Posted by Larry Fischer on April 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM
I've been shooting Nikon before most of your were born. With the digital age I still have my film bodies and my lenses.
When used on digital I'm actually amazed at some of the digital these old lenses, some prime and some zoom, deliver.
The lenses of which I speak are the following: None are auto-focus.
28 mm f/2.8
50 mm f/1.2
135 mm f/2.8
100-300 f/5.6
500 mm reflex f/8 [brokah issues for some]
These lenses are AI except the 500.
The only lens I added as "new" is the Nikkor 14-24. I don't see much difference between the quality of the 28 mm above... So, doe 'new' VG glass and coatings do that much?
And now I hear with the advent of the Nikon D4 and D800 comments like "your old lenses are really good".
Does that mean old, old or more recent old?
Opinions? Comments?
the fisch
Posted by Mark Stahlke on April 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Good glass is good glass no matter what capture medium you're using. I find that my older Nikon 17-35/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 perform just as well on DSLRs as they did on film bodies. The same is true of my Nikon macro lenses.
For what it's worth, my newest LF lens is probably 25 years old and all my LF lenses are just as good today as the day they were built.
Good glass is good glass no matter what capture medium you're using.
Ah, yup.
If you don't need automation, the coatings are taming abberations and flare, and the lenses are in good shape--why not?
I have a beautiful, early seventies Schneider 210mm for 4x5 that is single coated. This lens is tack sharp and still produces wonderful negs.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
--P
Posted by Robert Bunch on April 14, 2012 at 2:43 PM
I switched to digital in 2002 and I have three very old manual focus nikkor lenses and a TC14 that I still use.
55/2,8 macro bought in 1984 or '85
180/2.8 bought in 1984
300/2.8 bought in 1985
TC 14 bought in 1985
I still use the 55 and 180 regularly. I semi-retired the 300/2.8 in 2010 when I bought a nikkor AF 200-400/4 mostly for the AF to shoot birds in flight. The 300/TC 14 combination was and still is extremely sharp and I used it for all my wildlife photos for 25 yrs. I am very pleased with my newer lenses but I can't see that my newer lenses are any sharper than my classics. If it wasn't for the AF for shooting birds in flight the 300/TC 14 would still be my wildlife lens. If these old lenses weren't still performing i wouldn't be using them.
Posted by Roger Rouch on April 14, 2012 at 2:55 PM
Most of my old lenses are gone for what ever reason, mostly due to a switch to Canon,but I do miss some of them. The Nikon/Nikkor 24mm 2.8 and 105 micro manual focus were a couple favorites. They seemed incredibly sharp in the day and bomb proof build. I think auto focus is way over rated for landscape and macro but do like the convenience of modern zooms. I wonder how many young photographers know what hyperfocal distance is?
Posted by Eva McDermott on April 14, 2012 at 8:04 PM
I just started fooling around with my Pentax 67II lenses on my Canon 5DM2 using a Fotodiox lens mount adapter. Using a medium format lens on a full frame DLSR, you are only using the sweet spot of the lens. I'll let you how it goes but initial indications are that this combo is brilliant. I still need to do a more control comparison to my Canon L lenses.
I still use my manual 50 mm on my Nikon D300. It gets great shots--why wouldn't it? The lens can be more important than the body a lot of times, can't it?
Posted by Gary McGhee on April 15, 2012 at 11:37 AM
I've never owned a film camera and I jumped on the digital bandwagon in Dec 2005.
I have several old manual Nikon lenses which work great on my D50 and D700. I got an 135mm 2.8 series E lens which has given me some fantastic shots of my children, an old Nikon 50-135mm Ais which I use more than any other lens I have and an old Nikon 200mm F/4 Ai which I dont use very often but it still gives me good results. (photo above taken with the 200mm Ai lens)
Gary.
Posted by Larry Fischer on April 16, 2012 at 7:44 AM
Appears to be true color, crisp,etc. photo, Gary.
And thanks everyone for the replies.
Truth be known each lens is really an individual; some better than others even with the same model, etc.
If that is true then the only way to really assess a lens is critical testing by photographing charts at different f-stops etc.
But, from the replies, I'm glad I kept my old lenses.
And it would appear for most landscape photography the older lenses might be a bargain.
Action photos are better with full auto, of course.
Thanks for all the information.
the fisch
The thing that come to my mind is: I think the only time great glass is critical is in print. With advanced web sharpening and such we can get away with murder for web presentation these days. Some of the crappiest lenses and softest images I have ever taken, I have gotten comments like "wow, that is sharp, what kind of lens did you take that with?!" So it depends on the output. So many only shoot to show on computers. If that was the case in my life (and it isn't) I would use any lens. But I do a lot of fine art enlargements for my work and my post production clients. It is then (as we all know) that good glass is everything.
Discussion
9 repliesWhen used on digital I'm actually amazed at some of the digital these old lenses, some prime and some zoom, deliver.
The lenses of which I speak are the following: None are auto-focus.
28 mm f/2.8
50 mm f/1.2
135 mm f/2.8
100-300 f/5.6
500 mm reflex f/8 [brokah issues for some]
These lenses are AI except the 500.
The only lens I added as "new" is the Nikkor 14-24. I don't see much difference between the quality of the 28 mm above... So, doe 'new' VG glass and coatings do that much?
And now I hear with the advent of the Nikon D4 and D800 comments like "your old lenses are really good".
Does that mean old, old or more recent old?
Opinions? Comments?
the fisch
For what it's worth, my newest LF lens is probably 25 years old and all my LF lenses are just as good today as the day they were built.
Ah, yup.
If you don't need automation, the coatings are taming abberations and flare, and the lenses are in good shape--why not?
I have a beautiful, early seventies Schneider 210mm for 4x5 that is single coated. This lens is tack sharp and still produces wonderful negs.
If it ain't broke, why fix it?
--P
55/2,8 macro bought in 1984 or '85
180/2.8 bought in 1984
300/2.8 bought in 1985
TC 14 bought in 1985
I still use the 55 and 180 regularly. I semi-retired the 300/2.8 in 2010 when I bought a nikkor AF 200-400/4 mostly for the AF to shoot birds in flight. The 300/TC 14 combination was and still is extremely sharp and I used it for all my wildlife photos for 25 yrs. I am very pleased with my newer lenses but I can't see that my newer lenses are any sharper than my classics. If it wasn't for the AF for shooting birds in flight the 300/TC 14 would still be my wildlife lens. If these old lenses weren't still performing i wouldn't be using them.
I have several old manual Nikon lenses which work great on my D50 and D700. I got an 135mm 2.8 series E lens which has given me some fantastic shots of my children, an old Nikon 50-135mm Ais which I use more than any other lens I have and an old Nikon 200mm F/4 Ai which I dont use very often but it still gives me good results. (photo above taken with the 200mm Ai lens)
Gary.
And thanks everyone for the replies.
Truth be known each lens is really an individual; some better than others even with the same model, etc.
If that is true then the only way to really assess a lens is critical testing by photographing charts at different f-stops etc.
But, from the replies, I'm glad I kept my old lenses.
And it would appear for most landscape photography the older lenses might be a bargain.
Action photos are better with full auto, of course.
Thanks for all the information.
the fisch