mich rassena
Well-known
I've recently gotten into adapting lenses from 35mm to micro 4/3 in a big way. I have a small selection of adapters and quite a few lenses from most major camera systems (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, etc) and quite a handful of CCTV and cine lenses.
I wonder if all the worry about vignetting and sharpness, etc, was really only relevant when using slide film. If you're using these lenses on a digital system, a little bit is easy to remove in post, chromatic aberration can be reduced or eliminated, and a little bit of apparent sharpness can be added. None of these will make a bad lens good, but with judicious post-processing you can eliminate the minor differences between good prime lenses.
Some of my lenses don't cover the sensor with their image circle, there's a strong black area around the image, there's nothing to be done with that. A few that I use have such strong vignetting and field curvature that panoramic stitching is challenging and not worth the trouble. So "bad" lenses exist. Though there's something to be said for using them for special effects. Even if you don't buy into the LOMO thing at the price point that company is asking, there is something compelling about using lenses which not only fail at perfection, but don't even strive for it. It can force you to be more creative. I recall I bit of faint praise I once received about one of my photos: "It sure is sharp". I'd much prefer that the observer of my work notice and comment on the subject or the composition.
As far as sharpness goes, all I really care about is if the subject is properly in focus and the regions which should be sharp, are sharp. What I've found on the micro 4/3 camera I have that most prime lenses resolve beyond what a single photo at the base ISO can render. There's just too much noise even at that level. I take multiple shots and combine them, eliminating noise, and there is more detail uncovered. So that tells me the lenses are good enough. Maybe if I had a full frame mirrorless it could keep up.
As someone said upthread, the real advances in the last 30 years, beyond autofocus, is what relative to the 1950s classic formulas would be exotic lenses: ultrawides, superzoom 10x telephotos, super-fast wides. None of these existed in any quantity 50 years ago. A lot of these push the envelope, so perhaps there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially at the edges of the image circle. I can't afford any of these, so I wouldn't know.
I wonder if all the worry about vignetting and sharpness, etc, was really only relevant when using slide film. If you're using these lenses on a digital system, a little bit is easy to remove in post, chromatic aberration can be reduced or eliminated, and a little bit of apparent sharpness can be added. None of these will make a bad lens good, but with judicious post-processing you can eliminate the minor differences between good prime lenses.
Some of my lenses don't cover the sensor with their image circle, there's a strong black area around the image, there's nothing to be done with that. A few that I use have such strong vignetting and field curvature that panoramic stitching is challenging and not worth the trouble. So "bad" lenses exist. Though there's something to be said for using them for special effects. Even if you don't buy into the LOMO thing at the price point that company is asking, there is something compelling about using lenses which not only fail at perfection, but don't even strive for it. It can force you to be more creative. I recall I bit of faint praise I once received about one of my photos: "It sure is sharp". I'd much prefer that the observer of my work notice and comment on the subject or the composition.
As far as sharpness goes, all I really care about is if the subject is properly in focus and the regions which should be sharp, are sharp. What I've found on the micro 4/3 camera I have that most prime lenses resolve beyond what a single photo at the base ISO can render. There's just too much noise even at that level. I take multiple shots and combine them, eliminating noise, and there is more detail uncovered. So that tells me the lenses are good enough. Maybe if I had a full frame mirrorless it could keep up.
As someone said upthread, the real advances in the last 30 years, beyond autofocus, is what relative to the 1950s classic formulas would be exotic lenses: ultrawides, superzoom 10x telephotos, super-fast wides. None of these existed in any quantity 50 years ago. A lot of these push the envelope, so perhaps there is quite a lot of room for improvement, especially at the edges of the image circle. I can't afford any of these, so I wouldn't know.
zuiko85
Veteran
Yeah, no news to us old timers. Even simple meniscus lenses can be fairly good, used within certain parameters. I salvaged one out of an Agfa 6x9 box camera. With a focal length of 95mm and working at f16 it did quite well on my Olympus Pen F film camera. Was really amazed at the resolution of a single element.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Cal, it is too technical. Most who are after old glass on digital are after bokeh - something sharp in the middle, the rest is soft.
KoFe,
I'm right there with you. Had the 50 Lux ASPH for my Monochrom, traded it away, and I like much better a Version 1 50 Rigid with the distance scale in feet only. I also love the Nikon 35/1.8 in LTM.
Even on my Leica SL I have a 50 Lux-R "E60" that has the prettiest rendering. Also a 35 Lux-R 3-cam. The bokeh is like a version 2 Noctilux, a balance of sharpness and softness. These lenses love to be shot wide open. This "R" glass does not soften colors as in your comment. The "R" glass on the SL encourages shooting wide open and using close focus. The glass makes art. I happen to love the colors from the "R" glass. Lots of depth. Really does not get better than this.
Cal
charjohncarter
Veteran
Good post, I'm like many that don't really care too much about resolution: more character. I do find that I like my 50s and 60s all metal prime lenses just for there solid mounts and ease of manual focusing. Now whether I have eyes good enough to achieve that focus is another question.
pgk
Well-known
I have an old Mountain Elmar (105mm f/6.3) in a home made mount which I've been using on a Sony A7II. I am staggered at the images it can produce stopped down. They are not up to the best of current lenses but are very acceptable for most purposes although I must get a proper UV filter for it as I think that it does suffer from UV contamination in the mountains.
I also have a late 1850s Petzval lens which whilst soft on axis on the A7II, is surprisingly good - given its 160 year age.
The cheapest brilliant performer is the plasticky 35~70 Nikkor which is an extraordinarily good lens for its price (~£30 in the UK) and 'sharp' as you could want.
Use carefully many older lenses produce excellent results. New, shiny lenses do a bit better but in the real world the differences are often not as great as many would like to think.
The real shifts are in the more specialist, esoteric lenses such as super-telephotos and ultra wides where older lenses either did not exist or were horrifically expensive and are simply outclassed significantly these days. Some lenses such as macro, may be sharp enough today but lack the versatility of their older counterparts as they use IF mechanisms so are a trade off.
I also have a late 1850s Petzval lens which whilst soft on axis on the A7II, is surprisingly good - given its 160 year age.
The cheapest brilliant performer is the plasticky 35~70 Nikkor which is an extraordinarily good lens for its price (~£30 in the UK) and 'sharp' as you could want.
Use carefully many older lenses produce excellent results. New, shiny lenses do a bit better but in the real world the differences are often not as great as many would like to think.
The real shifts are in the more specialist, esoteric lenses such as super-telephotos and ultra wides where older lenses either did not exist or were horrifically expensive and are simply outclassed significantly these days. Some lenses such as macro, may be sharp enough today but lack the versatility of their older counterparts as they use IF mechanisms so are a trade off.