With Eyes Reborn

Whilst my first SLR was 35mm (a Praktica BMS Electronic), I reached a point around three years ago where I discovered that certain 35mm film SLR lenses could be used on certain digital cameras, some directly, others via cheap adapters.

This was a game changer for me, and, perhaps perversely, actually fused and intensified further my love of vintage cameras and lenses.

After an initial disappointing foray with a Pentax K-x DLSR (capable enough but tiny viewfinder and very plasticky, so a huge let down coming from cracking little Pentax SLRs like the ME Super), I discovered the Sony NEX range.

So since the summer of 2014 I’ve been experimenting with different vintage lenses on a used NEX 3N, and very recently with a few lenses on a Sony a350 DSLR.

31382935803_71a038406c_c
Sony NEX 3N, Cosina Auto Cosinon 135/2.8, LightRoom preset

With most lenses, you’d assume that if they’re good on film, they’ll be good with digital cameras too. But some have surprised me.

I don’t want to get too much into the practicalities of actual use of vintage lenses with the NEX and a350 (that’s potentially another post), but instead look at a few lenses that have been only average to good on film, but, to my delight, have excelled digitally.

Of course, you won’t find any scientific evidence here, no shots of brick walls or pinned up newspapers, or 100% detail crops. That’s not my style, or interest, at all.

But what I do hope to share here are three of the gems I have found, then a few of my own speculative theories about why they seem to have performed so well via a digital sensor than a frame of 35mm film.

First, three of the best lenses.

1. Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 Macro

19479926028_2fe028397b_c
Sony NEX 3N, Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 Macro

I bought this lens because certain reviews felt it was as sharp as a prime lens. And Minolta prime lenses are indeed very sharp.

Up to this point, 90% of my photography was with 50/55/58mm lenses, so I was interested in experimenting at both the 35mm and 70mm ends of the MD Zoom. If it lived up to its reputation, this plan was cheaper than buying an equally good 35mm and 70mm lens.

Plus the lens focused pretty close (around 0.33m), something I always appreciate and enjoy.

I tried the lens with my Minolta X-700 body.

If you don’t know, the X-700 has one of the greatest, brightest viewfinders ever seen on a 35mm camera. With a Rokkor 50/1.4 or 58/1.4 lens it was breathtaking.

But with the MD Zoom and its maximum aperture of f/3.5, it was still good but obviously not so bright and clear.

The size of the lens, though compact and relatively lightweight for a zoom, seemed bulky and clumsy on the X-700, especially as I’d been used to 50mm primes.

The whole experience was kind of awkward and I wanted it to be over quickly. Like trying to make conversation with the husband of one of your wife’s best friends, at a wedding neither man really wanted to be at.

On the NEX though, the lens was a revelation. 

The size was very appealing. Because of the slimness of the NEX, the entire camera virtually became the lens. Or the other way around. Changing the focal length (ie zooming) and focusing was easy and smooth.

The pictures blew me away – the colours, the sharpness and the deliciously smooth bokeh, none of which seemed to ever be possible with the X-700.

This shot is straight out of the NEX with zero processing except an export from RAW to JPEG.

17431642943_e75e6ae597_c
Sony NEX 3N, Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 Macro

This lens was the last Minolta SR mount lens I eventually sold when I decided to focus on just M42 and Contax/Yashica mounts a while back – outlasting even the glorious and beautiful MC Rokkor-PF 58/1.4. Which is testament to how much I loved it using it. But only with the NEX.

2. Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7

Yep, another Minolta, who made a long line of 50 and 55mm lenses, which can seem baffling similar. In short, all you need to know is they’re all pretty fabulous.

I’d already had some of the older version from the late 60s and early 70s, and been impressed by their build, smoothness and performance (on both film and digital). I got this MD attached to an X-300 body I wanted to try as an alternative to the more sophisticated X-700 mentioned above.

24502687974_8a0a0926f1_c
Sony NEX 3N, Minolta MD 50/1.7 lens

This MD 50/1.7 is from a later era (mid 80s I think) where the legendary Rokkor name had been dropped, as well as many of the metal parts.

On the downside, the lens felt a bit plasticky compared with something like its MC Rokkor-PF 55/1.7 predecessor – still one of the most luxurious lenses I’ve used in any mount.

On the plus side, the MD is very small, and very light. Which, matched with the NEX, made a whole lot of sense.

This lens wasn’t bad on film, in fact it was very good, and if you put photographs made with the MD 50/1.7 next to those made with something like the aforementioned 55/1.7, I’d struggle to identify which was which.

But because of its size and light weight, and because somehow it seemed to be even better digitally than the others, it stands out as one of the best lenses I’ve used with the NEX.

24506540293_d1076ef431_c
Sony NEX 3N, Minolta MD 50/1.7 lens

3. Cosina Auto Cosinon 135mm f/2.8

As mentioned before, my default focal length is 50/55/58mm. In an effort to widen my experience, and because they are plentiful and cheap, I decided to explore some 135mm lenses, in M42 mount.

A few weeks later, I ended up with four.

The Carl Zeiss Jena DDR MC Electric Sonnar 135/3.5 and Jupiter-37A 135/3.5 are both glorious and rightly have lofty reputations. If you want a 135, either will no doubt delight you.

Another I came across was a Reveunon 135/2.8, with beautiful big blue multi-coated glass, which proved to be very decent in performance, but let down by its not very close focus. So that one went.

A little later I found a Cosina Auto Cosinon 135/2.8, which a friend mentioned he had used and been impressed with, plus it was super cheap (something like £12).

32154994416_c5d788fe77_c
Sony NEX3N, Cosina Auto Cosinon 135/2.8, LightRoom preset

On film, or digital, the Sonnar and Jupiter-37A are wonderful. Trying the Cosinon on film, I was distinctly underwhelmed compared with the other two, despite enjoying using the lens.

Then one warm day last summer I decided to try taking some shots of the kids playing in the garden, and picked the Cosinon.

The results absolutely delighted me, and though I must have taken thousands of photographs of the children in their short lives, these were instantly up there amongst my very favourites.

Again, straight out of the NEX, no post processing.

dsc01680-2
Sony NEX 3N, Cosina Auto Cosinon 135/2.8

Since that day I’ve kept the humble Cosinon, and though I’ll probably never bother shooting film with it again, I know its potential with digital will put a smile on my face many times in the future.

So these are three examples of lenses that have highly impressed me with digital photography.

What about the theories as to why?

First, the part of the lens that is being used.

The NEX, like my a350, has an APS-C crop sensor. The surface area of the sensor is only about two thirds that of a frame of 35mm film.

So compared with shooting the same lens on film, with the NEX/Alpha, it’s like taking only the central part of the photo.

Imagine having a large photograph, then putting a frame with a thick border on top. You crop the image from its full size and lose the outer edges, all the way around.

The benefit of this is that for most lenses, when they start to show flaws and failings, its at their outermost edges, at wide apertures.

Pair the same lens on a crop sensor and you instantly remove those outer edges and use only the central part of the lens where it performs at its optimum. Stop it down two or three stops and you can create stunning sharpness, contrast and colours.

Second, the physical handling of the lens.

Whilst this doesn’t directly impact the final image, it goes a long way to how we the photographer are able to get the best from the lens.

Put simply, the lenses you love using most are the ones you’re going to shoot most with, and try hardest to get the best images with.

Any lens that’s frustrating or indifferent in use isn’t going to inspire the photographer to be at their best, or try to find the best compositions.

So lenses like the Minolta MD Zoom, which for me were ungainly, even annoying, on a film body, came into their own with something like the little NEX, where almost all your physical contact is with the lens, and they suddenly become far more comfortable and natural feeling.

Third, the character and construction of the lens.

Some say that there are no bad 50mm lenses, because the relatively simply construction of the elements of the lens is hard to get wrong. You just get different degrees of excellent.

So I wonder if for other lenses, their internal design is somehow better suited for digital sensors. Part of this might be down to theory one, and the optimal part of the glass being used.

And/or it might be that for some lenses, the character – and the unique way they shape and interpret the light that flows through them – is better syncopated with the way a digital sensor (or in my specific experience a Sony APS-C digital sensor) also shapes and interprets the light that hits it.

As I explained at the start, I don’t have the science behind this, it’s just my theories based on my experience and limited knowledge.

19045388134_59f5620fb4_c
Sony NEX 3N, Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 Macro

To get to the point of this whole post.

Even if you shoot loads of film, it’s well worth getting a digital camera that’s easily adaptable to vintage lenses (my own experience would recommend Sony NEX or Alpha).

First you have a cheap (after the initial, modest, outlay) way to experiment with all kinds of lenses with immediate feedback and the ability to get to know a lens in a matter of hours, rather than the weeks it might take with film.

Second, because, like I have, you may well find some absolute gems of lenses that are overlooked on film due to merely adequate performance, but really come alive on digital.

I always try to come back to the core purpose and message of 35hunter – “Hunting for balance and beauty, camera in hand”.

Hunting for beauty sometimes means grabbing your favourite film camera and lens and exploring some of the most amazing places you know.

And sometimes it means picking up an obscure vintage lens or two from eBay or a charity shop and playing with it in your back garden to see what you coax from it.

Either way, that pursuit of beauty – and the enjoyment along the way – always makes the experience worthwhile.

What has been your experience of using vintage lenses on digital bodies?

Let us know in the comments below.

Thanks for reading. Please share this post with others you feel will enjoy it too.

Advertisements

7 thoughts on “With Eyes Reborn

  1. Hi,
    I’m enjoying reading your thoughts, but one thing stands out for me here. You say: “it’s well worth getting a digital camera that’s easily adaptable to vintage lenses (my own experience would recommend Sony NEX or Alpha).”
    I’ve no experience of the Sony NEX, but I do have an Alpha 300. Not too many adaptors for the Alpha range, I think. SRB Photographic list five, compared to nine for the Canon EOS, including Con/Yash and Olympus OM. And if you scan eBay, you can get them chipped for the focus “beep” too. Did you ever consider a nice Canon 450 or 650 dslr?
    Best regards.

    1. Hi Adrian, thanks for commenting!

      The NEX has a wealth of adapters – I’ve had M39, M42, Pentax K, Olympus OM, Konica AR, Minolta SR (MC/MD) and Contax/Yashica (C/Y). There are others!

      Yes the Alphas have fewer, but I decided a while back that my favourite lenses are M42 (which led to me selling all my Pentax K and Minolta SR bodies and lenses, and prior to that, Olympus OM, Canon FD and Konica AR kit), and they adapt very easily and cheaply to the Alphas.

      That option, plus the native vintage Minolta AF lenses, means I really don’t have any need for anything else on my a350.

      Canon EOS are quite possible the most adaptable mount out there. Canon were supremely clever in making their mount so large that virtually all others could be adapted.

      For my EOS 300v (film body) I have M42 and C/Y adapters. Which is why when I was researching DSLRs a couple of months back the EOS range were top of the list. But I tried a 40D and didn’t much like it, then tried a Sony a100 and a350 and really liked them both. So I went with the a350, knowing the M42 adapter was available, and being aware of the excellent vintage Minolta AF lenses I’d briefly dabbled with on film last year.

      So yes I considered a Canon but from what I tried, preferred the Sony.

      I wouldn’t rule out a Canon DSLR in the future, maybe one of the original 5Ds, to try the full frame option…

  2. Firstly, I don’t own a digital interchangeable-lens camera, so I’m not equipped to experiment with this. My wife has a Nikon D3200; perhaps I could borrow it and buy adapters for it.

    Secondly, all of this talk of Minolta lenses made me want to shoot some of mine. So I got out my XG 1 and mounted my 45mm f/2 Rokkor, which is a curious little lens. My son is working toward his driver’s license so we got in the car today and drove out to a town I used to live in, about 70 miles away. I shot an entire roll of Fujicolor 200 in the XG 1 on the way.

    1. Jim I think unfortunately from what I’ve read, Nikon cameras are the least adaptable out there.

      Canon EOS DSLRs and Sony E mount (like the NEX mirrorless series) are among the most easily and widely adaptable.

      Over here a decent Canon or Sony can be had used for under £100.

      The Minolta 45/2 is a curious one. Their prices have risen as there are very few 45mm lenses in any mount, plus the small size and light weight appeals to the digital crowd.

      I had one for a while but found the 50/55 f/1.7s had the edge, and something like the late MD 50/1.7 is a fantastic performer in a light body.

      The extra 5mm width on the focal length and few grams in weight weren’t significant enough for me to keep the 45/2.

      But I’m looking forward to seeing what you captured with yours!

      1. Thanks for the tips. I see I can pick up a reasonable used EOS DSLR for under $100. That’s encouraging.

        The 45/2 has some interesting bokeh. Otherwise, it’s a good enough lens. But I also own an MD 50/1.7 and an MD Rokkor-X 50/1.4 and so really, there isn’t much reason to use the 45/2. Beyond just feeling like it, that is, which is what drove me yesterday. Here’s a post that shows photos from an earlier roll I shot with this lens:

        https://blog.jimgrey.net/2013/07/19/minolta-xg-1/

      2. It’s hard to argue against the EOS juggernaut! You can see why so many people use EOS film and digital bodies.

        I often debate with my film cameras about keeping just the EOS 300v and selling everything else. I can use all my M42 and C/Y lenses on it, with reliable exposure, all the settings I’ll ever need, in a small light package.

        I’ve been tempted by the EOS digitals too (an EOS 300D, essentially the same as the late 300 film cameras but with a digital sensor can be had for about £50 here) but the Sony a350 won me over with its functions, features and usability.

        I checked out your Minolta post and left a reply there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s