jmanivelle
Well-known
Thank you very much Erik !
Who says old lenses are no good
- Thread starter peterm1
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 54
- Views 3K
Thank you very much Erik !
Nokton48
Veteran
Zoo 3 Makina III FP4+ by Nokton48, on FlickrAnimatronic Dino at Columbus Ohio Zoo
1950s 100mm F2.9 Anticomar Plaubel Makina III FP4+ 120 6x9cm ADOX Borax Aristo RC #2 5x7 Multigrade dev
BernardL
Well-known
peterm1
Veteran
By golly there are some nice photos turning up in this thread. Beautiful.
I am always amazed at the technical capabilities of old glass. I am even more amazed that given this, lens manufacturers have managed to stay in business designing and selling new glass for so long. 🙂
I am always amazed at the technical capabilities of old glass. I am even more amazed that given this, lens manufacturers have managed to stay in business designing and selling new glass for so long. 🙂
raid
Dad Photographer
Thank you very much, BernardL. It was an experiment with TMAX 3200.
raid
Dad Photographer
Hello Peter,
A good photographer has many lenses she/he could choose to arrive at excellent photos. The old lenses were very good from the start. A good lens does not have to have perfect optical qualities.
peterm1
Veteran
I agree Raid. I understand that lens makers need to stay in business so they keep innovating (often in fairly trivial or unimportant ways given the minor improvement in results produced) and many people keep buying in pursuit of better images.
But at this stage while I am, I acknowledge, a bit addicted to lenses, my interest runs towards the old ones which as you say may be less than perfect but which often produce nicer images as a result of those imperfections. So many "perfect" images I see on Flickr are bloody boring. Often just made apparently to demonstrate a lens' capabilities rather than anything more interesting.
Never the less I have bought far too many lenses in my time. Far too many! Most of them at least 30-40 years old, some much older. But they are for the most part much cheaper than new ones (excluding some collectibles and rarities) meaning I can indulge my hobby much more. I seldom pay much over $100 and often much less and even the image quality of some of these are the ones I love the most.
raid
Dad Photographer
I feel the same way, Peter. I the past few years I bought a few "modern" lenses. They are not among my favorite lenses. I love the old Zeiss 5cm lenses, say. They have a great history too. I ask myself, who used this lens since the 1930's?
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Leica II/Hektor 50mm f/2.5/Tmax400/AdoxMCC110
Erik.
Erik.
peterm1
Veteran
Lovely.
Makes me wonder why anyone would want a lens "better" than a 1930's Hektor 50mm f2.5...............
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Thank you Peter. The Summar chased the Hektor away.
Erik.
Erik.
jmanivelle
Well-known
Leica II/Hektor 50mm f/2.5/Tmax400/AdoxMCC110
Erik.
Very good one Erik. really intriguing .
Mr_Flibble
In Tabulas Argenteas Refero
Only because the Summar was a cheaper lens to manufacture Erik 😉
Two images shot with a 1898 Folding Pocket Kodak (What a year later would be called the FPK No.1), with your bog-standard Meniscus, choked at f/11.
Two images shot with a 1898 Folding Pocket Kodak (What a year later would be called the FPK No.1), with your bog-standard Meniscus, choked at f/11.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
Yes, the Hektor has six kit surfaces and the Summar four.
Thank you, Jean-Marc!
Leica IIIc wartime/Elmar 50mm f/3.5 wartime/TMY400-2/AdoxMCC110
Erik.
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
Leica M-P 240
50mm Collapsible Summicron
Similar threads
