great choice, I would also recommend Konica lenses, Porst, Minolta MD, Canon FD S.S.C. Also Fungus is not a problem if you have the courage and right tools.
Definitely. The breech mount FD lenses are so easy to take apart and clean. You can get some seriously cheap lenses if youre willing to do some quick maintenance.
One thing to remember however, coatings on some lenses are very sensitive to whatever chemicals the fungus is pooping out. So it might have done permanent damage to the coating, sometimes even etch the glass itself. On the plus side however, do you even care if you've bought a legendary lens for 5 bucks?
@@Mobius1_ My keeper is the Minolta RF 250mm mirror I got for free because it had fungus in it. I opened it up and the fungus wasn't even touching the glass, just on the walls. Getting a 1500€ lens for free is pretty hard to beat.
I use a Canon EOS M50 camera, and have several vintage lenses from over the years. Have bought the corresponding adaptors and the results are great, nothing lost in the picture or video quality. A truly outstanding way to improve ones abilities and results.
The Helios 44-2 was used on Dune 2 as well. I have been shooting with vantage for years other than when I need autofocus for a pro job. But that work is all cold and perfect. The vintage stuff has a look you can't add in post, and every lens is unique. If you are looking for the Helios 44 lens older than 1978 (first two digits of the SN are the production year) give the best swirl. The 44 is the first of them and they are the oldest and in Silver and in M39 screw mount. The 44-2 was built the most (estimated 14 million made) these are M42 screw mount and probably the best to get the unique look. The 44-3 is newer and looks more like lenses from the 80s/90s and can fit weird on some cameras, it still swirls and has more glass coatings than the 44-2. The 44m is late 80s into the 90s so it is soviet and Russian made, good glass but almost no swirl. Lastly there is the 44m-4 and it is a good lens with no swirl and is like a 50mm from any camera manufacture in the 80s and 90s. The 44-2 is awesome, I have 15 of them and they all shoot just a bit different. I shoot with one from the year I was born because I think it is fun. LoL Oh they are easy to work on and you can flip the front glass to get even more bonkers swirl.
Great video Mark. One very important thing you forgot to mention, many vintage lenses are Radioactive ☢️☢️ with Thorium glass! There are lists online where you can look them up, but sometimes there is variation even within a certain model. If you see a vintage lens with a golden warm hue its probably radioactive. The super-takumar fast 50s are a big one people buy that are usually radioactive. Do not hold a vintage lens up to your eye, do not ever break one inside your house, and especially do not eat the radioactive glass! I have also seen varying reports on how dangerous (or not) radioactive vintage lenses are but that is up to each person to decide if its worth the risk. But i just wanted to mention this as i had no idea when i first started buying vintage glass.
@@ChasWG The point I was trying to make is that radioactivity is a legitimate issue with older lenses and people should be aware of it so they can do their own research to assess what risk it may pose. If you leave a hot lens mounted to your digital camera for a long time it's possible it could damage your sensor as well.
@@markwiemelsI mean you would think that you wouldn't have to mention not to eat radioactive glass but some people might think it's a cheap way to get super-powers
So this has been pretty been debunked as not harmful to humans. I'm sure your cell phone in your pocket emits more... Which isn't harmful either. The yellow haze can be fixed by just using lens or setting in sunlight for a little bit.
If you get your hands on a vintage lens that takes a great picture, it's chef's kiss wonderful. None that I've ever used takes a clinically clear image, but that's not the point of them. They're almost always made using ground glass elements with (sometimes slightly radioactive) coatings that lend images certain characteristics you just can't get with modern lenses. They're also great to learn on since the lens does nothing for you, you get really familiar with your camera and things like focusing, ISO, aperture and shutter speed.
So much work, investment & time for this video, much appreciated & bookmarked. Becoming not just best lens channel but best camera channel. Thanks again ❤
Thanks Mark, after your video tested a Formula 5 200mm f/3.5 mount M42 vintage lens on Lumix S5ii in low-light. Be surprise about the picture came out. See differ with the original 200mm Panasonic Lumix f/4.0
That guy has almost every lens I've ever owned and then some and his reviews are SPOT on, he is a wealth of info, even if he just confirms what You feel like only you noticed about some of the glass he reviews. ♥
I have over 100 vintage lenses of many different makes. I shoot with both the Fujifilm XT-5 and the Canon R. For me, the easiest way to adapt the lens is to first adapt it to EF mount using a thin adapter. That reduces the number of mount-specific adapters, and it allows me to use the viltrox focal reducer on the XT-5 when I want to. BTW - The Viltrox focal reducer works great with vintage lenses. It doesn't seem to noticably impact the image quality. I recomend the adapter for people who want the "full frame look" in their images and effectively double the selection of focal lengths with any lens.
I think the best way for adapting all possible vintage lenses is to use Leika L mount, as intermediate mount... This way you just buy one adapter with leika L to your mirrorless body turning it into leika L body... And after you can buy almost any mount to leika L adapter and turn any mount lens into leika L lenst... What it will give you, is ability to use motorized afapters which are all done for leija L due to shortest flange dustance in the vintage lenses world, turning your manual lens into the slow autofocus lens... Also you will be able to use the best from vintage lenses world - leika L lenses, and also it is easy and cheaper to get vintage mounts to leika L mount adapters...😊😊
I think I started to collect lenses in 2010? It was quite niche back then and the prices were extremely low. Especially for 50mm and 135mm lenses. The Helios 44 is not a special secret anymore (and never really was). It was also used in the second Dune movie besides a Jupiter 9 and a Mir37 lens. You use a Helios lens because of its flaws. Center sharpness is good, but massively falls off to the sites, swirled bokeh, and strong lens flares. There is a ton of nice optics around. Olympus OM, Nikon F, Canon FD, Leica R and M, Zeiss C/Y. And a wide variety of M42 lenses. Got a nice selection over the years. My favorites are: 35mm: Leica Summicron R 35mm f2 50mm: Canon FD 50mm f1.4 (I also have the Leica Summilux R (1st edition), but I prefer the Canon) 135mm: Tair 11A and the Helios 44mm as an effect lens. Besides that, some other interesting 50mm options are quite affordable. For me, the Canon 50mm is special as this is my father's lens and I may have personal preferences knowing my childhood pictures were shot with it. There is a cheap Pentacon 50mm f1.8. It has a bubbly bokeh. The Olympus OM f1.8 is soft at 1.8, but razor sharp at f2.8 and quite small. However, it makes fun as long as vintage lenses are cheap. Nowadays, the prices are nuts, especially as everybody buys vintage lenses for their video productions. As famous, legendary, and hyped old lenses are, they are never as powerful as modern optics. If you don´t need this specific look (flaws) for whatever reasons, go for the modern lens. New machinery for production and coatings are powerful. Even a cheap modern nifty fifty will have way better contrast and colors than a 50-year-old high-end lens, even though the lens design hasn´t changed a lot (the Canon 50mm is basically identical since the 1970s for example). And modern constructions are even better. Nowadays you can shoot at 1.4 wide open with usable results and way softer bokeh.
if you want a great 135mm lens try a Super Ozeck close focusing lens, i bought one years ago and cost me £3 in charity shop, recently tried it out on my Canon M5 and its lovely hard to describe how it looks but for flower shots its very sharp but the background is amazing it doesn't have rings like the Helios but it certainly is unusual wide open. If you see one for sale buy it as i think you will be surprised.....never heard of the brand before but i have about 20 135mm lenses and none of them are like the Super Ozeck's.
WHOAH! The Matrix is real- I swear to god i just ordered an adaptor for a couple of pentax smc lenses (the 50mm and 28mm) for my sony apsc last night! Was it my own idea OR WAS RU-vid CONTROLLING ME? I've already plunged into the wormhole of chinese lenses (just picked up a SIRUI 24mm Nightwalker- I'm in love!), but the possibilities opened up by mounting vintage lenses will most likely CONSUME MY LIFE. I blame you, Mark😂😭
I love my old k mount lenses! I was surprised to see no mention of the massively prolific k mount, which is still fully backwards compatible to this very day. I can use an unadapted 50 year-old k mount lens on my k-3, and quickly adapt it to my 7D with no added glass.
In Vintage lenses, 35mm is more rare than 28mm. I have about 17 28mm lenses (ok I collect them) but I have 2 or 3 35mm vintage lenses because they are so rare, especially any f2 or faster. In film days the 28mm was THEE 35. And personally, I love shooting a 28mm. I even have that massive Sigma 28mm f1.4 ART because I find that focal length to just be so good.
I’ve needed a vintage 35 for a long time lol it was an uncommon length, for certain, but it fills a really important gap in my primes and would be so ideal for street photography
At 11:07, some other major issues to watch out for when shopping for vintage lenses are haze and balsam separation. Usually, haze occurs when a lens’ lubricants, like that for the focusing helicoid, becomes vaporized at eventually sits on a lens element. Haze will lower contrast and sharpness. It can get worst over time, though it is usually serviceable. Lens separation or balsam separation is when two elements, usually a doublet, separate as the glue is deteriorating. This will lower sharpness, contrast, produce aberrations, etc. Separation gets worst overtime and is nearly impossible to repair without expensive specialized equipment.
I know there’s an endless number of modern digital cameras, each with their own settings, but my Nikon D3400 and my Canon Rebel T7 both shoot fine with vintage lenses that have no electronic contacts by just shooting manual mode instead of using any auto settings. There’s no need to go into the menus. Perhaps higher end cameras are different but for hobbyist level cameras in Canon and Nikon it should be easier to switch your dial to M instead of searching the menu for a maintenance setting.
Ive been researching some if tge Marylin Monroe shoots from a clothing perspective and this just added a whole new layer to my vintage clothing videos. Thank you for sharing
100% support this behavior. I have a small collection of FD lenses I am converting to EF and L. Great fun to find and great character filled looks to explore. My most expensive was a lens ($45) stuck on a broken camera...lens was like new and I was able to separate them easily. A good day in a thrift shop got a collection of lenses under $20.
I've had this 300mm (non zoom) screw mount lens since 1978, I used it on my granddad's old pentax, it shot beautifully. I bought an adapter for our sony dslr, E mount, but it will not focus beyond about 25 feet. After that distance, it's blur. I'm shooting in manual, set the release w/o lens to enable, I'm crushed that it just won't work. I have a vello LA Nex-t adapter. It seems wider than many of yours, does the width of that throw it off?
Got to say thanks for your recomendations on mount adapters. I foolishly bought cheap ones on ebay and was not satisfied, they fit but had some play when locked in, one of them would not even lock. Took your advice and bought the Pholsy brand, and they worked perfectly.
Vintage glass is the ABSOLUTE BEST! I can't see myself spending what could very well be the equivalent of a mortgage payment to get the same look or better from a vintage lens that cost me the price equivalent of a couple of chili dogs or a nice dinner.
You just can’t beat old lenses! Even some old zooms are fantastic. I’m basically a prime user but I recently picked up two late 70s Vivitars (70-150 and 75-205). I love them - almost Pentax like in terms of colour rendition and character.
Those are THE three adapters I use myself. Just because I had the lenses. I used a Canon T80 a few years back with an FD mount, the Nikon EM with Nikon's F mount and a few M42 screw mount cameras with a bunch of lenses. And yeah: Using old lenses has become easier than ever with focus peaking and also the IBIS.
Thanks for the video, it's cool. One thing I will mention is some of the vintage lens manufacturers actually produced their own glass for their lenses. With the best ones the chemical composition of some glass gives amazing colour rendition and certain, unique looks. While the modern Chinese lenses are well corrected and quite sharp they often look quite sterile and similar in comparison. Some of the old glass is mildly radioactive too, usually having a yellow tint.
This is my favorite subject in photography. I am adapting Hasselblad V (CF and F) series lenses on my Nikon FF mirrorless bodies. It is simply amazing what you can do with MF glass . I am shooting always in Manual mode with aperture priority setting on my Nikons. Most of images have little to no chromatic aberration. The other advantage I noticed is the fact that the image circle of MF is much larger than FF(old 35). This means that my camera sensor is cropping the sharpest part of the image circle. I have only a couple of Z native lenses, but most of my work is done with Hasselblad adapted lenses. I will not go back in spite of losing the autofocus option!
Real good info in your video. The lens collectors will hate you for it. Helios 44-2.. I own it, is hard to use but can create some nice portaits. One more thing, if you ever find Zeiss lenses in Contax mount, grab them!!! Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 is a gem, but so is the 50mm f/1.7 and some others. Unfortunately, they are expensive.... But even Nikkor AI / AIS like the 35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4 are becoming really expensive nowadays. Good luck hunting for vintage lenses!
I use only legacy lenses on my mirrorless. I have used several mounts over the years and settled down to Pentax K for the simple reason of my lenses all being compatible with my Pentax DSLR and film cameras. LM to use my Leica lenses. Focusing manually is what most people have problems with, but there are manual focusing aids in almost all mirrorless cameras these days making it easy and painless. Pentax and Leitz thoughtfully made their new bayonet mounts compatible with their older screw mount lenses requiring a cheap, thin adaptor. If you have a Canon FD adapter, you can buy small conversion rings for Nikon, M42 and a couple of other fittings, saves having several bulky adaptors I bought a Sony 20-240 lens for £700 for my A7, it was slow and soft, truly awful lens. The 1990's Cosina 28-200 is lighter, faster, sharper and is AF on my Pentax DSLR. Cost £50.
I think the best way for adapting all possible vintage lenses is to use Leika L mount, as intermediate mount... This way you just buy one adapter with leika L to your mirrorless body turning it into leika L body... And after you can buy almost any mount to leika L adapter and turn any mount lens into leika L lenst... What it will give you, is ability to use motorized afapters which are all done for leija L due to shortest flange dustance in the vintage lenses world, turning your manual lens into the slow autofocus lens... Also you will be able to use the best from vintage lenses world - leika L lenses, and also it is easy and cheaper to get vintage mounts to leika L mount adapters...😊😊
Awesome advice...I bought a Nikkor 35-70 f2.8 push/pull zoom (late 80's vintage) for an old film camera I have. When I finally realized the lens worked on my D810 I was pleasantly surprised considering the lens being 30 years older than the camera. The lens might be heavy and awkward, but the photos it produces are beautiful. Didn't even have to use any adapters and the autofocus works like a charm (autofocus motor is in the body).
As I shoot pentax, there are loads of old K mount lenses that go stright on the camera. Now as for dust and fungus. Well I do buy spars and rapirs lenses now and then. So one to avoide are stuck apertures. You're probably not going to fix that. But fugus or dust. You have a good chance. Most is only on the outer glass. And thats normal only held with a screw ring. Some watch tools and a bit of determination and you can normally get them out. Clean them with alcohol. Then reasemble. Like new for £10. If it goes wrong, well it was scrap anyway. Don't bother to so this with any modern lens unless your a specalist who fixses them. Once you have AF stuff it all becomes unbelievably complex. Just the drive system have miniscule thrust bearings and roller crutches and for the life of me, I can't see why or what half of this is supposed to do mechanically. But it's almost impossible to take apart or reassemble.
Afghan Girl most well known? Hrrrrm, It'd would have been close last century, but now, nope. Earth Rise by William Anders, and the photo of Bruce McCandless's untethered spacewalk would both be far more widely known, closely followed by Tank Man, though the latter is only found outside the Great Firewall.
Agree about M42, and to extent M39 - the easiest lens systems to adapt. Agree about Nikkors. Disagree about Canon FD system - your 3 lenses are relatively easy to adapt and handle, but older ones with bridge-lock bayonet are atrocious. And in this video I didn't herd a word about Pentax K / M, Olympus OM, Minolta MD / MC or Contax - Yashica C / Y bayonet lenses - all of them easily adaptable and easy to handle, often with exceptional IQ, also quite cheap, all do not in such great numbers as Nikkors or M42...
First of all, I am sorry to hear about your illness. Best of luck to you! One thing I need to know is how does adapting a 35mm lens affect the fielf of view on my APS-C camera. If I want to buy a 35mm Nikon lens, will that give me a 35mm field of view on APS-C or will I see less than a 35mm FOV? That same question applies to using a 35mm tele lens on APS-C. I hope that you can clarify those questions for me.
Great video, although this can become a slippery slope, to be honest I prefer Pentax, Minolta and Konica glass to most of the Nikon and Canon FD glass, I do have a lot of Canon Fd and FL glass as well as some Nikon stuff as well and do like it but Konica and Minolta has some absolutely stunning glass, I have at least a half a dozen Hellios 44s 44-2s and 44ms the coatings on the later lenses are a bit better and contrast might be a bit better wide open. propably the biggest and cheapest sleeper out there it the Minolta 50mm f1.7 the later plastic kit version of this lens has fantastic coating and is tack sharp. they can be found very very cheap and once you have an adapter it opens up a world of outstanding glass with spectacular coatings.
Great video. The concept of adapting vintage lenses to digital cameras was very confusing to me a few years ago. Could this be done on any digital camera, or did it require a special camera? What lenses can do this? Are all vintage lenses adaptable? What about adapters? I eventually learned, but it took time and some digging. Your video makes it all understandable. I wish I had it five years ago. Good job. I love your channel.
I've been watching your videos on budget lenses for a while and I have been heavily considering adapting vintage lenses, then boom you drop this video it's like you read my mind
I love vintage lenses.I have adapted a few to my Canon DSLR cameras and will do so on my Canon R50 .Imagine if the lenses could talk what stories they might reveal.
MC/MD lenses are extremely cheap and work great! I have a minolta film camera and a micro 4/3 mirrorless so I picked up an adapter for $15 off amazon and have been loving shooting with the old lenses. If you have a national camera exchange or other camera store try to buy them in person. I got a 28mm f2.8 ($5), 35mm f2.8 ($10), 50mm f1.7 ($10), and 75-205mm f4 with 2x multiplier ($15) from their bargin table. Online the cheapest for any of them was $25 with shipping so if you can BUY IN STORE. No mold, mildew, or scratches, a little dust but it doesn't show at all, and for the price you cant beat it, love using them on my minolta srt101 and lumix g85.
I was expecting to hear about this in the video, why do you like the K&F adapters as opposed to others? Why not cheap like Fotaxy or expensive like Urth?
There is a guy on ebay that has so many adapters. Just ordered a M33 to sony E mount for this $10 lens i picked up that went on argus brick. Not sure if it will be fun or not, but cant wait to find out.
Surely you got the part on setting the aperture wrong, you said if you want isolation set the smallest f22 if you want a deep depth of field, set it at F5.6 that should be the other way around, isolating a subject to give shallow Dof is wide aperture and f22 should put everything in focus.
I fell in love with vintage lenses after finding a 1960 M42 135mm at a flea market and just going for it since the seller (who didn't know what he had) gave it to me for 10€, well under its value, especially since it was in great condition, glass was in mint condition, only the metal body was showing some wear... Been on the hunt for vintage gear ever since...
What about crop sensor bodies? There are adaptors that step up the focal length and makes the f stop faster by having a lens in the adapter. Do you recommend these adapters? Mask On Nurse Marty (Ret)
China is actually pretty good at making optics, they actually make most of the telescope optics which need to be even more perfect than camera lenses when correcting for aberrations.
11:25 people doing astro may disagree. You can ignore a lot of weirdness for normal photography but stuff like astro will normally bring all the issues out.
For the M42 mount I'd recommend getting the cheaper adaptors like M42 to EF or M42 to nikkor for each lens and then getting a single adaptor from EF/NIKKOR to the mirrorless mount.. That way the M42 lenses don't need to be screwed in/out all the time making it faster to change lenses!
I got an old Pentax lens from a charity shop for £5 and some of the images I've taken with it I liked better than those of the same subject in the same light taken with a £2000 lens at the same settings
Been loving the vintage lenses I've been getting. I recently have been building a set of Nikon Nikkor non-AI and AI lens. I have a 24mm f2.8, 35mm, f2.8, and now a 50mm f2. The 35mm and 24mm were real beat up when I got them, so I got cheap deals on them and the 35mm has been one of my faves for like 8 months now. The 50mm I had to clean fungus out of. As I convert all my lens to ef via adapters for both my Sony a6400 and Canon dslr, I've found Nikon F mount and m42 mount lenses the most useful to me. The Olympus OM mount also is pretty easy to adapt to ef. I really don't like using FD mount because it requires an additional glass element in the adapter to ef. The Canon FDs are beautiful lenses but tragically that extra glass in the adapter softens the image and crops the image a bit more too. For Sony, the FDs work great but for ef mount adpating, it gets messy unless you want to spend big bucks to convert the lens's mount from fd to ef on the actual lens itself. I also have a Helios 44-2 and a super takumar 135mm f3.5 like your two which I enjoy both, but I shoot apsc Sony and Canon cameras so both of those lenses are rather long for equivalent focal lengths.
I share your sentiment about the FD lenses; I have a few lenses for my A-1 which I had hoped to use on my EF gear but found out that not only does the adapter add glass which changes the character of the lens, it’s impossible to shoot at any aperture other than wide open because I get a hazy ring in the center of my frame!
I bought a Sony a 300 so I could use my Minolta a lenses just for B&W photography. Also bought an adapter for my Zfc for them and another for my Zeiss 45 mm. They work great, glad to see you are better.
In my opinion you can't go wrong with Olympus OM lenses too, they are exellent in quality and are quite sharp, even with crop sensors. Only downside is, that the OM range of lenses isn't that big and some lenses can get quite expensive, but I think the quality and uniqueness makes up for that! Great video, thanks!
Pentax Glass vs Canon Full Frame Warning - There's an Iris Lever and a shield on the back of Pentax lenses that if used on Canon EF Full Frame cameras, the Mirror WILL JAM AGAINST. You can mount the lenses and uses them for video, but do so with the mirror already locked up and keep it locked up, otherwise you will damage the mirror mechanism. Some idiots break the sheild and the lever off, doing so kills the resale, especially as you can unscrew the back cover to remove the lever and/or replace the rear cover with a sheildless one. If you have the 50mm F1.2, NEVER damage the back of the lens, it's just stupid doing it on that one.
If you don't have a mirrorless and have EOS you can mount NK, OM, M42 (probably not infinity though..), All Adaptall II NK or OM with cheap EOS adapter...
EOS adapters for PK are also good, without any adapting lenses . M42 mounts also work fine to infinity. I use m42 to k on my K-iii and as the k to EOS adapter when using my 40D and 70D APS-C cameras.
Wonderful clear explanation of vintage lens. I sort of look at them as "burried treasure". I have a Panasonic G9ii and with a Pentax adapter I am able to use my Pentax Takumar 1.4. I understand a lot more about using vintage lenses and manual focus but I l love the idea that mirrorless cameras can use these iconic lenses. It's the utlimate of recycling.
Sounds like you've been very unlucky! How many have you tried? I've bought and sold all sorts of Helios 44 variants over the last decade and haven't found a dud yet.
You have to get them from the right manufacturing plant my dude. I think Matthieu Stern did a video discussing it? Not trash at all if you know what you’re shopping for. :)
Thanks for another great video! With regard to fungus, it’s worth remembering that a bit of fungus in the front elements will make no difference to image quality. If a lens has fungus in the rear element, that will effect IQ and is best avoided.
This does not destroy the lens at all, it just allows them to be used on a digital camera, you can still use them on the original film cameras. I’m just using adapters, not modifying the lens.
You won't get a decent focus range - the PL mount Flange-Focal-Distance (from the sensor plane to the mount face) is longer then any full frame or APS-c mount cameras, so your lense will behave as if it has a macro extension barrel between it and the camera. You'd be better off ordering the EF mount from BMD and then using a regular M42-to-EF ring in front of that. M42 and Pentax-K have the same 45.46mm FFD, Canon EF is roughly 2mm shorter, Nikon is roughly the same longer, PL is 52mm. For reference, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
Love your channel, your love for vintage lens was one of the big reasons that I had started giving them a chance, and now I have like 10 or so of these lenses... (Helios 44, SMC 35, 50, Jupiter 9 85mm, Zuiko 50 Macro and 135 are some of my favorite picks). I have a question though, as I am in the process of retiring my 4 year old m50. Would there be a lot of issues with adapting these lenses to a7c and are there anything to look out for? I've been thinking of getting into full frame, and the a7c is my first choice given its size, price and weight.
I shoot M 4/3 (Olympus) and you can adapt just about anything. I have several M39 screw mount lenses and a gaggle of M42. PK IS A NICE MOUNT, BUT YOUR CHOICE OF LENSES IS SMALL.A favorite is the Yashinon DX 50mm 1.7. It’s a tank,but it renders colors well. It’s manual, but with a bit of practice you can nail focus quickly. Focus peaking is your friend.
I have the FD28mm f2.8 as well. I keep looking for an FD24mm lens, but they are usually quite expensive. I'm guessing that's because of the video folks wanting them. One of my favorites is a Pentax-M 50mm f1.7. The vintage lenses are definitely fun to use. "f8 and be there!" Nice detailed overview of this topic.
My choice, Olympus OM Zuiko. I now have about 20 lenses, some I already own since the seventies, and use them on a Sony A7(s) mark 1. Note, for focusing the magnifier works great. But do not trust the “focus peaking”, it’s very inaccurate.
Honestly, I have a cracked xf 70-300 and it still creates beautiful photos. Really only seems cosmetic if not for the bokeh balls having a "bite" taken out of it. So not really scared of small scratches or some light cleaning marks anymore. lol
Also, take your APS-C game to rhe next level by instead getting an EF mount adapter for your vintage lenses, and a focal reducer for EF to your mirrorless mount of choice. Full frame lenses, APS-C sensor goodness. I have the viltrox EF-FX2 and use it mostly with vintage glass and it's fantastic.
I have about 20 vintage lenses...fun, unique, etc. I’d say if you’re looking wide go the Chinese route... wides are so much better & wider now & less expensive than just a few available wide vintage lenses. Not the same look, sharper, contrasty... but fits the bill!
All great points. Also, here is what I do when adapting vintage lens to my Canon M mount. I buy the EF adapter for the designated lens. Then use the EF to M adapter which gives me the option of using the speed booster if desired. Also, if shooting on a micro 4/3 system, I only need one EF to MFT adapter for my entire vintage lens collection.
i do very simiar, though ive noticed some m42 screw mount lenses have the rear optical element protrude out of the back at a certain focusing distance. this results in it hitting the glass of the speedbooster and not having full range of focus. in this case, i just use a regular adapter to eos m
I have the 58mm Helios, a 50mm 1.4, a 28mm 3.5, a 135mm 2.8, and a 300mm 4.5, all vintage Nikkors. I want the 85mm 1.8, and the 105, 2.5 as well. It's a good collection to have.
Surprised you suggested Leica screw mount over M mount. I won a Voigtlander 15mm screw mount lens that came with a M mount adapter, wich are thin, so the seller didn't realize it wasn't native M mount lens. Saw a few of those online for a similar price to the 3rd party adapers for M mount lenses. This way one gets best of both.
I went through 5 copies of the 44-2 to find the one. You'd think the quality control of the Soviet era would be tight but it wasn't apparently. All 5 were 70's kmz. Finally found one that was sharp in the middle wide open. It is my favorite vintage lens to use and it's also the cheapest i have.
I am one of the people on the fence about these. I got an adapter by ordering the wrong thing so I've been looking up the idea of this. I think you covered all of the questions I had. Thank you.
This is a great topic and video. Thanks! I have a few Nikon vintage and a SMC Takumar. I would like to get more but struggle with finding the best sources. Another great RU-vid channel to check out for vintage lenses is Simon’s Utak. More videos like this one please - great work.
A thorough explanation of adapting vintage lenses to modern mirrorless cameras. Years ago before I even had a mirrorless camera, a high quality Japanese Photo magazine ‘Old Lens Life’ opened my eyes to using vintage lenses with adapters. In Japanese but lots of great example Lens photos and list of adapters available illustrating the possibilities. No, Vintage lenses are generally not modern optical quality (sharpness at wide apertures, sharpness across the frame and not just the center, very high contrast), but have that ‘look’ and character for unique quality. Filling out a lens system at low cost is another advantage and as you’ve pointed out rather fun too find. Just to minimize my cost with adapters I’ve settled on vintage M42 and M-series L39/LTM lenses [I already have]. As for the M42 lenses, I have found an advantage with the older 1950s lenses with the 2-ring Pre-set lenses design, able to set a minimum stopped down aperture with the one ring, and then a smooth adjustment and viewing the focus/bokeh with the other ring (and can add another creative element with video use).One thing with vintage L39/M-series lenses not covered here, is about the modern camera sensor ‘cover-glass.’ Many (most?) modern mirrorless camera have a thick sensor cover glass. This can have an effect on image quality for some L39/M-series wide-angle lenses that have their rear glass closer to the film/sensor than a vintage SLR lens; lessen sharpness and even ‘smearing’ effect in the outer frame area. The one mirrorless camera that I know addressed this is the Leica SL series with a very thin designed sensor cover glass.
Best camera to use with vintage lenses: Zf, because of the subject detection with manual lenses. Believe me, a game changer The Brightin Star is currently my favorite lens. And it almost fills a full frame
More adapter options include helicoid (gets you closer to your subject) and tilt-shift (for full frame lenses on crop sensor cameras). If you want to use a tilt-shift adapter on a full frame camera, you'll have to use a medium or large format lens.
its funny i have two f mont film camera and i bought a f to e adaptor but i never use it becasue it just add too much length and the balance is worse off than if i use the 40mm f5,6 from the chinese manufacturer
