Just how well do adapted lenses, originally meant for film, work on digital cameras?

[milandro]

I often read and see examples of this adaptations done by the many followers of this trend and I have done some adaptive photography myself.

 

I wasn’t particularly struck by the quality and practical use of it so I sort of gave it up although I might do some more in future.

 

Obviously one cane take pictures with adapted lenses as many do but I was wondering if there was some inherent problem in doing so.

 

It turns out there is.

 

 

According to Mr. Takashi Ueno in his interview given to the Fujifilm Blog he says the following:

 

http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/

 

“...Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality..."

[Iko]

Yes, there are problems, you cannot have the maximum possible IQ with an adapted lens. One not mentioned by Mr Takashi is that

if the lens isn't absolutely parallel to the sensor plane you have problems with focus.

 

... that said I have an helios and I like the results, so it really doesn't matter to me as far as I paid the

right amount of money for it.

[mdecorte]

The article is correct, in that wider angle lenses can have issues with the sensor / light angle, but normal to tele lenses it's not an issue.  There's also the question of the quality of the lens.  Modern lenses are CAD implementations, with exotic glass, and multi-coated.  All of this was science fiction not that long ago.  If compared to a Fuji X lens which is razor sharp at all apertures to the edges, flare resistant,  with wonderful Bokeh, well they might not do so well at 1:1. 

 

Having said that, you can still get great results from adapted lenses at a fraction of the cost and if you stick with range finder lenses they are super small.  Frequently the aperture is step-less which is fun too.  

 

For example the below lenses are all nice.

 

- Leica 50mm F2 Summitar LTM Collapsible is a very fun lens.  Bokeh is a bit swirly. Very tiny. Flare is a problem.  My copy was $225.

- Konica 57mm F1.4 (not an RF lens) is quite sharp.  Larger, but still smaller than the Fuji 56/1.2.  My copy was $65.

- Canon 85mm F1.9.  LTM quite sharp.  heavy, but quite small.  Kinda makes me wonder why the new Fuji 90/2 is soooooo much bigger.  $200

- Leica 90mm F4 Elmar Collapsible M-Mount  Very fun.  Very small.  $175

- Canon 135 F3.5  LTM very sharp.  Biggest of all of these lenses but still fits in a pocket easily.  Wonderful ergonomics.  $100

- Peleng 8mm F3.5.  A fisheye can be very nice at times.  

 

I have Several Fuji lenses as well, 18, 23, 35, 18-55.  I'll pick up the 56 and 50-140 at some point.  Maybe the 100-400, but it's not quite long enough or fast enough for my needs.  

 

So as I see it:

+ Very fun and challenging to move back to a more manual lens.  

+ Fuji's line-up is good, but there are still holes.  

+ Much cheaper

+ Much much smaller lenses

= Manual focus requires raw + f with the jpeg in BW to maximize the focus peaking.  Not an issue for me as I only use the RAW.

- The lens type and f-stop are lost on import.  This can be fixed via lenstagger

- manual focus is hard for moving topics

- not quite as sharp

- flare....

- bokeh is frequently non-conventional

[f/otographer]

 

I often read and see examples of this adaptations done by the many followers of this trend and I have done some adaptive photography myself.

 

I wasn’t particularly struck by the quality and practical use of it so I sort of gave it up although I might do some more in future.

 

Obviously one cane take pictures with adapted lenses as many do but I was wondering if there was some inherent problem in doing so.

 

It turns out there is.

 

 

According to Mr. Takashi Ueno in his interview given to the Fujifilm Blog he says the following:

 

http://fujifilm-blog.com/2015/06/30/interview-with-mr-takashi-ueno-from-fujifilm-tokyo-why-dont-fujifilm-make-full-frame-dslr/

 

“...Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality..."

 

 

Yes, there are problems, you cannot have the maximum possible IQ with an adapted lens. One not mentioned by Mr Takashi is that

if the lens isn't absolutely parallel to the sensor plane you have problems with focus.

 

... that said I have an helios and I like the results, so it really doesn't matter to me as far as I paid the

right amount of money for it.

 

Im not quite sure that I agree with these statements in their totality. Are there problems with some legacy lenses? Of course...no system is going to be able to use every old lens available with complete compatibility. But as mdecorte said, most problems lie with wide angle lenses, especially those made for rangefinders due to theirs short flange distance and inherent lens design. The vast majority of SLR lenses should have little to no issue.

 

As for 'you cannot have the maximum possible IQ with an adapted lens", well this is a very open ended and unprovable statement. Define maximum IQ. I have never seen a maximum IQ rating for any lens I have ever used, either new or legacy. What I have seen is some AMAZING IMAGERY on flickr and other photo sites from users across the world using old legacy lenses. Go look up some photo examples of old Leica R lenses on any of the Sony A7's or Fuji cameras and tell me that they are not at maximum IQ, whatever that is.

 

I think the problem here is one that has bothered me for a long time now and is one of the reasons I don't post to forums as much as I used to. To often the discussion on these boards turns to lens sharpness, or quality of bokeh, or corner to corner sharpness, or chromatic aberrations or any number of things that mean absolutely nothing to image creation. 

 

Now don't get me wrong, you should always be aware of the limits of what your gear can do. A good artists should always pick his tools wisely. And again, if you are a paid professional shooting for a client the by all means you better have the right tool for the job. But for the most part in enthusiast circles way to much time and effort is spent discussing the technical specifications of lenses or bodies and the merits thereof and very little time is spent talking about things like compelling subject matter or interesting composition. The skill and knowledge and artistic vision of a photographer can overcome gear limitations any day of the week. I know this because of the simple fact that a great photographer can take a great photograph with crappy equipment. Just go look at some of the Pro Photog/Crappy Gear segments they do over at DigitalRev.

 

Here is a favorite saying of mine....There is no Pulitzer Prize for sharpness.

 

The majority of the great photographs of the 20th century, right up until the 80's when autofocus was introduced, were shot with manual focus lenses on film cameras. This is including all the great works from the great masters. I have seen plenty of work shot with the same old lenses on modern digital cameras that meet or exceed the vision and power of those old great photographers.

 

Photography is about image creation. Preferably the creation of a compelling image that can move the human soul. Or at least make you look at it and think. For the enthusiast photographer there is a incredible treasure trove of lenses from the film era out there just waiting to be picked up by you and used to create your artistic vision. Usually at much cheaper prices then modern lenses. Are these old lenses computer/CAD created with updated electronics and super cool coatings made from the rarest moon minerals? No, of course not. But I will be the first to admit that most of them (at least from the major manufacturers) are better lenses then I am a photographer. The day I can outshoot my FD 50/1.4 is the day I will have succeeded at Life.

 

Shoot more. Create more. Love light, not gear.

 

All of the images in these two albums were shot on old film lenses. I guess they aren't at maximum IQ.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157641534772013

https://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/sets/72157629936411965

[milandro]

This thread is not about lens sharpness.

 

I take plenty of pictures myself where sharpness is not the most important thing. Yet there is this interesting phenomenon of so many (often young people) using the most modern camera and the oldest lenses in combination.

 

This happens for the first time in photographic history with such high percentage of photographers.

 

In years past I have used plenty of techniques ( pinhole photography?) where sharpness wasn’t essential, but the number of people doing these things was relatively small.

 

Now it is very large.

 

That’s what I wanted to talk about.

 

See also my other thread on the use of the Petzval lens.

[f/otographer]

Ah, well now you bring up some interesting things not mentioned in your first post.

 

You are entirely correct, there is a phenomenon occurring for the first time in photographic history (as far as I can tell) concerning a merging of old and new technology. There has been widespread acceptance of mounting old glass on the newest modern digital cameras. This started with DSLR's and has propagated even more with mirrorless cameras due to the ease with which such a merging can be accomplished.

 

As for many being younger photographers? I could easily see that. Younger generations are always willing to embrace newer ideas faster and with more enthusiasm then their elders. Older photographers learned how to perfect their craft in a certain way so when changes in technology open up new and sometimes radically different ways of doing things they are not as quick to accept them. Why learn a new way with a new system when my old way with my old gear works fine? A younger photographer will be more excited and see more possibilities since he is not tied to years of past experience. Having said that, Im over 40 and I have been adapting lenses for years, even back to my Canon DSLR's.

 

I personally think the advancement in mirrorless cameras, from the quality of the imagery, the maturing of the format, and advancements in things like EVF and focus peaking, have opened up an incredibly creative world for enthusiast photographers. To have immediate access to some of the best lenses ever made in the world and to be able to use them with almost full functionality (at least in aperture priority mode) and at usually reduced cost is a huge boon to the world of photography.

 

To be honest, I think we are in the Golden Age of photography that Henri Cartier Bresson once talked about. We are at a time and place now where almost all people in developed countries walk around with a camera on their person at all times. However these cellphone cameras, while capable of producing stunning imagery, are mostly used to document the most mundane of daily occurrences. So maybe the golden age isn't so golden as we are inundated with gig after gig of food pics and selfies.

 

All the more reason to bring back cheap, high quality lenses and put them on amazing little digital image creation boxes and put them in as many enthusiasts hands as possible.

[Briant9]

I agree that lens sharpness shouldn't be of paramount importance, but with some legacy lenses for some uses this can be a pronlem.  Contrary to Mr Takoshi Ueno's comment, even when using Fuji's excellent lenses and sensors, there are situations where colour is incorrectly reproduced -dramatically so in some cases, as when I recently attempted to photograph some early purple orchids.  I found this happened with a panasonic camera too.  Yes, white balance can be adjusted (etc), but this is also true when using legacy lenses.

 

I've particularly enjoyed using my old Pentax SMC Takumar 50mm f1.4, and found it as sharp and more interesting in the bokeh department than an fx lens - though there can be problems with infinity focus with some adapters.  I've also had good results using two old Carl Zeiss Jena lenses.  The Flektogon 35mm is great for its close focus, and the (sometimes derided) 24mm 'macro', which though not actually a macro lens, gives good results with close subjects.  I wouldn't use it for landscapes necessarily, because its less sharp than my Fx lenses, but again, I really like the bokeh.  And, as mentioned above, focus peaking helps a lot. 

[Iko]

Probably I should have added "relatively to the available legacy lenses" to my phrase. I'm not saying that there aren't incredibly good lenses made in the past, but only that (in average) an old lens can't deliver the same quality of a new lens designed expressly for a particular mount and flange distance. An old leica 35mm could have been incredible on his native camera, but after years of usage, dust, humidity and with some third part adapter it probably won't deliver the same quality of a new 35mm fuji just out of the boxe and with a new firmware that as improved its functionality even more.

 

But as I sayid before, image quality isn't always the most important thing in a lens.

[milandro]

Ok, so, Mr. Ueno tells us that older lenses because of the nature of their construction ( because they were projected and targeted at a medium, film, which could accept and make good use of less perpendicular light ) cannot be as sharp as modern lenses.

 

Sharpness,  I may agree, is not everything, but then I think that a lot of the pleasure in using lenses that all of a sudden people took to describe as “ legacy”   is simply in the “ mystique" of  using lenses that are not autofocus, don’t have any electronic function and are not as sharp as modern lenses.

 

Yes, I understand it is about the picture and not about the “ sharpness”.

 

I was using large format cameras for a long time where the motto definitely is “ Why do it the simple way when we can do it the difficult way!”.

 

I know that has incredible quality but carrying around 50Kg. of equipment to go out there and take ONE shot in a whole day, says, to me a lot about out capability to go for the “ Mystique”, the Zen, of the act, above anything else.

 

 

Walking the road is the goal not reaching the end of the road.

 

I get that!

 

So, legacy lenses it is!

 

 

The funny thing is that the body that the people who use these lenses upon needs to be up-to-date and have a resolution that the lenses cannot match or , as we’ve seen with the X-Pro-1 not being updated, people complain about if it doesn’t have the latest firmware, which is a contradiction in terms.

 

Use a yesteryear lens but if your camera doesn’t have the latest software you feel emasculated.

 

Of course anyone can do anything they wish, my reason to start this thread is to call for a reflection upon the new photographic “ mystique” and the fact that we seem to be standing at the same time in the past and the future.

 

 

 

Don’t get me wrong, the mystical aspect of the Fuji experience was what got me into Fuji and to a certain extent back into photography where I had been professionally active since 1977 for over 30 years.

 

I love the look and the feel of the camera, and I know that there might be other cameras out there which are better than my X-T1 but are not what I feel comfortable with.

[Guest]

I have adapted my father's Pentax M lenses with very good results. In particolar the 28 2.8 IQ surprised me, seems like a modern lens designed for digital cameras.

I also have adapted a Pentax 50 1.2 with a zhongyi lens turbo and even if wide open is very soft I don't mind at all if I can use it for portraits at 1.2 like on film.

The last lens adapted is the A 50 2.8 macro with an extension tube. With this setup it almost reaches 1:1 and I'm very happy with it too.

My experience so far with adapted lenses is very good, I encourage everyone to try and have fun creating images with new and old stuff ad well. [emoji4]

[milandro]

A discussion on the 50-230mm and its diffraction qualities, sprouted me writing about diffraction affecting all lenses lenses but made me think again of this thread that I’ve started some time ago.

 

In the meantime I have fallen prey to adaptive photography again ( due to having bought a Kipon Tilt adapter) and I have bought myself a few M42   lenses  a 28mm f3.5 takumar, a 58mm f2 helios, a 100mm f 4 macro takumar and a 135mm f2.8 tokina.

 

All these lenses ( also the Tokina) are perfectly working with the adapter for the intended purpose and perform well at relatively high aperture but their quality drops off dramatically if completely stopped down and more so that they would have done if used on a traditional film camera and way more so on wideangles then of tele lenses.

 

So I had to think of Mr. Takashi Ueno and what he said.

 

 

“...Firstly, the angle of light that film and imaging sensors can receive differ from each other. Film can receive light at the slanted angle of up to 45 degrees without any problem, but in case of the digital camera, the light needs to be as perpendicular to the sensor as possible. Slanted angle light causes mixed colors and therefore the real colors sometimes cannot be reproduced. In order to receive the light perpendicular to the sensor, it is important to make the rear glass element on each lens as big as possible to put the light beams parallel from the outlet of the light to the sensor. Finally, the back-focus distance should be shortened as much as possible to eliminate the degradation in image quality..."

 

And this made me think of why the resolution drops so badly on a digital sensor when using a “ legacy” lens and not as much when using a lens made for the purpose.

 

The grid of pixels in the sensor act , in fact, like a curtain with blades partially in front of a window. If you are standing right in front you can see the window behind the curtain but if you go all the way to the left, or to the right you can’t.

 

 

 

Film was indeed more forgiving then sensors are.