Modern lenses are perfectly sharp and crisp. But perfection is overrated and can be rather boring. I have a solution to add some character back into my photography and videos.
As a professional photographer, I’ve been pleased with how technology has helped improve digital cameras and lenses over the past 20 years. It’s certainly made my life easier.
I can clearly remember attempting to make the transition from film cameras to digital in 2004 and being frustrated that the image quality wasn’t good enough for many of my client assignments. I remember shooting magazine covers being a challenge. But as we reached the end of the Noughties, digital cameras became usable for most projects, and life was good. As a long-time Nikon user, I could use all my older pro-spec F-mount lenses I had accumulated in the 1990s when shooting on my trusty F5. Perfect.
Let's jump to 2022. This is when I realized there’s a huge problem. I’m now using a Z6 for photography and bought a Z9 for video. At this stage, I also have a Z50 as an everyday carry (EDC, as the kids say), and a bunch of wonderful Z-mount lenses. Yes, I’ve made the transition to mirrorless 100%. My F-mount lenses have a film of dust on them. So what’s the problem, I hear you ask?
I realized that all the camera manufacturers are making perfect or near-perfect lenses. It doesn’t matter what the brand is—they’re all designed and made by computer and create incredibly sharp, chromatic aberration-free, flare and ghost-free, perfect images. Everyone is producing technically perfect photographs that are clinically sharp, sterile, and all look the same. None of them appear to have any kind of personality. Don’t get me wrong; perfect images are a blessing when shooting products, where the rendering of crisp details is important. A perfectly sharp image is good for a lot of things—fashion, automotive, lifestyle, food, interiors, architecture. Clients love the results, so why am I complaining?
This started to be an issue the more I got into video and filmmaking. I’ve found clinically sharp images don’t cut it for me. I want some character, some personality. Crisp, sharp images don’t look very film-like, or dare I say it, “cinematic.” I started putting diffusion filters on all my lenses, and that worked really well. Then I started doing the same with my personal photography projects. I soon found myself dusting off my F-mount lenses, even some of my really old lenses from the 1970s, and began using them for both video work and photography. This became—excuse the hyperbole—a game-changer.
I wanted my work to stand out and be different. Vintage lenses were the answer. One might go so far as to say it became an addiction.
Why? Allow me to share a few thoughts:
There’s Beauty in Imperfection
Vintage lenses are full of imperfection, from soft edges, vignetting, unusual and sometimes weird bokeh, color shifts, and lens flare. You can create a distinct aesthetic in your photos—something modern lenses can’t do. The Japanese have an expression for embracing imperfection: wabi-sabi. I’ll take character over perfection any day.
For videography, vintage lenses offer a more organic, film-like look. Clinically perfect sharp lenses are used for making sample footage that is played on 4K TVs in stores. Do you want your video to look like that? I can’t imagine anyone wanting to, unless they enjoy documenting colorful tropical birds with a 600 mm lens and want to capture every single feather.
Build Quality
Vintage lenses tend to be better made. My old Japanese-made Nikkor lenses are made of metal and built like tanks. I've thrown them around, dropped them, and they keep on working. I’ve knocked or dropped two light plasticky Z-mount Nikon lenses over the past two years. They broke.
Affordability
New lenses are expensive. It’s possible to find an older lens with an equivalent focal range for a fraction of the cost of a new version, even premium quality German brands. 135 mm primes are a good example. A new one can cost a few thousand dollars. I have one from the 70s that you can pick up for $15!
Vintage lenses are getting popular now, and I’ve noticed prices for many have risen by huge amounts. It is still possible, though, to find them. Some brands are desirable and can fetch silly prices, but some brands are less trendy and people show no interest in them. I often find great lenses in junk stores and flea markets for $15-$50 that are fantastic bargains and offer lots of opportunities for experimentation and fun.
Usability
There’s something rewarding about manually focusing a lens, and they’ve become my preferred choice. Maybe because it can mean slowing down, giving you time to think about what you’re doing, which can offer more creative control.
Some of my old lenses have incredibly smooth focus rings, and you can feel the quality of them as you focus. This hands-on experience makes them a pure joy to use.
The biggest advantage of older manual focus lenses is the distance markings on the barrel. I love street and travel photography, and set my focal distance using these markings. As I walk, I don’t need to think about focusing—I know the distance range that is in focus, and all I need to do is react to something and compose. Often I shoot from the hip, not looking through the viewfinder. You can’t do this with new focus-by-wire lenses that have no markings on them or even a manual mode switch.
Portability
A benefit of vintage lenses is their size and weight. They can be a fraction of the size of a modern counterpart, and despite being made of metal, still weigh a fraction of the weight too. This makes them perfect for travel and street photography, when you don’t want a huge lens drawing attention.
Adaptability
Using a lens from another manufacturer means a different mount, and in the past, this could be an issue. But no more. There are many companies making a huge variety of adapters.
Fancy a Leica vibe, without buying into the Leica system and selling your kidneys? No problem, there’s a mount adapter out there just for you. OK, even older Leica lenses might require the sale of one kidney. Fancy some crazy Cold War-era Soviet glass? Go for it. Want to try a really ancient rangefinder lens on your new mirrorless camera? Not a problem.
I Recently Mounted a 1920s Designed Lens on a 2020s Designed Camera
I have a Soviet-made Zorki 4K camera, with a Jupiter-8 50 mm f/2 lens on it. I’ve had it for a while—it came from a gentleman who owned it from new but barely used it. It’s in mint condition, not a mark on it. It cost $60. I would have happily paid that just for the lens.
The Zorki 4K is a copy of a Leica III from the 1930s. The Jupiter-8 lens is an exact copy of the German Zeiss Sonnar, invented in the 1920s and released with Zeiss Contax rangefinder cameras in the early 1930s, and it’s as good as the original. The Russians aren’t known for quality, so how come it’s so good? After the war, and when Germany was split up, the USSR controlled East Germany and got their hands on the Zeiss formulas and machinery. They started knocking them out first with a Contax mount—they nabbed that camera’s machinery too—and then a 39 mm threaded mount. Manufacturing continued up until the mid-1970s. One could argue this lens isn’t really a copy—it is a Zeiss Sonnar, going under a different name.
My camera and lens combo was made in 1974, one of the last to be made. I’ve been meaning to run some film through it, but it seems like a lot of trouble and expense, so I kept finding excuses not to.
Recently, K&F Concept asked if there was anything they could send me to play with and use in a video on my YouTube channel. I had a brainwave. I’ll ask for a 39 mm thread-to-Z-mount adapter. I’ll put that Jupiter-8 lens on my Z6! Brilliant.
When it arrived, I immediately headed to my local conservation area to put it to the test. I decided to put it on my Z9 because I figured I’d be using it for video as much as photography and wanted to test it for both.
The Jupiter-8 is such a tiny, light lens, it looked slightly odd on the big Z9, although it looks and feels very well balanced on the smaller Z6 and Z50. I previously mentioned old lenses being made of metal and built like tanks. Not this one. It’s tough but made of aluminum (weighing in at a mere 130 g), so one must be careful not to bang the thread ring and damage it. I may put on a clear filter to protect it.
I found the lens to be perfectly sharp, although not edge to edge, particularly wide open. But I don’t need that for what I shoot. Besides, it’s what makes these lenses so endearing. When shooting wide open and as close to the subject as I can get—about a meter—I found a little back-focusing is needed. Apparently, that’s the case when mounted on Leicas too. No big deal. The aperture ring is clickless and sits at the front of the lens. The focus ring at the back, surprisingly, is buttery smooth to use. The color rendering is subtle, and the background blur is very appealing. I like this versatile little lens. A lot.
It looks like this lens paired with my Z6 has become my perfect street and travel EDC. Until the next vintage lens finds it way into my life.
Conclusion
Using old lenses and giving them a new lease on life is far better for the environment than buying a cheap new plastic lens that isn’t designed to last. Well, this is what I tell my wife when we go to flea markets. She’s skeptical—or just doesn’t care about our planet. I decide not to say that out loud. I add that old lenses connect you to history and craftsmanship. She smiles yet shakes her head. I tell her I’m spending tens or hundreds, instead of thousands. “You’ve been spending thousands?” Oops.
Using vintage lenses on modern mirrorless cameras allows photographers to combine the best of both worlds—classic character and modern technology. The unique aesthetics, tactile enjoyment, and cost-effectiveness make them a compelling choice for those of us seeking a more creative shooting experience and less hassle from the other half.
And more than anything else, they’re a lot of fun.
Are you using vintage lenses on a modern DSLR or mirrorless? If so, what and why? Leave a comment!
I use helios, takumar, ttartisan replicas, Lomography lenses, all M42 with the Zf, specially on street photography and sessions or events. Got fed up of clinical lenses and I like to focus manually. Their character is unique.
Focusing is focusing how it is achieved has no impact on the final image if it is in focus. Neither the lens nor sensor can tell the difference how focus was achieved, if you imagine there is a difference then it’s all in your imagination.
In the interest of sounding so arrogant, the article seems to skip the basics of what gives vintage lenses their "look".
1.) Anything made pre-WW2 is uncoated. Anything after is very probably coated. Coatings were made practical during WW2 thanks to government/military investment in improving lenses. Coatings increase contrast and greatly decrease flare.
2.) Most serious professional lenses made prior to WW2, and all before WW1, were made for large format. That's 100 years of photographic lenses that weren't made for modern formats.
3.) The "imperfections" so much praised were often designed in. Spherical aberration, the "glow" some lenses impart, was very deliberately designed into some lenses from 1867 to the 1960s. That's 100 years of deliberate (and sometimes extreme) imperfection.
4.) Much of the signature look of a lens is related to its design. A Tessar looks different than a Sonnar, which looks different from a Plasmat, Dialyt, Double Gauss, etc. If you're using an early or cheap zoom, it loses the charm of any prime lens, and generally just loses resolution while introducing distortion and chromatic aberration.
5.) If you're using a high-end, or even lower mid-range modern zoom, you're getting the "Stepford Lens" perfection the author complains about. (Savings come more from a cheap plastic mount than from cheap optics, so cheap lenses can perform quite well, even though they feel cheap and don't last.) Computer design, combined with modern manufacturing and engineering, allows pretty much all lenses to meet the same "optimum" specifications: good resolution corner-to-corner, even illumination, high contrast, and the practical elimination of all aberrations; distortion, coma, spherical and chromatic aberration, astigmatism, and field flatness.
6.) It's worth noting that most of the "signature" of a lens shows itself at wider apertures. As you stop a lens down, the aberrations and individual look of any lens goes away, (exceptions being distortion as in fish-eye lenses, and coma/flare).
The statement "even some of my really old lenses from the 1970s" doesn't make much sense regarding lens aesthetics. Lens design, optical glass, and AR coatings were all well established to modern standards by then. While we've added aspherical curves, those don't add much (if anything) to a prime lens design, and we've lost things like rare-earth and radioactive glasses and all-metal housings.
Finally, it's worth noting that older lenses were made for film, and don't interact with digital sensors in the same way that a lens designed for digital cameras would. Which would be a whole 'nother article in itself...
Fascinating, informative comment. I just wish the first sentence hadn't made you sound so arrogant.
Optical differences in lenses can never replace basic photographic competence and creativity. A poor photograph shot by s poor photographer regardless of lens used will still be a poor photograph.
Vintage lenses are not magic lenses they are just lenses coated or otherwise.
We will never live up to the potential of our worst lens.
That said, different lenses can give different results. Try shooting into the sun with coated vs. uncoated lenses. Sometimes the differences are significant, sometimes subtle, too subtle to see on a monitor, much less a cell phone screen, but the differences can be important in a print.
You can be a painter with only one brush, or a painter who uses many brushes. Same with lenses, the choice is yours. But understanding what brush does what, or what lens does what (and why), helps inform our choices and styles.
Some good info there, thanks for sharing!
I use Sony 50mm f2 MD lense on my a7r and pic quality is amazing, I have come to love manual focusing.
I have adapted an ancient Agilux 80mm/f2.8 lens originally mounted on an Agiflex III body. The Agiflex III was an English-made roll film camera, manufactured before my time. The body proved unreliable, so it didn't last me very long. However, the lens was too good to toss. Nowadays, the 70-year-old lens lives a second life on the body of a Pentax 645Z digital camera.
I post some photos that I shot with this lens during a recent trip along the Pacific Highway in the USA. The photos have undergone minimal processing, just histogram adjustment and desaturating the greens in the foliage a bit.
That's cool, nice lens!
What is this writer on?
“But perfection is overrated “
Is that because you fail to achieve it?
Perfection in photography does not come from the equipment but from the photographer. Photographic perfection need not be about sharpness of colour fidelity but more with photographic intent, the photographers vision and the final output which may or may not be sharp.
There appears to be a movement in photography today that certain photographers who are unable to make the grade though basic talent and creativity blame the equipment of today for being to good!
“Everyone is producing technically perfect photographs that are clinically sharp, sterile, and all look the same.”
All I would say is you must be looking at a very narrow selection of work.
If you believe that then the reason has nothing to do with the gear but everything thing to do with talentless photographers who spend too much time looking and copying each others work on social media rather than seeking originality. Don’t blame the gear the blame rests squarely on lack of photographic talent.
In a reaction they then, like the writer, think by going for quirky using old lenses they imagine creativity can be replace by ‘optical quirkiness’’ through using old lenses!
While I’ve got nothing against old lenses you can’t just rely on the vintage optical effects imagining that can replace photographic competence and basic creativity.
Photography is not easy and the answer to producing new and exciting images is not found by slapping a vintage lens on your camera hoping it will make up for a basic lack of talent.
One one hand, I agree completely, on the other hand, you're completely wrong. :)
Perfection isn't easy to define. The aberrations of an imperfect lens may be perfect for a particular image. Having choices gives creative freedom.
"Slapping a vintage lens on your camera" may not make you an artist, or even a competent photographer, but it can be an informative and fun little adventure, and maybe, just maybe, it will give a little twist in your vision that wasn't there before. And if you have an appreciation for history or process, it can give you a different connection to your work, even if hardly anyone else understands.
Shot with a 1920s brass-bound 12.5-inch f/3.5 Cooke Portrait lens on 8x10 film. Is that important? No. Is it important to me? Yes.
Is it a perfect lens? No. But is it sometimes the perfect lens? Yes. "Perfect" vs. "Perfect". See the difference?
When I talk about perfection, I mean people's obsession with creating the sharpest possible photograph, are pursuing the sharpest possible lens, when this is the least important thing to be concerned with.
I am not suggesting that when one lacks creativity they simply use a vintage lens, I am suggesting it's interesting to explore adding character to one's photography with them, which can enhance creativity, or inspire us to explore new ways of creating.
These are obviously just my opinions, which I share to inspire and generate some healthy discussion which can help us all.
I appreciate your input, but i'm not sure why you feel it necessary to be so rude.
"What is the writer on?" – I'm high on life and the enjoyment of photography.
What are you on?
Bokeh. WTF? We didn't call the areas outside of hyper focal distance anything when these lenses were in use. Why must something that is not even a "thing" have a name.
Prior to 1997, the term used was "out-of-focus rendering". It was a "thing" back in the early 1900's, when out-of-focus effects such as double lines and a "wiry" effect were bemoaned as an undesirable trait of some lens designs. The soap bubble" effect from triplets and the "Petzval Swirl" were also known and discussed, though they became popular only recently. And the soft focus effect of spherical aberration was very well known and deliberately designed into many lens designs from 1867 through the 1960's.
I agree, the modern term "bokeh" has been overly popularized and poorly understood by most current photographers. But the basic concepts have been known and appreciated for more than a century.
I think that the single word name and the way it is used was what annoyed this old man. LOL
Oh, let's not get angry about it, and just accept it's a thing now. Something the kids are into! I'd never heard of the term until fairly recently, to be honest.
I doubt think anyone's angry, just amused at "these kids today".
The term "bokeh" was introduced to the western photographic world in the May/June 1997 issue of Photo Techniques" magazine. There were several articles on the aesthetic and technical sides of bokeh. The magazine was aimed at film photographers who did their own darkroom work and were very serious about it, the articles made a splash in that pool but hardly a ripple anywhere else.
Years later it was popularized by the hipster photo crowd, but oversimplified to just shallow depth of field. If you go into today's large format and other serious film forums, most laugh at the word because of its current usage and have gone back to referring to "lens signature" and "out-of-focus rendering".
I've always referred to it as the blurry parts of the photo. 😎
A lot of people are bizarrely obsessed with how round those 'bokeh balls' are. I've never understood it myself and find all the lens reviews that prioritise sharpness and 'bokeh balls' very boring.
How round the "bokeh balls" are depends solely on the aperture shape, regardless of the lens design. If you shoot wide open, every lens will have perfectly round specular highlights. If you close down the iris, the specular highlights will echo that shape, often pentagonal on modern lenses with 5 iris blades.
That's one more way we see that this was a concern to lens manufacturers a century ago. long before the term "bokeh" was introduced, they went to a lot of trouble putting 20 to 30 or more blades in an iris to get a more rounded shape.
(Now if you're talking about "soap bubble bokeh", that comes from a triplet lens design.)
If you want tons of round bokeh, shoot macro with your smartphone, as it has no iris (that I know of)! I mean, I wouldn't justify the use of a vintage lens solely on the bokeh, although it's a plus.
True. More of an annoyance. Sorry about that.
Vintage lenses are truly a joyful addition to any photography kit. I use Sony A, a multitude of Minola AF and old Canon lenses with my Sony mirrorless cameras. They're GREAT!!
We have to thank the invention of mirrorless cameras which brought all these vintage lens back to life as adaptation was a lot easier than DSLR days.
Very true, you can get an adaptor for most lenses and camera brands, it's fantastic!
Surprised you totally ignored Canon FD lenses especially for your video work. They are poor persons very highly prized Canon K-35 lenses that are worth thousands each and rare equivalent.
The FD, not FDn, are all metal and very smoth focus with 1/2 stop settings vs full stop on Nikon lenses.
There are so many old lenses out there, I can't try all of them or I'd never get any work done! 😁 Thanks for the heads up on the Canons though, will check them out! 👍
At least one poster here suggests that incompetent photographers use vintage lenses to make up for lack of talent or technique. Far from it. It's just that vintage lenses are (largely underrated) tools that can push creativity further in the digital era, if you know how to use them. They don't make you a better photographer, or a worse photographer. As far as I am concerned, the world would be a poorer place without vintage lenses. If, on the other hand, you don't like them, so much the better for the rest of us, they 'll drop in price!
Totally agree with everything you said! 👍