Who says old lenses are no good

peterm1

peterm1

Veteran
Local time
5:59 AM
Joined
May 14, 2006
Messages
7,691
In the course of browsing the internet today I stumbled upon a couple of interesting videos labelled "Shooting a Video with a World War 1 Lens (100 years old)" and "Shooting a Video with a 137 Year Old Lens" respectively.

Though I regularly use old lenses, they are mostly from the 1950s and onward and I personally have seldom used lenses that predate WW2 (the one exception I can think of is a 1936 Leitz ELmar 50mm f3.5 and at a push I suppose could if so inclined cite a couple of Russian lenses based on prewar Zeiss designs - though with more modern coatings).

The first video above is in color and I never really expected the video to look quite so modern or the colors to be quite so vibrant. Very nice. But my personal favorite is the (partly) black and white video made with the 137 year old lens which is extremely good but contrives to maintain a vintage look. which is never the less very nice. And the color segments of this video have a lovely softer, low contrast, slightly desaturated quality to them

You might also enjoy this guys "Weird Lens Museum"
https://www.mathieustern.com/new-page-39

(Who needs modern lenses!) Enjoy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL2aGz8Jv48

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P64uoq69-2M
 
Well, don’t shoot video, just stills. That said, my motto is; ‘if I can mount it I’ll shoot it.’
Was gifted a Kodak Brownie #3 that dates between 1906 to 1911. It has a single element lens of about 130mm that I will leave in place. I will load photo paper, Ilford MG4 RC, in the darkroom and expose with the lens stopped down to f64 or so, on a tripod of course. So that is my oldest lens. Wouldn’t be surprised if the results a fairly good, especially in the center.
 
A Hektor 50mm f/2.5 lens from 1930. Full aperture. Printed on AdoxMCC110.

Erik.

48008919982_2c9a917028_b.jpg
 
I don't often make big prints from 35mm negatives, even more so with old lenses, but i had a request for a 50x40cm (16x20") print so i was interested to see the results. ( '34 Leica iii '36 Elmar 35mm 3.5)..... needless to say i was pleased with the outcome once i had the sunlight/shadow values adjusted to my satisfaction. unnamed by , on Flickr
 
Deardorff38 said:
I don't often make big prints from 35mm negatives, even more so with old lenses, but i had a request for a 50x40cm (16x20") print so i was interested to see the results. ( '34 Leica iii '36 Elmar 3.5)..... needless to say i was pleased with the outcome once i had the sunlight/shadow values adjusted to my satisfaction. unnamed by , on Flickr
Click to expand...

Wow, that is great.
 
If you think about it, Galileo built his microscope in 1609 and Zeiss has been in business since the 1840s. 20th century lenses - even pre-war lenses - are really pretty modern in the overall scheme of things. Sure, the contrast is lower compared to lenses with modern coatings but old (1930s through 1950s) lenses can still be remarkably sharp.
 
@Erik - that image of the woman with the phone is superb. It's like a still from an advertising campaign.

I don't have any lenses that old; my oldest lenses are my Dad's Pentax and Minolta kit from the mid-late 70s. They have super colour and richness if you get it right.

Pretty sure this was shot with the Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm f1.4.


SR-T - Blooms by Archiver, on Flickr

And this was shot with Dad's/my beloved Pentax ME and SMC M 50/1.4:


ME - Sky High by Archiver, on Flickr

I am really looking forward to adapting these babies to a full frame digital camera.
 
No-one really says that, at least on this forum, and not for applications that don't require extreme resolution, unless we're talking large formats.
 
retinax said:
No-one really says that, at least on this forum, and not for applications that don't require extreme resolution, unless we're talking large formats.
Click to expand...

I believe the OP’s question was of a more rhetorical nature. Tongue in cheek if you will.
At least that is the way I read it.
 
yossi said:
My Elmar 5cm is from 1950. Just shot with it today. Film: Fuji C200.
Click to expand...

Yes, nice shot. I have long been impressed by the ability of these old 4 element triplet derived lenses to produce extremely nice images. I have long since sold the Elmar I owned - together with my LTM 111a camera when I changed over to digital as my main form of shooting.

The only similar rangefinder lens I still have is a humble Industar 50mm f2.8 which I picked up for $50 Australian (around $30 USD) a couple of years again. I had bought it out of curiosity a couple of years back or use on M4/3 cameras but had never thought seriously to mount it on my Leica M8 (Yes this is proof that I must be a Leica snob). So I got it out again and did so and found that not only does it focus accurately it takes nice images to boot. I will try to take some images good enough to post here.

I also do actually have a Zeiss Jena 50mm f2.8 lens in M42 and already knew these lenses took nice images so I do not quite know why I was so surprised at the Industar being similar. What I am not surprised at being surprised at is that a WW1 lens and a 137 year old lens from the 19th C can be quite so good when mated with modern technology. Though I suppose on reflection at least with the large format lens all of the image making work is being done by the very centre of the lens where the optical results are best.
 
My oldest lens is a 1952 Elmar. Here is a sample from it on Tri-X
4975615435_21b4ef4a9c_z.jpg



I dont know if you can call it 'old' but my favourite is a 50 f/1.4 Zuiko from the lat 70's, Here another sample on T-Max at f/1.4


32170411391_bd78606dbb_z.jpg
 
As I indicated below, just out of curiosity I have mounted an Industar 50mm f2.8 on my Leica M8 (probably the oldest and simplest lens design I have to hand though certainly not in line with the WW1 and 1880s lenses in my original post in terms of age. Though its design is much the same as the Elmar and Tessar lenses elsewhere being demonstrated in this thread) and taken a couple of quick test shots around home. It's pretty good overall. Not the absolute sharpest lens (assuming I have done my job and focused correctly ) but sharp enough and pleasant enough rendering (and by the way remembering that both are shot wide open at f2.8). The color balance in the second shot is a bit off, probably due to the Leica not the lens.

EDIT: These may not be at f2.8. I just checked the lens and found it was now at f4 without my intervention - the joys of click-less lenses)

zOtMnlj.jpg


5IoV64L.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom