Choosing a vintage lens – some tech FAQ

/ spqr / Leave a comment

Not a definitive list, but one which covers a few of the “tech” issues. More will be added as I think of them.

Are all lenses built the same?

Most manufacturing companies provided a good, clean environment for constructing lenses. That’s not to say that there won’t be lousy copies of a particular lens, as well as outstanding copies, due to manufacturing tolerances. This is exacerbated in some lenses from the USSR, mostly because the same lens could be manufactured in a number of different factories, all with differing levels of quality (which during the period could be true of any company running multiple manufacturing locations).

Are vintage lenses radioactive?

There are some lenses that produce low-level radiation because they contain one or more optical elements made using Thorium. It was useful in lens design because it gave optical glass of the period a high refractive index, so fewer lens elements would be needed in a lens.

What sort of aberrations do vintage lenses produce?

No lens is perfect (not even modern ones). Lenses can suffer from soft edges, chromatic aberrations, and vignetting. But that’s not to say these things are negatives. Some vintage lenses can create the same sort of distortions that app filters do – using the lens aberrations.

Do vintage lens have coatings?

Lens coatings first appeared in the 1930s, yet many early vintage lenses only had a single layer coating and as such many lenses are susceptible to internal reflections and lens flare. Lens coatings were made from a variety of materials, including rare-earth elements. Lens coatings were primarily created to eliminate or reduce light reflections. Through the practical application of lens coatings, a significant reduction in the reflective index of the lens allowed for more complex optical designs to be constructed. The lack of coatings can add to a lenses’ character.

Are vintage lenses sharp?

Vintage lenses may not be as sharp as modern ones, but then again vintage lenses aren’t really about sharpness. Older lenses are often sharp in the centre, but decreasingly so as you move to the corners. Stopped down to f/8 many produce good results. The reduced sharpness is due to the use of fewer low-dispersion optics, fewer anti-reflective coatings, and the widespread use of spherical elements in lens construction. The use of low-dispersion glass and aspherical elements has lead to finer detail in modern lenses.

Does bokeh matter?

Does it? Look honestly, buying a lens just for its ability to produce “creamy” bokeh is fine, but you still have to have the right circumstances so the lens will produce bokeh. Bokeh certainly adds interest to a picture, but it’s not the be-all and end-all some people make it out to be.

Is faster better?

An f/1.2 lens is often (incorrectly) considered to be better than an f/1.4 lens, which is turn is better than a f/1.8 lens, while an f/3.5 lens is not even considered. This misconception is derived, in part, from the fact that large aperture lenses are more costly to design and manufacture. However a high cost is not necessarily associated with better quality when all aspects of lens performance are considered. Large aperture lenses do benefit from superior light-gathering power, good in low light situations – but how often is this needed? Large aperture settings also suffer from a very shallow depth-of-field.

Why do later lenses have so few aperture blades?

Lenses of the 1950s often had a lot of aperture blades, from a low of 8 to a high of 18-20. This means that the apertures produced in scenarios such as Bokeh are almost perfectly round. However with the introduction of fully automatic aperture in 1961, there was a need to reduce the operating resistence of the blades, hence many manufacturers chose to reduce the number of aperture blades to 6.

Can vintage lenses be stabilized?

Vintage lenses don’t come with built-in stabilization. This is not a problem with cameras that have in-body stabilization like Olympus, but can be an issue with those that rely on lens-based stabilization.

Do vintage lenses produce EXIF data?

Vintage lenses do not have an electronic connection, so that means the camera will only record metadata (EXIF) for images relative to camera settings like shutter speed, ISO, FPS, picture profiles, etc. However, no lens data will be included, such as f-stop, or focal length. The camera also won’t think there is a lens attached, so it is necessary to change the setting “Release without lens” to activate the shutter release. This can really hamper some people as it requires taking notes while out shooting, and it isn’t always practical – like when you are taking a few shots in sequence. With no lens specific information, the camera has little ability to correct for things like vignetting.

Vintage lenses – Why are telephoto lenses so cheap?

/ spqr / 1 Comment

Go on to any vintage camera resellers website, and you will see that there are some lenses, notably telephoto lenses, that are inexpensive – I mean really cheap. Why? Doesn’t it require more material to make? Well, yes and no. They do have more metal (body), but the amount of glass is probably less than lenses with shorter focal lengths. Telephoto lenses generally have a very simple lens formulae, and so most of the added expense went into creating a large lens body. But that’s not really the problem.

Nearly all camera manufacturers provided an array of telephoto lenses. It’s a wonder they sold them all. For the reality is, then as now, telephoto lenses have a very narrow scope of use. The amateur photographer was likely only interested in the moderate telephotos, up until 135mm. The remaining lenses were the purvey of the professional photographer, and cinematographer. Who really needed a 300mm or 500mm lens, let alone 800mm? For example, in 1971, Asahi-Pentax sold 12 different Super-Takumar telephoto lenses:

  • Moderate : 85mm f/1.9 105mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.5, 135mm f/3.5, 150mm f/4
  • Standard : 200mm f/5.6, 200mm f/4, 300mm f/6.3, 300mm f/4
  • Super : 400mm f/5.6, 500mm f/4.5, 1000mm f/8

The problem is that these telephoto lenses were only used for a narrow scope of use. Even a 300mm lens only has a horizontal AOV of only 10°. By the time you get down to 400mm it’s only 5°. Both are very low angles.

For the purpose of this discussion, let’s consider telephoto lenses above 120mm. That leaves three core categories: (i) the moderate telephoto’s around 135mm, (ii) the upper-end standards 200mm and 300mm, and the super-telephoto range > 300mm. Of the telephotos below 120mm, the most common are the 80-90mm lenses may be the most expensive of all telephotos, due to their popularity in portraiture work. Note that the prices quoted are for lenses in average to good condition, meaning that they are functional, yet may have minor optical issues, that won’t impact the quality of the image.

135mm

The most common lens in the moderate telephoto category is the 135mm, and there are a lot of them. Almost every lens manufacturer produced the 135mm as a “standard” telephoto lens. This may have been a legacy of rangefinder 25mm cameras which maxed out at 135mm (without the use of specialized devices). As such they are cheap because they are plentiful. The price only varies depending on manufacturer, lens speed, and mount (obscure mounts will reduce the price). If you search Kamerastore, you will find hundreds of 135mm lenses. A Soligor 135mm f/3.5 Tele-Auto (M42) can cost as little as C$60, whereas a Schneider-Kreuznach 135mm f/3.5 (M42) will only cost C$155. The rare exceptions seem to be lenses like the KMZ 135mm f/2.8 Tair-11, which sporting 20 aperture blades sells at about C$338.

Prices are also low because their use in as lenses on digital cameras is just not that popular, largely because once adapted to crop-sensors, a 135mm becomes a 200mm (APS-C) or 270mm (MFT) lens. Other reasons they aren’t popular include being slow, with an average aperture of f/2.8-4.0, and some lenses like the Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestor 135mm f/2.8 are heavy, i.e. over 500g.

200/300mm

The “standard” telephoto range is often even cheaper relative to it’s size. A 200mm Asahi Super-Takumar f/4 usually sells for around C$200, the Jupiter 21M for C$175. Once you move higher than 200mm, prices seem to stabilize at around C$1 per mm of focal length. Here the higher prices indicate some historically significant lens. For example both a Meyer-Optik Görlitz 300mm f/4.5 Telemegor, or an early Pentax 300mm f/4 Takumar might be priced around C$400.

Super-telephoto

Again, these lenses can be cheap, even though they are not as abundant as smaller telephoto lenses. You can get an Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 400mm f/5.6 for around C$400. A Meyer-Optik Görlitz 400mm f5.5 Telemegor on the other hand might only cost C$200. The expensive 400mm lenses are often those with some history. For example a Kilfitt Fern-Kilar 400mm f/5.6 normally costs upwards for C$600-800 because it is a rarer lens, and due to its association with the film Rear Window.

The verdict? Telephoto lenses above 120mm can be fun to play with, but most people won’t use them that often. I think that is partially the reason why 135mm lenses are so cheap (and often in such good condition). People bought them to broaden their focal length choices, found they weren’t very practical, and relegated them to a cupboard somewhere. They weren’t that useful for everyday shots, and certainly too bulky to travel with. Eventually the market for them likely waned due to the growth of the zoom lens market. I would honestly avoid telephotos above 200mm unless you have a good use for the lens (and you choose a lens with good reviews). Longer lenses are fun to play around with, but may not exactly be that practical. Super telephotos are for the birds (literally).

P.S. There are also a lot of third-party lenses suppliers that produced telephoto lenses that are even cheaper than camera brands. For example Chinon, Sigma, Soligor, Tokina, Hanimex and Vivitar.

Old Lens Life magazine from Japan

/ spqr / Leave a comment

In Japan they actually publish a magazine dedicated to vintage lenses – Old Lens Life. You can get copies from Amazon Japan (either paper or digital). It’s fascinating because a lot of the article titles are in English, and the text in Japanese, but with translation it shouldn’t be too hard to get the gist of what it being said. This magazine would actually do really well outside of Japan. Has anyone read a copy?

Why 24-26 megapixels is just about right

/ spqr / 3 Comments

When cameras were analog, people cared about resolving power – but of film. Nobody purchased a camera based on resolution because that was contained in the film (and different films have different resolutions). So you purchased a new camera only when you wanted to upgrade features. Analog cameras focused on the tools needed to capture an optimal scene on film. Digital cameras on the other hand focus on megapixels, and the technology to capture photons with photosites, and convert these to pixels. So megapixels are often the name of the game – the first criteria cited when speculation of a new camera arises.

Since the inception of digital sensors, the number of photosites crammed onto various sensor sizes has steadily increased (while at the same time the size of those photosites has decreased). Yet we are now reaching what some could argue is a megapixel balance-point, where the benefits of a jump in megapixels may no longer be that obvious. Is 40 megapixels inherently better than 24? Sure a 40MP image has more pixels, 1.7 times more pixels. But we have to question at what point is there too many pixels? At what point does the pendulum start to swing towards overkill? Is 24MP just about right?

First let’s consider what is lost with more pixels. More pixels means more photosites on a sensor. Cramming more photosites on a sensor will invariably result in smaller photosites (assuming the sensor dimensions do not change). Small photosites mean less light. That’s why 24MB is different on each of MFT, APS-C and full-frame sensors – more space means larger photosites, and better ability in situations such as low-light. Even with computational processing, smaller photosites still suffer from things like increased noise. The larger the sensor, the larger the images produced by the camera, and the greater the post-processing time. There are pros and cons to everything.

Fig.1: Fig: Compare a 24 megapixel image against devices that can view it.

There is also something lost from the perspective of aesthetics. Pictures should not be singularly about resolution, and sharp content. The more pixels you add to an image, there has to be come sort of impact on the aesthetics of an image. Perhaps a sense of hyper-realism? Images that seem excessively digital? Sure some people will like the the highly digital look, with uber saturated colour, and sharp detail. But the downside is that these images tend to lack something from an aesthetic appeal.

Many photographers who long for more resolution are professionals. People who may crop their images, or work on images such as architectural shots or complex landscapes that may require more resolution. Most people however don’t crop their images, and few people make poster-sized prints, so there is little or no need for more resolution. For people that just use photos in a digital context, there is little or no gain. The largest monitor resolution available is 8K, i.e. 7680×4320 pixels, or roughly 33MP, so a 40MP image wouldn’t even display to full resolution (but a 24MP image would). This is aptly illustrated in Figure 1.

Many high-resolution photographs live digitally, and the resolution plays little or no role in how the image is perceived. 24MP is more than sufficient to produce a 24×36 inch print, because nobody needs to pixel-peep a poster. A 24×36” poster has a minimum viewing distance of 65 inches – which at 150dpi, would require a 20MP image.

The overall verdict? Few people need 40MP, and fewer still will need 100MP. It may be fun to look at a 50MP image, but in all practical sense it’s not much better than a 24MP. Resolutions of 24-26MP (still) provide exceptional resolution for many photographic needs. It’s great for magazine spreads (max 300dpi), and fine art prints. So unless you are printing huge posters, it is a perfectly fine resolution for a camera sensor.

Choosing a vintage lens – more specialized focal lengths

/ spqr / 1 Comment

While the standard focal lengths (28-150mm) are of most interest to the amateur vintage lens user, there are also more specialized options. These are for the photographer who wants to broaden the type of lens they use. Ironically the super-wide-angle and standard telephotos are at opposite ends of the spectrum, both from the perspective of focal-length, AOV, and cost. The shorter the focal length, the more expensive the lens, whereas the longer focal lengths are quite plentiful, and cheap.

Note that I have not included sub-15mm lenses because they nearly all verge on the specialized fisheye realm, and I’ll be covering that in another series of posts. Over 300mm, lenses tend to become very specialized, and not much use unless you are doing surveillance, or wildlife photography.

Super wide-angle lenses (15−25mm)

These are in the special lenses category, sometimes referred to as extreme wide-angle lenses. These lenses have a horizontal AOV of between 70-100°. Their primary function is to allow the inclusion of a broad subject area from a relatively close vantage point – this includes landscape with broad vistas, city scenes, and build interiors. Lenses in this category are corrected for curvilinear distortion (i.e. they reproduce straight lines), they reproduce parallel lines in the scene with greatly enhanced angles of convergence. The lower the focal length, generally the fewer the options available. Note that many of the lenses in this category did not appear until the mid-to-late 1960s.

24/25mm (74/72°)

Some consider 24mm to be where the “real” wide angles begin. There is a perceivable change in perspective from 28mm, although the horizontal AOV only changes from 65° to 74/72°. The biggest problem here is that there aren’t many options, in this focal length.

  • Examples − Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 24mm f/3.5, Olympus Zuiko 24mm f/2.8; Isco-Gottingen Westrogon 24mm f/4;
  • Crop-sensors − 36/38mm (APS-C), 48/50mm (MFT)

20/21mm (84/81°)

These lenses obviously offer even a wider AOV than their 24/25mm counterparts. For some manufacturers this was the lower limit of the lenses they offered, partially because of the expense involved in designing them. The maximum aperture was at most f/2.8, with most of these lenses being f/4. The wider you go, the more aberrations like field curvature that exist.

  • Examples − Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 20mm f/2.8 and f/2.4; Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 20mm f/4.5; Minolta MD 20mm f/2.8
  • Crop-sensors − 30/32mm (APS-C), 40/42mm (MFT)

15−18mm (100−90°)

These lenses didn’t really appear in great quantities until the 1970s. These uber-wide/(rectilinear) fisheyes performed well in the centre of the images, but the edges suffered from some field curvature and barrel distortion, but maybe that’s part of their appeal. Apertures were generally around f/3.5. Some of the lenses were fisheye’s others rectilinear wide’s. More Japanese lenses, and fewer German lenses.

  • Examples − Asahi SMC Takumar 15mm f/3.5; Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Fish-Eye-Takumar 17mm f/4; Nikon Nikkor 15mm f/3.5; Asahi Fish-eye Takumar 18mm f/11.
  • Crop-sensors − 22-27mm (APS-C), 30-26mm (MFT)
Specialized focal lengths, and their associated AOV (horizontal).

Standard telephoto lenses (180−300mm)

Telephoto lenses larger then 135mm were the purvey of the SLR, with rangefinder cameras requiring the use of a boxy reflex box. Still as with many prime telephotos, they were often sidelined by zoom telephotos.

180−200mm (11−10°)

There were a number of good 200mm lenses with fast apertures in the range f/2 to f/1.8 available in the tail end of the manual focus era. The core 200mm lenses were the f/3.5 to f/4.5 models offering a good balance of size, weight, and performance.

  • Examples − Meyer-Optik Orestegor 200mm f/4; Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 200mm f/4; CZJ Sonnar 200mm f/2.8;
  • Crop-sensors − 270-300mm (APS-C), 360-400mm (MFT)

250−300mm (8−7°)

Most manufacturers offered a 300mm lens or two. Early models can be bulky, and rare. Only for those who are really serious about seeing things close-up.

  • Examples − Kilfitt Tele-Kilar 300mm f/5.6; Meyer-Optik Telemegor 300mm f/4.5;
  • Crop-sensors − 375-450mm (APS-C), 500-600mm (MFT)

Did Darth Vader use a Zeiss lens?

/ spqr / 1 Comment

In a galaxy, far, far away, they used cameras with lenses from Carl Zeiss Jena. It’s true, Vader was into photography, he had a dark-room and everything. Actually I never saw anyone with a still camera of any sort in the Star Wars universe, but I guess they must have existed – they did use “holocams”. So how did a reference to a sci-fi classic get associated with the design of a lens?

In some of the early SLR lenses from CZJ, especially lens series like the Pancolar, many people describe them as being “Star Wars” lenses. What does this really mean? These lenses often have another moniker – “zebra” lenses, because of their striped design. Does the zebra somehow associated them with Star Wars? Most of the talk of Star Wars revolves around the Carl Zeiss Jena Pancolar lenses, and in particular the 50mm f/2 (and in odd cases the f/1.8).

The Pancolar 50mm f/2, which first appeared as the Flexon 50mm f/2, was produced from 1959-69 (made mostly for Exakta mount), and had a number of differing aesthetic looks. Most differed by a change in the grip ring in the front of the lens, from a leather to plastic knobs, and finally to the stripped aluminum ring. Except for the earliest version of these lenses, they all sported the “converging” look of the “depth-of-field range indicator” (DoFRI), which appeared around 1962. Basically when the aperture was altered, the indicators (early models in red as shown, later models in black) would move in and out appropriately, so at f/2 they would converge at the red central line. A Zeiss brochure from 1962 which contained four lenses: Flektogon 4/50mm, Flektogon 2.8/35mm, Tessar 2.8/50mm and Pancolar 2/50mm. Strangely enough, the Pancolar was the only one with this converging distance design.

The “zebra design” is the colloquial term for lenses with grip rings that are aluminum – with vertical straight knurling that alternate black and bare aluminum. Supposedly this striped design evolved from the Exakta VX1000 which when released in 1966 had a shutter-speed selection knob of a similar design. The Pancolar 50mm f/2 also adopted the zebra design circa 1966, while still retaining the converging depth scale. The zebra looks was eventually replaced by the black-look lenses in the early 1970s.

Some suggest the Star Wars moniker it is named for the characteristic look of the DoFRI, reminiscent of those very yellow credits at the beginning of the film. If anything, I think the range indicator could be better attributed to the targeting computer in Luke’s X-wing used on the trench run on the Death Star (Episode IV). It shows the same converging lines, and deals with a similar concept, i.e. distances of a sort. On later models of the 50mm f/2, the strips existed on the tandem with the DoFRI, but when the Pancolar 50mm f/1.8 appeared, it maintained the striped appearance, but lost the converging look DoFRI, opting instead for a more traditional one.

It seems then that the use of strips to describe the “Star Wars” look has no real basis. There were other Zeiss lenses that took on the zebra design, as well as other manufacturers, e.g. Meyer-Optik, Asahi (e.g. the Auto-Takumar 55mm f/1.9), using the design well into the 1970s, and no one ever talks about “Star Wars Takumars”.

The reality is, no one really knows where the term originated or why it came into use. Were these lenses associated with Star Wars because of the striped design? Or perhaps it was a play on the “good” versus “evil” of West versus East Germany? If you look at a lens in isolation, it does have an association, but a dark one – it does share some characteristics with Darth Vader. It’s cloaked in blackness, and perhaps the striped design is associated with the strips on Vader’s armour? Or perhaps the strips were reminiscent of the mouth grill on Vader’s mask?

Maybe it just has a Star Wars feel about it, and you know, the more I look at it, the more I feel that way – maybe I’m being drawn in by the Force… must buy more…

Choosing a vintage lens – some FAQ

/ spqr / Leave a comment

This is a follow-on to the general FAQ on vintage lenses, and answers questions related more to choosing a lens. There are often no truly definitive answers, i.e. there is no “one” perfect vintage lens.

Which focal lengths should I start with?

The most common focal length is 50mm, therefore this is the lens I would suggest starting with. On a crop-sensor such as APS-C, this will give you a 75mm moderate range telephoto, good for portraits etc. Next in line would be a 35mm, because this will give you a “normal” 52mm on an APS-C camera. At the end of the day, the focal length you choose is based on your photographic needs.

Do I need a fast vintage lens?

Sure, 50mm f/1.2 lenses are fast, and f/1.1’s are even faster, but in all likelihood you won’t need to spend the extra money for a fast lens. As digital cameras have higher native ISOs, lenses with f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8 and even f/3.5 are more than usable. Besides which, superfast lenses have a lot of limitations, and do you really want to spend that much money?

Should I choose a lens based on specifications?

Sometimes people will choose lenses based on its speed, i.e. large apertures. Don’t choose a lens based solely on its specifications. A lens has to have a real need for it to be useful, not a numeric one. If you have the wherewithal to buy a 50mm f/1.1 lens, then you have to actually be in a situation to use it, unless of course you are a collector. Besides which the character of a lens is more than just it’s technical specifications.

Should I choose a lens based on its aesthetic appeal?

Sure, why not. I know most people think about the optical appeal of a lens, or the fabulous bokeh it will produce, but the reality is that aesthetics have to play some sort of role. I prefer the look of the older aluminum/chrome lenses over their matt black successors. For example I really like the “fat” version of the CZJ Biotar 75mm f/1.5 made from 1952-1968. It is made of aluminum and has an extremely scalloped focus ring, but these days it sells for upwards fo $2000, so not exactly affordable. I am also drawn towards the Zeiss lenses with the “Star Wars” motif, e.g. Pancolar 50mm.

Aesthetically pleasing lenses anyone?

Are hyped up lenses worth it?

Maybe, or maybe not. In reality how good a lens is is very subjective. Choosing a lens based on a single persons opinion may be somewhat flaky. If a number of people share the same opinion, then it may be worth pursuing that lens. However hyped up lenses often become quite expensive, or even hard to find. For example the the Helios-40 85mm f/1.5 is quiet a hyped up lens – great if you are crazy for Bokeh, but for $500 too expensive for a 85mm lens.

Are lenses nobody talks about worth it?

This is the flip-side to hyped-lenses. The problem with lenses nobody talks about is that nobody talks about them, maybe because they are mediocre, or perhaps nobody has explored them properly. Of course once people get wind of a lens that has been ignored for decades but has some endearing characteristics, expect it to become more expensive, and harder to find. These lenses are often quite cheap, so maybe it’s worth a risk?

Are legendary lenses really that good?

Some lens reviews like to use terms like “legendary”, “mythical”, and “superior”. It is all very subjective. Some lenses do have the qualities to pull off being given one of these monikers, but many aren’t. For example the Carl Zeiss Pancolar 80mm f/1.8 is considered by most to be a really exceptional lens. It is very sharp, and has great bokeh, but the downside is that it isn’t that common, and therefore prices range from C$1200-2000.

Does the brand matter?

Most camera companies produced good lenses. Some people say Zeiss are the best (East or West Germany, that is the question?), others lover Asahi Pentax, and still others like Canon, or Nikon. It’s really all about what lens characteristics of a particular manufacturer you end up coveting. That being said, even prominent companies produced some dog lenses. There were also companies that just produced a certain genre of lenses – for example Heinz Kilfitt (München) produced macro (they produced the first macro lens), telephoto and zoom lenses, such as the famous Killfitt Fern-Kilar 40mm f/5.6 used in the movie Rear Window. (I’ll be doing a separate post on brands)

Are third-party lenses any good?

People also forget that there are 3rd-party lenses, from manufacturers like Soligor, which are usually pretty good, and often quite inexpensive. It often depends on the characteristics of individual lenses.

What things do people forget when choosing a lens?

The most common are likely size and weight. Faster lenses are generally larger, and heavier. An early lens may be made of chrome-plated steel and therefore much heavier than the aluminum lenses that followed. Also, cheaper lenses may not be built that well, i.e. using lower quality components, or heaven forbid plastic parts.

Vintage digital – the first full-frame DSLRs

/ spqr / Leave a comment

The late 1990s saw a plethora of digital cameras evolve. Some were collaborations between various manufacturers such as Nikon-Fujifilm. But most of these cameras had sensor sizes which were smaller than that of a standard film camera, e.g. APS-C. The first true full-frame cameras appeared in the period 2000-2002.

The first full-frame SLR of note was the Contax N Digital, a 6MP SLR produced by Contax in Japan. Although announced in late 2000, it didn’t actually appear until spring 2002. The sensor was a Philips FTF3020-C, and was only in production for a year before it was withdrawn from the market. Pentax also announced a full-frame camera (using the same sensor as the Contax N), the MZ-D in September 2000, but by October of the following year, the camera had been cancelled. The next full-frame was the Canon EOS-1Ds, which appeared September 2002. It was a monumental step forward, having a full-frame sensor that was 11.1 megapixels. In reality Canon dominated the full-frame market for quite a few years.

Nikon, who stayed in the APS-C for many year was relatively late to the game, not introducing a full-frame until 2007. The Nikon D3 had a modest 12.1MP sensor, but this is because Nikon opted for a low-resolution, high sensitivity sensor. Many lauded the camera for its high ISO noise control, with Popular Photography saying the D3 “will bestow an unheard of flexibility to low-light shooters, or give sports photographers the ability to crank up the shutter speed without adding flash.” To compare, the Canon 2007 equivalent was the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, sporting a 21.1MP sensor.

How do these stack up against a modern full-frame? If we compare the Canon 1Ds against a Canon R5C on certain charcteristics:

Canon 1Ds (2002)Canon R5 C (2022)
megapixels1145
ISO100-1250100-51200
video–8K
weight1585g770g
number of focus points451053
number of shots per battery600220-320

These early full-frame DSLR’s were certainly beasts from the perspective of weight, and even megapixels, but to be honest 11MP still stacks up today for certain applications.

Further reading:

Vintage lens makers – Komura (Japan)

/ spqr / Leave a comment

There are some lenses that few people have ever heard about, usually because they provided third-party lenses for many differing camera mounts. One such lens brand is Komura, manufactured by Japanese optical company Sankyō Kōki K.K. (Sankyo Kohki), known in English as Sankyo Koki Co. Ltd. In 1962 the company, registered the US trademark Komura, indicating that it was firat used as a trademark in 1953. Before that it is believed the company use the brand name Chibanon or Chibanone. By the 1970s, the company had changed its name to Komura Lens Manufacturing Ltd.

The Komura literature touted their lenses as being “superbly sharp”. They seem to have produced at least 40 different lenses from 28mm to 800mm, for SLR, rangefinder, and C-mount cameras. Their 28-200mm lenses were made with direct individual mounts, mostly in the Leica thread mount and Nikon rangefinder, but also M42, Exakta, Nikon F, Minolta, Miranda, Konica, Canon, Pentax and Petri. Those from 200-800mm had a generic 47mm screw mount which required a specific adapter, called a ‘Unidapter’ to convert them to other camera mounts (apparently to reduce inventory requirements).

Today Komura lenses are little known, but can still be found, especially for Japan (eBay). A 105mm f/2 is usually advertised for between C$300-500, while 85mm f/1.4 lenses seem to go as high ac C$1200. Actually quite high prices for a brand that doesn’t have a lot of presence. To put this into perspective, the Komura 800mm f/8.0 sold for US$695 in 1965 (plus $8.50 for an appropriate adapter). Conversely the 500mm f/7.0 sold for US$175 (+ $4.95 adapter). The 85mm f/1.4 sold for US$162.

Choosing a vintage lens – classic focal lengths

/ spqr / 1 Comment

The number one choice when selecting a vintage lens is usually focal length. This post will look at the classic types of focal lengths, to provide some insight into choosing one to suits your needs. For each lens focal length, I have included some of the more popular examples of lenses. I have not included cost estimates, because they can be so varied, and dependent on a number of factors.

The values provided for the “crop sensor” denote the full0-frame equivalents when the lenses are used on crop-sensor bodies. For example a vintage 50mm lens on an APS-C sensor will behave the equivalent of a 75mm lens on an SLR. That means a 24mm super wide angle lenses on a DSLR will behave like a wide on an APS-C sensor, and a normal lens on a MFT sensor. Crop sensor focal lengths are simply calculated by multiplying the focal length of a lens by the appropriate crop factor: 1.5 (APS-C), 2.0 (MFT). Note that angles shown represent the angle-of-view (AOV) of the lens and are always horizontal. The AOV for the crop-factors are calculated in the same way as for the focal lengths.

Standard lenses (40−58mm)

Normal lenses tend to produce natural-looking pictures. There is a broad range of lenses in this category, both from the perspective of cost, weight, and aperture (speed). Wide apertures in the range f/1.2-1.4 are ideal for talking available light pictures indoors and out. Average aperture lenses are f/1.7 or f/1.8. Generally lens prices increase as apertures increase, hence why slow lenses are often inexpensive (and plentiful).

50mm (40°)

The 50mm lens is the most ubiquitous of all vintage lenses. Just about every camera came standard with a 50mm lens. 50mm lenses can generally be categorized into “fast” and “slow” lenses. Fast lenses are generally those with apertures of f/1.5 and larger, whereas slow 50’s were f/1.7 to f/2.8. Slow lenses are typical of the standard kit lenses found on cameras of the period, in part to reduce the cost of the basic system. Some higher end models were given an f/1.4 lens, and some like Canon advertised their Canon 7 rangefinder with the “dream lens”, the 50mm f/0.95. The super-fast lenses were designed for low-light situations, and really don’t make a lot of sense for the average photographer.

  • Examples − Asahi Takumar 50mm f/1.8; CZJ Pancolar 50mm f/1.8; CZJ Tessar 50mm f/2.8; Meyer-Optik Görlitz Oreston 50mm f/1.8; Mamiya Sekor 50mm f/2; Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.8;
  • Crop-sensors − 75mm (APS-C), 100mm (MFT)

55mm (36°) and 57/58mm (35/34°)

Some cameras came standard with the “other” normals, 55mm and 57/58mm, depending on the manufacturer. Many of these lenses are from the period when SLR first appeared. Some suggest this was because of mechanical limitations imposed on producing fast 50mm lenses (impeded by the existence of a mirror), others suggest it is because photographers preferred the longer focal length because it was more portrait-focused. So the late 50’s to early 60’s saw a number of these lenses appear. 58mm lenses were generally f/1.4 to f/2, and 55mm were f/1.7 to 2.

  • Examples − Helios-44 58mm f/2.0; Konica Hexanon AR 57mm f/1.2; Minolta Rokkor MC 58mm f/1.4; CZJ Biotar 58mm f/2; Mamiya Sekor 55mm f/1.4; Asahi Super-Takumar 55mm f/1.8;
  • Crop-sensors − 83/87mm (APS-C), 110/116mm (MFT)

40mm (48°) and 45mm (44°)

These focal lengths are not that common, usually appearing in the guise of “pancake” style lenses. These lenses are more likely to be found on fixed-lens cameras, for example the point-and-shoot Olympus Trip 35 (Zuiko 40mm f/2.8). These lenses are ideal for people who work outdoors, as they are light, and compact. They fit very discretely on any camera, but like many compacts look almost comical on larger cameras. These are the focal lengths closest to the diagonal of 36×24mm film, with 40mm offering 48.46° horizontal AOV. Generally they had apertures in the f/2 to f/2.8 range. Within the mainstream of lenses, these intermediary lenses are somewhat inconspicuous, possibly because there aren’t that many examples.

  • Examples − Konica Hexanon AR 40mm f/1.8; Asahi SMC Pentax-M 40mm f/2.8; Minolta Rokkor MD 45mm f/2 (pancake)
  • Crop-sensors − 60/68mm (APS-C), 80/90mm (MFT)
Classic focal lengths, and their associated AOV (horizontal).

Wide-angle lenses (28−35mm)

Any lens shorter than a normal focal length qualifies as a wide-angle. They range from extreme fish-eye to the more moderate, and useful 24-35mm category. We have divided these into the “normal” wides, described here, and the super-wides. As the focal length decreases, the wide-angle characteristics increase – greater angle-of-view, greater depth of field, and greater apparent distortion.

35mm (54°)

Before the 1970s, the 35mm was the “standard” wide angle produced by many manufacturers. As such it was often the workhorse of wide-angle shots from the days of the rangefinders up to the 1970s, when wider lenses started to appear. Due to the increase in AOV, many photographers preferred its perspective and as a result was often carried as a secondary lens. It has a horizontal AOV of 54°, and was usually available is a wide range of apertures, from f/1.4 to f/4, and therefore there is no shortage of these wide-angle workhorses, and therefore can be quite inexpensive.

  • Examples − CZJ Flektogon 35mm f/2.8; Enna München Lithagon 35mm f/3.5; Konica Hexanon AR 35mm f/2; Asahi Super-Takumar 35mm f/3.5
  • Crop-sensors − 52mm (APS-C), 70mm (MFT)

28mm (65°)

The 28mm has become the “standard” in wide angle lenses since the 1970s. Like the 35mm, there are copious lenses with many differing characteristics out there.

  • Examples − Asahi Takumar 28mm f/3.5; Minolta Rokkor MC/MD 28mm f/3.5; Asahi Super-Takumar 28mm f/3.5;
  • Crop-sensors − 42mm (APS-C), 56mm (MFT)

29/30mm (64/62°)

Quite a rare option, it provides a small variation on the 28mm.

  • Examples − Meyer-Optik Görlitz Lydith 30mm f/3.5 (also Pentacon 30mm); Pentacon 29mm f/2.8, and its predecessor the Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestegon 29mm f/2.8
  • Crop-sensors − 44/45mm (APS-C), 58/60mm (MFT)

Moderate telephoto lenses (80−150mm)

These are likely the most common telephoto lenses, the moderate telephotos are often considered “portrait” lenses. Often reasonably fast and lightweight, they are easy to hold by hand they provide at least twice the magnification of normal lenses. Angle-of-view is generally 14-25°.

80−90mm (25-23°)

These focal lengths were common in rangefinder lenses, and are sought after for taking portraits, likely due to their limited compression effects. Apertures range from f/1.8 to f/3.5.

  • Examples − Jupiter 9 85mm f/2.0; Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 85mm f/1.8; CZJ Pancolar 80mm f/1.8; Helios 85mm f/1.5
  • Crop-sensors − 127-135mm (APS-C), 170-180mm (MFT)

105mm (19°)

Sometimes overlooked, but just slightly narrower field (19°) than the more popular 85mm (24°).

  • Examples − Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105mm f/2.4; Meyer-Görlitz Trioplan 105mm f/2.8
  • Crop-sensors − 157mm (APS-C), 210mm (MFT)

120−150mm (17-14°)

The ubiquitous 135mm is the most common lens in this range, and there are a lot of them. The 135 was likely the “standard” telephoto until telephoto-zooms started to make inroads in the 1970s. Available in a wide assortment of apertures, f/2.8 and f/3.5 were the most common.

  • Examples − Hard to pick one 135mm, there are SO many. CZJ Sonnar 135mm f/1.5; Meyer-Optik Görlitz Orestor 135mm f/2.8; Asahi Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 135mm f/3.5
  • Crop-sensors − 180-225mm (APS-C), 240-300mm (MFT)