenses from that era hold up that well on digital, but a few do.

 

[JeffS7444]

I prefer modern lenses on my modern cameras, but I make exceptions for special-purpose lenses which may only see occasional use, or where state of the art performance isn't needed.

Software correction isn't a cure-all, but it does allow for some "impossible" designs, like Nikon's Z-mount 16-50mm pancake zoom lens: I imagine that achieving similar levels of performance using optics alone would make for a big, heavy, and expensive lens.

 

[steveyork]

I've been gravitating to the older, single coated lenses. Not as contrasty and sharp as modern lenses, but great tonal transitions in B&W film and nice highlight rolloff. Over the summer I acquired a Leica M2 outfit locally from the grandson of the original owner. Would not have searched out these lenses individually, but it was at an attractive price. When I used some the lenses, lenses like the original 8 element Summicron, the first 50mm Summilux, 21/4 Super Angulon, I was whowed, stunned even -- great midtones, that really stretch the picture, something special about them. Modern aspherical really crush midtones, and seem to depend on contrast while these lenses are based on tonal transitions. Talking about B&W film here, not color film or digital. These old lenses are plenty sharp wide open, at least for B&W film, unique signatures, some of them with soft glows wide open, and excellent micro contrast stopped down. You have to be careful how they are developed and scanned or you lose some of that specialness. So positively surprised by these old lenses, I picked up another 8 element Summicron favorably priced, and am considering selling all the newer lenses. I've just been totally blown away by these older lenses on B&W film; feel like I finally found my tribe. And I've only scratched the surface in learning how to use them. Funny, 30 years ago, when I started with Leica M, I wanted sharp and high contrast, but now I prefer more subtle contrast and better tonality. Don't get me wrong, these old lenses are sharp enough, contrasty enough, they just don't rely on those attributes to make the picture. Just my experience.

 

[Godfrey]

"Are Older Lenses Better Than Newer Lenses?"

Unless you care to articulate some criteria, some metrics, for what constitutes "better", "older", and "newer", the answer is entirely subjective.

I have Leica, Hasselblad, Olympus, and Nikon systems, both film and digital capture models. For each of them, I have lenses ranging from "current production" to sixty years old, and I often use lenses from one system on another.

The goal isn't the "best" or "best performing" camera or lens. My goal is satisfying photographs. Looking for that, and assuming a baseline of competent equipment, most of the nuances of older vs newer vs better are irrelevant. If I don't list the technical info with my photographs, I challenge anyone to tell me which lens and body took what photographs...

G
—
"No matter where you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Banzai

 

[Ororaro]

I much prefer old lenses.
Last year while in Paris, I made it a point to use an old uncoated Summar with a severely polished/sanded front element from years of t-shirt cleaning.

Throroughly cla’d, butter smooth all over, heavenly haptics. The images? Blurry, low contrast. Lovely. Failed, clumsy, bothering to the eyes, romantic… all in all, Lovely.

 

[Alpsman]

I don't care much if newer lenses are better than older, have higher resolution or lower, have more ore less microcontrast or more or less flare or a certain character or lighter or heavier or whatsoever.
I just want them to be full metal, no plastic parts and no rubber rings to rest my sensitive fingers on - may they be older or newer.

 

[santino]

I agree that haptics are a major factor and probably only inexpensive D primes are an exceptions for me (I have a soft spot for the 50 1.8 and 28 2.8 early made in Japan lenses on my F90). Optically, new lens can outperform their older counterparts but at other trade offs, so I don’t care.

 

[pvdhaar]

In the late 70's, I had a 300mm/5.6 Tokina that even when stopped down showed a lot of color fringing outside the very center of the frame. It mainly showed up anywhere with white and blue backgrounds, so you really had to work around this. Contrast that with a Nikon 300mm/f4 (the screw driver one), and it's so evident that a couple of decades of progress in optical design really makes a difference. Virtually no fringing even in the corners, and a lot sharper overall already from wide open.

Does that mean that any newer lens is better than an older one? No. Case in point: at one time I had both the 50/1.8 AFD and AFS. Decided to let go of the AFS version because of the extreme onions in out of focus highlights.. Once I noticed that, I just couldn't unsee it anymore.

So, all in all, it differs..

 

[kbb]

EDIT: My concern is what old lenses might do on digital.
ORIGINAL POST: Old lenses designed for film are fine... on film. Most of the Leica-M, Nikon, Contax-Zeiss, Pentax, etc lenses that I used on film were really good... on film. Many of the normal to long focal length old film era lenses also seem to survive just fine on digital. Unfortunately, those like me who work mainly in the normal to short focal lengths can tell a different story. The afore-mentioned digital sensors' need for telecetricity is part one of the story. Part two is the glass filter stack sitting on top of the digital sensor. The filter stack generally wreaks havoc with wide angle lenses that aren't designed to account for it's presence. Typically, one sees a blurring at the sides of the 24x36 image that's not there on film and is, IMO, distracting and can often spoil the imagery from a given lens. Worse: The filter stack thicknesses are not standardized between makes, so Leica has the thinnest, (said to ≈1mm) Nikon and Canon are in the middle range, and Sony and Micro 4/3rds (said to be 2mm) are the thickest.

 

[Valkir1987]

If you make large prints, and take photo's of architecture and landscapes for example. The corner of the images can be just as important as the centre. The Tessar was fine for medium format, untill it was superseded by the Biometar and Planar. Not for the demand of photo amateurs (like most of us) but for large prints from parts of scenes and products for example.

It's the image that counts in the end. Yet I find myself into the habit of buying lenses too. Just because I want to treat myself from time to time.

Part two is the glass filter stack sitting on top of the digital sensor. The filter stack generally wreaks havoc with wide angle lenses that aren't designed to account for it's presence.

True, the filter changes the correction condition of the optical setup. With a minor increase in sferic abberation and distortion as well. H.M. Dekking wrote about it in his book. The wider the angle, the more this effect becomes visible.

 

[Dogman]

Except for taking pictures of charts, lens performance is hard to quantify. I like both older and newer lens designs. Some of the lenses I like got mediocre reviews when performance was measured on a chart. I really don't care if a lens is corrected with software or by magic incantations. How the picture looks is more important to me than the lens design.




....................................................

 

[Shadams]

Hmmm....as Cascadilla, Godfrey, and FreakScene have pointed out: criteria required.

I shoot a lot. I like to play with visual explorations. So mostly I want the camera, and lens, to get out of the way. To that end, system cameras seem to work wonders for me. Others can achieve the same thing with "old-bolted-to-new" non-systems but that's not my bag. When I shot film it was with Leica with Leitz lenses, Spotmatics backed Takumars and Nikons backed Nikkors. Over the last couple of years I've moved to Canon's mirrorless R system and I'm super impressed by how I can frame on straight lines and not see curves that don't exist. Crazy edge-to-edge sharpness and simply all-round great image quality. Certainly enough quality that I haven't rejected a frame in a long time because of some technical issue that wasn't my or the body's fault but rather the lens's. The primes and zooms have gotten smaller and lighter (I've lifted weights all my life...) and I really like that. One of the Canon R bodies has a 24-240mm on it. It's rather small, a bit slow, and quite light. Great bokeh wide open at 240mm and headshot distance Incredible. Focuses close. Doesn't bend straight lines.

I'd have to say, then, with some qualification, that the new lenses, when paired with the bodies they were designed with, are freakin' unbeatable. Until some other technology comes along, of course.