[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/p/ - Photography - Sony A7 with old lenses

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Sony A7 with old lenses Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)23:26 UTC+1 No.2370742 Report

Using the Sony A7 with old lenses is the best way to reduce its megapixels from 24 to 6. But the grasping bargain hunters believe they make good deals by buying these old shitty lenses for still too much money on Ebay.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment MakeRICOH
Camera ModelGR DIGITAL 4
Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS5.1 Windows
Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.9
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width3648
Image Height2736
Number of Bits Per Component8, 8, 8
Pixel CompositionRGB
Image OrientationTop, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution72 dpi
Vertical Resolution72 dpi
Image Created2014:07:10 10:47:44
Exposure Time1/34 sec
Exposure ProgramAperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating200
Lens Aperturef/2.2
Brightness1.1 EV
Exposure Bias-0.3 EV
Metering ModePattern
Light SourceUnknown
FlashNo Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length6.00 mm
Color Space InformationsRGB
Image Width800
Image Height629
Exposure ModeAuto
White BalanceAuto
Scene Capture TypeStandard
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)23:28 UTC+1 No.2370744 Report

/p/ isn't your blog
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)23:31 UTC+1 No.2370749 Report

I'm gonna agree.
Most old lenses people circle jerk over are pretty shit.
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)23:33 UTC+1 No.2370753 Report

My $30 50mm f/1.7 Yashica can outresolve the sensor stopped down a couple stops, argument invalid.
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)23:35 UTC+1 No.2370757 Report

And the kit lens that comes with the A7 shits all over it.
Anonymous 07/24/14(Thu)23:39 UTC+1 No.2370763 Report

Also you don't buy old lenses because you expect them to compete in lab standard image quality with today's lenses (though there are a lot of competent options too). Nor do you view your images at 100% except if you print them (in which case the argument is also invalid since you're not going to view the prints at one inch distance), "6mpix" is already a huge size on your screen too.
Ayya 07/24/14(Thu)23:43 UTC+1 No.2370768 Report

No fun allowed general?
Anonymous 07/25/14(Fri)20:57 UTC+1 No.2371560 Report

Like you've room to talk.
Anonymous 07/25/14(Fri)21:30 UTC+1 No.2371613 Report

reasons to go with old lenses

1) smooth focus, manual lens focus rings glide unlike AF rings which tend to be chunky. This is very important for video.

2) size, manual lenses tend to be more compact than AF due to not having a built in motor. (exceptions, pentacks and nikon af)

3) quality / cost, many of the later manual lenses were as good as, if not the same optically as a lot of AF primes and can be found at a fraction of the cost. many manufactures used the same optics in their AF lenses as the did in their old manual glass and just replaced the metal barrel with plastic and threw in a motor.
Sugar 07/25/14(Fri)22:07 UTC+1 No.2371639 Report

>Glorious imperial Nikkor glass
>Shitty lens
>buying a lens for its MTF charts

Obvious troll is obvious.
Anonymous 07/25/14(Fri)22:11 UTC+1 No.2371642 Report

Anonymous 07/26/14(Sat)19:35 UTC+1 No.2372219 Report

Also, properly set infinity stop.
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)02:43 UTC+1 No.2372484 Report

>reduce its megapixels from 24 to 6
you've never actually shot a camera, have you?
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)03:56 UTC+1 No.2372568 Report

what he's trying to say is that the lenses will only resolve about 6MP out of the 24MP sensor. uh doih

I will agree, some vintage glass is softer than a sheep but I do have some vintage glass that is just silly sharp
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)04:22 UTC+1 No.2372591 Report

Yeah, and that's retarded, unless he's using $10 lenses from the pawn shop with brand names like Kiron or whatever the fuck those cheap ass lenses are.

Any of the older Nikon primes from the 70's can be sharp as fuck. The 105mm double-gauss f/2.5 lens will outresolve that sensor at f/5.6, I guarantee.
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)04:44 UTC+1 No.2372598 Report

Before I broke my 28mm f/2.8 AIS (RIP) I compared it against my 28mm f/1.8G on my D600, and it used all 24 of my megapixels just fine. There's definitely some old lenses that are still worth using on digital.

My experience with various fast 50s is that they're blurry trash up until like f/4 or f/5.6, though. Not that most of them are that great on film, either.
Sugar 07/27/14(Sun)05:35 UTC+1 No.2372614 Report



Do you even Vivitar Series 1?

>105 2.5 double-gauss
>Not the earlier Sonnar silver-nose

They are both very good lenses though so I'll give you that

Kiron and Kino Precision built the majority of those Series 1 lenses and their own lenses show it, Soligor C/D was just as good too.

I've got the C/D 200 2.8 and it's a little soft at 2.8 but past 5.6 it's on par with some L glass. I have a Quantaray 28 2.8 that did well on a D800, depends on who the manufacturer is and when the lens was made.

My old Nikkor 50 1.8 AIS did well on that D800, I was surprised how accurate the focus was without a traditional focus aid like a split-image screen
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)06:02 UTC+1 No.2372631 Report

Dude, most Kiron lenses suck dick and you know it. Same for Soligor. I bet their QC is ass too. For the money, considering old AI/AIS glass is so cheap, it's usually a better bargain to get Nikkor glass.

The 50 AIS is widely regarded as one of the sharpest 50mm lenses for the F mount, as is the Nikkor-H f/2 model that preceded it.

I love old Nikkor glass and with the prices being so low it's easy to find crazy bargains. I bought a 28/2.8 AIS for $30 on eBay last year, for example, and a 80-200 f/4.5 (rectangular cutout model) for like $60. Oh and a 105/4 Micro for like $100. I have like 40 F-mount lenses just because it's fun to collect. And use. I use them all on everything from an original F to a D800E.

Sorry but the double-gauss is sharper than the sonnar buddy. That's just a fact, but the sonnar is awesome in its own way (bokeh) so I own both ;)
Sugar 07/27/14(Sun)06:14 UTC+1 No.2372633 Report


I prefer the sonnar for the swirly background but the double-gauss is every bit as sharp as my 70-200 f4L IS, I was quite surprised.

Also just got the Nikkor 85/2 and wow what a portrait lens. I've noticed Nikkor manual focus stuff has come down in price lately so I can see how that would be more attractive than 3rd party.

Some of the early 3rd party stuff is nice but the QC and optics went south after the 80s. I have a Vivitar Series 1 70-210 f3.5 I would pit against any Nikkor glass as well as a Quantaray 28 2.8 with the Sigma Perfect-Hood, those were diamonds in the rough. The Series 1 90 2.5 Macro, those are no joke if you can find one. *Some* of the early 3rd party stuff was nice but most of it was downhill, even the coveted Series 1 fell off after the 80's and most of it turned to shit, which is a damn shame.
Anonymous 07/27/14(Sun)06:17 UTC+1 No.2372635 Report

>28 2.8 AIS
He knows. I can't believe there's people out there who pay more for the f/2 than the f/2.8. And how the hell did you find it for that cheap? I can never find anything decent on ebay.
Anonymous 07/29/14(Tue)03:43 UTC+1 No.2374189 Report

It's a mystery. Other internetz users always find ultra sharp and unused lenses for almost nothing on Ebay, but I only find overprized dirty, scratchy and broken lenses with fungus there.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.