Why I Prefer Vintage Primes and Why You Should Give Them a Shot

Why I Prefer Vintage Primes and Why You Should Give Them a Shot

In a world of mirrorless cameras, vintage glass is coming back and for good reason. 

What Constitutes “Vintage” Glass?

I ask this because I don’t know. I actually don’t. The fact of the matter is that you can still buy a lot of manual, vintage-like glass today. In fact, one of my favorite lenses, the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8, is still made today and can be had new, though my copy is decades old. And it doesn’t stop there. Nikon alone still makes two 50mm lenses (an f/1.4 and an f/1.2) along with a whole host of macro and wide-angle lenses. When you start to factor in other manufacturers that produce excellent quality manual glass, there’s an entire world of lenses to explore. 

With that said, I don’t believe anyone would buy a brand-new lens and call it vintage the day they get it. Instead, if we’re talking about “vintage” glass, you’re picking up something from used departments of camera stores, KEH, eBay, and sometimes, antique shops, if they’re in good shape and you’re lucky. So, why vintage lenses? Surely, they are not as good, right? Wrong. Glass from the 60s and newer is still just as capable of a sharp image in most situations. 

Comparing Apples With Apples

To make a comparison of vintage manual focus lenses with newer autofocus lenses, I think it’s only fair to compare results from similar circumstances. For me, I often have my lenses stopped down one or two stops. With the exception of maybe portrait work, weddings, or event photography, I can’t see why someone wouldn’t be okay with stopping down a couple stops. Further, when I’m taking a photo of a scene and I want the best corner-to-corner sharpness I can get, I’m not shooting wide open anyhow. In that situation, I don’t think I know anyone who would. Once you’re comparing lenses that have been stopped down 1 or 2 stops, the difference between a 40-year-old lens and a brand new one is going to be negligible. 

So, if the lenses produce comparable results to one another, why shoot vintage lenses over newer, more modern lenses? For me, it primarily comes down to price and availability. Trust and believe, if I wanted a lens with a certain focal length where a vintage lens was as much or more expensive than a new lens, I would not be buying an old, vintage lens without a warranty. However, that circumstance happens so rarely, I’ve not yet had to deal with it outside of looking into a Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/1.4 Ai-S. The fact of the matter is that vintage lenses tend to be considerably cheaper. Some may argue that they’re considerably cheaper for a good reason, and it’s true: there is a very good reason. First and foremost, they do not generally have any technology in them to drive the prices up. For that very reason, though, they are often capable of outlasting their modern, plastic counterparts. 

Where the Biggest Difference Lies

Now that I’ve touched on why I think old school, manual focus lenses are worth giving a shot, I’ll address the one thing that really gets to me and no, it isn’t a lack of autofocus (I actually prefer the manual aspect), loss of lens EXIF data for most lens/camera combinations, or the inability to control aperture from the camera. The most frustrating part for me are the coatings. Almost never are you getting solid coatings with a vintage lens, unless you’re buying a Zeiss lens with the T* coating, which while available in older C/Y bayonet mounts, is still quite pricey and not something I was regularly picking up. Instead, I shot older Minolta and Nikon glass almost exclusively, and some of the older lenses really suffered from flares and could have a lack of contrast in more extreme situations. Note, however, that I said “in more extreme situations” and not in everyday situations. I could count on one hand how many times I really felt an image was ruined by a lack of modern coatings. However, not being ruined and as good as I wish they were are two very different things.

Two other things that came up often enough but pertained more to wide-angle lenses were distortion and being slow. For distortion, however, lens corrections could be done easily enough in PS, which  alleviated the distortion issue for the most part. As for being slow, I don’t know that I’ve ever shot a wide angle lens while going for a narrow depth of field, so my gripe dealt more with needing slow shutter speeds that made it difficult to impossible for low-light photography.

The Vintage Lenses I Use the Most

I have only three lenses that I will never give away (I give things away more than I should): my Nikon Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S, Tokina AT-X Macro 90mm f/2.5, and Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/2. In fact, if I’m traveling light, there’s a good chance they are the only three lenses in my bag. 

The Nikon Nikkor 28mm f2.8 Ai-S is solid as a rock. The lens mentioned below is perhaps the only lens that I’ve ever used that’s sharper, and even then, it’s debatable. The 28mm is really lightweight, compact, and has the exceptional build quality you would expect from a manual focus Nikon. All of the models from Ai-S and newer have much more modern coatings than my other lenses, and the newest copies you can pick up today at B&H have just as amazing modern coatings as you would expect to find on their high-end autofocus lenses. A plus to all of this, at least for me, is that it’s pretty solid for astrophotography, as the vignetting is minimal even wide open, and there is little-to-no coma with my copy.


The Tokina (a.k.a. ‘Bokina’) has pretty terrible coatings, but it makes up for it in terms of sharpness, build quality, and being a pleasure to shoot with. Some of my favorite pictures I’ve ever taken are with this lens, and I would highly recommend it to anyone looking to get a vintage lens > 50mm. While the poor coatings are a drawback, it doesn’t take long with it to realize that it suffers in such limited circumstances that it’s unlikely to affect your work.

The Nikon Nikkor 35mm f/2 is my favorite lens I own and gets the most use if for no other reason than that it’s my favorite focal length. The build quality and the sharpness wide open get the job done pretty well. It is, however, pretty terrible for night photography, as it can get ghosts/flares even when you try and prevent them. It should be noted, however, that I do not own a hood for my copy, but from what I’ve heard, it wouldn’t make much difference anyhow. 

Among the other lenses I have experience with and liked a lot, the Minolta 50mm f/2 sticks out more than any of the other 50mm lenses. The Nikon 50mm f/1.4 is a bit useless until stopped down once, but around f/5.6, it is painfully sharp, so it still gets a lot of rotation in my bag. Further, because of the Nikkor 28mm f/2.8, I hardly use my Nikkor 28 f/2 outside of specific situations shooting film. I’ve not had any telephoto lenses for full frame photography I would highly recommend. I have a few telephoto lenses on my list of lenses I hope to one day give a go, but none that I have any experience with as of yet. 

Conclusion

Vintage lenses tend to be substantially cheaper than modern lenses and for a good reason. However, much of the gains come in the form of convenience, advancements to camera/lens integration, and coatings. The gain in advanced coatings can make a big difference in specific situation, but not necessarily in most situations. As such, when comparing the results of a vintage lens that is 1/10th the price of a modern lens, you will most likely get far more than 1/10th the performance. While they may not be for everyone, they’re worth giving a shot if you haven’t already.

Log in or register to post comments

16 Comments

Never buy vintage primes. The prices should be kept cheap so I can buy them instead... :D

Dana Goldstein's picture

I loved the 35/2 as well! I would just emphasize buyer beware, bc so many people are selling their parents’ old lenses and such, that may not have been stored properly for decades. Any mold etc that is present in a lens can infect not only a camera body, but an entire camera bag full of gear. The major retailers are reliable, but I would still go over anything with a magnifying glass in good light. If you have the slightest doubt, it’s not worth the risk.

James Madison's picture

I hear that 100%. I typically weary of buying lenses I can look over with a fine tooth comb in person.

Matt Williams's picture

The Zeiss T coating has been around since 1935. I'm not sure when they moved to the T*, but I know Pentax was the first to make the advertising of multi-layered coatings a big deal, so Zeiss started to do it as well. That may have been when they added the * - the original T coating was a single layer.

Pentax and Zeiss did work together for a short time in the 70s, though; the Pentax 15/3.5 and 28/2 are the same as the Zeiss C/Y equivalents, the latter being the "Hollywood Distagon." But they parted and Zeiss went to Yashica.

Rob Mitchell's picture

Old lenses can be a fun play-around, that's for sure. I've not really bothered in the past but with more and more adaptors popping out for the Z7, I might have another rummage in the junk shops again for a nice old lens with mildew inside it for that added grunge effect. :)

had the 35mm f2 in my bag for more than 15 years : unbrackable lens !

Rk K's picture

They are fun for sure, but why on Earth would you use them for landscapes and astro?! That's probably the worst thing you could do after sports, as sharpness and highly corrected optics are essential for both genres.

Rk K's picture

Yeah, they really aren't as sharp as modern lenses. Also, 35mm for landscapes is extremely limiting.

Rk K's picture

Just because someone wrote it down doesn't make it true. Show me measured mtf comparisons from a relevant sample size, then we are talking. Enough with this anecdote bs everyone keeps spewing.

Keith Mullin's picture

My vintage Canon FD lenses (which I haven't paid more than $50 for any single one of) are just as sharp on my a7R3 as any of the G Master lenses I've used. The only 2 ways that I've found the G Masters to be better is out at the very edges of the frame, and speed.

Nicolas Thulliez's picture

https://flic.kr/p/WJeB9R
https://flic.kr/p/WJjKRa
https://flic.kr/p/Y1XfZ3
Some vintage lenses are pretty good for astrophotography, these pictures were taken with an old Nikkor 300mm ED IF F/4.5 at 5.6 and a D7000. This lens is my first choice when I can do astrophotography.

Mark Wyatt's picture

I have been playing with a some vintage primes most from the 1950s-1970s. I like the German lenses of that period mostly (Carl Zeiss and Schneider-Kreuznach in my case), but I have a little Japanese (and Russian) glass also. Mostly I prefer to use these lenses on vintage cameras, but I also adapt them to my Fujifilm XT-2. Typically when I shoot the XT-2, I prefer the modern conveniences (auto-focus, exposure control, etc.) that are not available on [my] vintage lenses, not to mention more difficult focusing. I have the vintage glass available for special purposes on the XT-2 (like portraits, where the bokeh helps). I mostly adapt the vintage lenses to the XT-2 when I acquire them just to test them out quickly.

I find lens hoods make a difference, ymmv.
If you have a mirror lens make a hood for it, makes a huge difference with contrast.

I have some vintage MF lenses that I use on Sony with Metabones. But I bought the things that were unaffordable in the film days, like a 55mm f1.2 Nikkor and and 105mm f1.8 Nikkor and three of the basic C/Y Contax T• lenses 28-35-50, for less than one of those back in the day. Also a 55 micro Nikkor for close up and copy work ($40!)
Using basic run of the mill lenses simply because they are vintage seems like intentionally driving a 1980 Ford LTD or worse yet riding a 1976 Schwinn Varsity, the bike we all lusted after back then, which is pretty awful by today's standards.
I also have a vintage 20mm f4 Nikkor. I think I have used it twice. It is a marginal lens at best and it's flaws show up more on a hi res digital camera. and they are not fun flaws like the 55mm Nikkor...

Keith Mullin's picture

For paid work (at least so far) I stick to G Masters. I bought my vintage lenses for the fun of it, and so I could give myself some more variety without breaking the bank. Nothing like building a 6 lens kit for around $300.

Nice article. My first vintage lenses, were not that vintage back then. Nikkor AI-S lenses were the newest in the eighties. Later over the years I bought one after one and until I got 16, 2x20, 24, 28, 35, 3x50, 85, 105, 135 and 180mm. Of them I most use the 35mm f/2 (at f/6.3 https://500px.com/photo/260089857 ), the 20mm f/3.5 (at f/4 https://500px.com/photo/260192333 ) or the 20mm f/2.8 (at f/4: https://500px.com/photo/176890481 ) and the 50mm f/1.4. I very much like the 35mm f/2. It's bokeh is beautiful and smooth.

You obviously got the better 28mm f/2.8 the AI-S than my AI version which one should not buy: very soft and low contrast with very bad corners. The 50mm f/1.4 is a bit soft wide open. But it is a kind of softness with character. The center is sharp though. It is great for portraits. https://500px.com/photo/260545775/ is shot wide open (f/1.4).

The 85mm f/2 is a real bargain and can stand up easily to today's lenses. The 105mm and 135mm f/2.8 are superb lenses, even wide open. The 180mm f/2.8 AI-S is a beautifully built lens. Very solid. I just bought it because of that and to complement the manual range I like best. The AF(-D) versions share the same optics but much less likely built. Stopped down one step (f/4) this lens is very, very sharp.

Living in Europe, I travelled to NYC last year along with the D800E and the manual 20, 35 and 50mm only. I never missed AF. And nobody taking a look at the pictures noticed the decades old glass and lens design I used.

On my 500px page are quite some photos shot with vintage lenses if you'd like to see samples.