# Cheap lenses, good photographs



## Vulture (Jul 21, 2016)

What stops you from buying the lenses you want? It isn't that you don't care about your images, it is that the lenses cost so much, presumably. This usually is true.

But I found a hack. Not many people know about this, but those who do love it. Here are the steps to getting the stats you want out of a lens without the exorbitant fee of new lenses.

(This article assumes that you have an interchangeable lens camera.)

First, note your camera manufacturer.
Second, how long has this company been in the photography business?
What are the historical lens mount types?
What is the mount type on your camera?
Go to Amazon.com.
Look for an adapter that has a male side mount the same as your camera and a female side the same as the lens mount of the researched lenses.
Buy your adapter, price doesn't matter to much in regard to quality. I got mine for $13.95.
Look at local and non-local camera shops for used lenses with the researched mount type. The more lenses you buy, the cheaper they will be individually. The guys working at the shop will be glad to see interest and finally get them off the shelves. I got a 24mm f2.8 wide angle, a 200mm f4.0 tele and a 135mm f3.5 portrait lens for $30. There is also the possibility that the focal length of the lens may not yet exist for new lenses.

Now let's compare:
24mm f2.8 wide angle
old: $10
new: $449
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126139-REG/sony_sel28f20_fe_28mm_f_2_lens.html
200mm f4.0 tele
old: $10
new: $998
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1126138-REG/sony_sel24240_fe_24_240mm_f_3_5_6_3_oss.html
135mm f3.5 portrait lens
old: $10
new: doesn't exist

Here are some portrait photographs taken with my used Minolta MD lenses on a Sony A7. 

Note: the lighting was done with desk lamps on cardboard boxes.


----------



## Kim Chee (Jul 21, 2016)

This is great info.

Would you be willing to make a tutorial on "how to" use this gear?

I'm sure it would take awhile, but it looks like you know what you're doing.


----------



## warlo (Jul 21, 2016)

I assume you talk about manual focus lenses, which is a point to make clear not to discourage those auto focus addicts when they realize. So that you can tell them next that manual focusing is a whole dimension of photography that has been stripped away from people since auto focus became the norm. Not even to mention that those manual focus lenses are going to have a ring that is smooth and that goes all the way around when focusing, not like those new lenses that allow you to set the camera to manual focus and then you have 2 cm to play with it (rendering the whole thing useless). Then you can start talking about playing with hyper-focal distances, and people will get excited and later on love you for your advice on looking at that thing that seemed like just an annoying old feature that was just waiting for the auto to come by.

Another point is that when talking about adapters, you dont have to stay with your manufacturer's lenses, there are adapters for all brands, you can have pentax smc's on canon, nikon, sony or whatever and so on with any brand ( I recommend m42 mount as they are very available, cheap and great quality lenses)

Its important to note as well, that unless you have a full frame camera, lenses have a crop ratio that you need to know when you mention the mm of the lenses. a 50mm is more like an 80mm when mounted on non full frame cameras and so on (there is a calculation depending on the sensor that needs to be applied to the lens mm).

And as if it wasn't enough, I'll recommend people to stick to fixed lenses. Contrary to what is popular nowadays, meaning zoom lenses (specially the ones that go from wide angle to tele zoom and shit), the real deal is fixed lenses, as they have less elements (less lenses / glass / crystal / whatever) in their construction, giving sharper and more moody results. Zoom lenses are convenient, but if what you want is sharpness and distinctive results, stay with fixed ones, even if its a pain to have to change lenses all the time (you get faster and faster at it until you dont care anymore)


----------



## Vulture (Jul 21, 2016)

warlo said:


> I assume you talk about manual focus lenses, which is a point to make clear not to discourage those auto focus addicts when they realize. So that you can tell them next that manual focusing is a whole dimension of photography that has been stripped away from people since auto focus became the norm. Not even to mention that those manual focus lenses are going to have a ring that is smooth and that goes all the way around when focusing, not like those new lenses that allow you to set the camera to manual focus and then you have 2 cm to play with it (rendering the whole thing useless). Then you can start talking about playing with hyper-focal distances, and people will get excited and later on love you for your advice on looking at that thing that seemed like just an annoying old feature that was just waiting for the auto to come by.
> 
> Another point is that when talking about adapters, you dont have to stay with your manufacturer's lenses, there are adapters for all brands, you can have pentax smc's on canon, nikon, sony or whatever and so on with any brand ( I recommend m42 mount as they are very available, cheap and great quality lenses)
> 
> ...


I don't know about AF tech, but really, if this means getting a new lens for 400 dollars plus, surely people would learn to love MF. Still, there are old AF lenses that could be used. I imagine you would just need to buy the more expensive adapter.


----------



## Vulture (Jul 21, 2016)

Kim Chee said:


> This is great info.
> 
> Would you be willing to make a tutorial on "how to" use this gear?
> 
> I'm sure it would take awhile, but it looks like you know what you're doing.


Think of it like hopping freight. You need to get into it yourself. Then come back with specific questions. It's like a right of passage.


----------



## Vulture (Jul 21, 2016)

Kim Chee said:


> This is great info.
> 
> Would you be willing to make a tutorial on "how to" use this gear?
> 
> I'm sure it would take awhile, but it looks like you know what you're doing.


Are you asking for me to do a tutorial on photography?


----------



## Kim Chee (Jul 21, 2016)

Vulture said:


> Think of it like hopping freight. You need to get into it yourself. Then come back with specific questions. It's like a right of passage.



Haha, I wasn't asking for my own info.

If it is art, anything goes.

Has anybody died getting into photography?


----------



## Kim Chee (Jul 21, 2016)

Vulture said:


> Are you asking for me to do a tutorial on photography?



Yes. In a different thread if you are willing.


----------



## Vulture (Jul 21, 2016)

Kim Chee said:


> Haha, I wasn't asking for my own info.
> 
> If it is art, anything goes.
> 
> Has anybody died getting into photography?


Probably,


----------



## Matt Derrick (Jul 22, 2016)

all excellent advice from @Vulture and @warlo!

just to throw in my two cents, i got an sony a7 last year and with a $20 adapter i was able to use a 1.4f 50mm lens (from 1962!) with stellar results, and it only cost me $75.

i also got a 70-200mm 'beer can' lens (4.0f) for $50, but didn't use it nearly as much.

saving up for the body is a kind of rough initial investment (i paid $800 used for the a7), but the money you save on lenses with _well _worth it.

oh and like what was said above, you lose autofocus on most adapters, but i personally believe 100% manual is the way to go anyways.


----------



## Vulture (Jul 22, 2016)

Matt Derrick said:


> all excellent advice from @Vulture and @warlo!
> 
> just to throw in my two cents, i got an sony a7 last year and with a $20 adapter i was able to use a 1.4f 50mm lens (from 1962!) with stellar results, and it only cost me $75.
> 
> ...


I love the a7


----------



## etpyh (Jul 23, 2016)

Things to consider are firstly, as waldo pointed out, that you are not restricted to your camera manufacteur. 
What is important if you are looking into what lenses you can adapt is the flange-to-film distance (if translated correctly) of your camera mount and the mount you want to adapt. Some mounts can only be adapted with an adapter that has a correction lens in it, which means losing image quality, or they can't focus on infinity if you adapt them without an adapter.
Furthermore most of these cheap old lenses are crap or not well adaptable, the good old lenses have their price too, since oretty much everyone seriously into photography knows about adapting them. So I suggest to put some research into the lenses you want to buy instead of going to the next photography store and buying some old, heavy, bulky and crappy lenses, expecting them to be good just because their fixed lenses. But of course manual lenses will usually be cheaper than comparable af lenses, so I am all for adapting aswell. But don't just buy any old lens if you are after best image quality.
Another thing to mention is, that you don't only loose AF, but also the time priority exposure mode and on some cameras even the aperture priority mode. Time priority mode is not that important for me, but aperture priority is pretty useful for me.
There are also new (third party) mf lenses wich come with the right mount for your camera and cheaper than the new af lenses from your camera brand.



warlo said:


> Then you can start talking about playing with hyper-focal distances, and people will get excited and later on love you for your advice on looking at that thing that seemed like just an annoying old feature that was just waiting for the auto to come by.


The better your camera is, the more image quality loss comes with using the hyperfocal distance, so don't wonder if your images are not 100% sharp on your A7 when using this method.



> Another point is that when talking about adapters, you dont have to stay with your manufacturer's lenses, there are adapters for all brands, you can have pentax smc's on canon, nikon, sony or whatever and so on with any brand ( I recommend m42 mount as they are very available, cheap and great quality lenses)


See above, you can't put anything on anything. At least not without some major loss.



> Its important to note as well, that unless you have a full frame camera, lenses have a crop ratio that you need to know when you mention the mm of the lenses. a 50mm is more like an 80mm when mounted on non full frame cameras and so on (there is a calculation depending on the sensor that needs to be applied to the lens mm).


True, but not really important, if you already have, or have used lenses on your camera and are now looking into what adaptable lense you should buy. What I mean is, all lenses that have, let's say 50mm, will also have effectively the same focal length on your camera. So if you have used a new af lense designed for your camera mount with 50mm and are looking to get a cheaper alternative, what you are looking for is a manual 50mm lens no calculations here. 
But crop factor is definitly a thing you should know about when you are into photography.



> stay with fixed ones, even if its a pain to have to change lenses all the time (you get faster and faster at it until you dont care anymore)


35mm is all you need anyways  



Vulture said:


> I don't know about AF tech, but really, if this means getting a new lens for 400 dollars plus, surely people would learn to love MF. Still, there are old AF lenses that could be used. I imagine you would just need to buy the more expensive adapter.


Working af adapters are pretty much nonexistent, at least if you are looking into "cross company" adapting.





Matt Derrick said:


> saving up for the body is a kind of rough initial investment (i paid $800 used for the a7), but the money you save on lenses with _well _worth it.


How do you save money on lenses by buying a better body? By having to buy less lenses because you can crop out more? That's the first time I hear it that way, usually it's the other way around, people trying to tell you, that you will need to buy better lenses if you upgrade your camera.


----------



## warlo (Jul 23, 2016)

etpyh said:


> Things to consider are firstly, as waldo pointed out, that you are not restricted to your camera manufacteur.
> What is important if you are looking into what lenses you can adapt is the flange-to-film distance (if translated correctly) of your camera mount and the mount you want to adapt. Some mounts can only be adapted with an adapter that has a correction lens in it, which means losing image quality, or they can't focus on infinity if you adapt them without an adapter.
> Furthermore most of these cheap old lenses are crap or not well adaptable, the good old lenses have their price too, since oretty much everyone seriously into photography knows about adapting them. So I suggest to put some research into the lenses you want to buy instead of going to the next photography store and buying some old, heavy, bulky and crappy lenses, expecting them to be good just because their fixed lenses. But of course manual lenses will usually be cheaper than comparable af lenses, so I am all for adapting aswell. But don't just buy any old lens if you are after best image quality.
> Another thing to mention is, that you don't only loose AF, but also the time priority exposure mode and on some cameras even the aperture priority mode. Time priority mode is not that important for me, but aperture priority is pretty useful for me.
> ...




Technically speaking, there is no reason why there could be any quality loss while using hyperfocal distances.

Hyperfocal means that from a certain distance up to, say, infinity, everything will be on focus. Same happens when you focus and your f/stops are high enough to give you a considerable distance, you just set the focus so that from x disntance to y distance, everything in focus. 

What defines the sharpness is the quality of the elements in the lens, the area of the lens that is being used (defined by the aperture) and not where the focus is or how wide the hyperfocal distance is. If that where true, then focusing on a flat object at f/1.2 should give you the sharpest pic you've ever seen, and that is never gonna happen. If you use hyperfocal distances on the sweet spot of the lens (usually 3 stops above the lowest f stop of the lens) , then you get your best sharpness no matter where or how you focus.

I dont get what you mean that "get a 50mm if what you want is a 50mm" kind of thing. Crop factor is important to know, otherwise you will always be disappointed if you have a cropped sensor camera and are into the, say, 35mm look of that famous photographer you like, and who uses a full frame camera. If you dont do your math, you will never get what you really want. What seems to be that you are saying is that if you where already putting 50mm lenses on a cropped sensor camera and then go and get more 50mm then no math is needed if what you are after is improving lens quality, then it would be ok. But if you trying to get lens for its focal lenght, compression, etc. Then you will be like the rabbit chasing the unreachable carrot unless you do the math. 

MF "old" lenses have nothing to envy to the new super expensive stuff. There are lenses made in the 60's that beat the crap out of any modern lens. You just have to research. Its true that adapting is a tricky thing (depending on the adapter), but if you are buying voigtlander lenses to adapt them to a cropped-sensor sony camera and come back at me saying that there is quality loss compared to when its mounted on a leica m9, well.. what can I say. oh yeah, get a proper body.


----------



## tobepxt (Jul 23, 2016)

i found a whole bag of old lenses for 7 bucks at a thrift store a while back. i have a pair of adapters online for three dollars.


----------



## etpyh (Jul 23, 2016)

warlo said:


> Technically speaking, there is no reason why there could be any quality loss while using hyperfocal distances.
> 
> Hyperfocal means that from a certain distance up to, say, infinity, everything will be on focus. Same happens when you focus and your f/stops are high enough to give you a considerable distance, you just set the focus so that from x disntance to y distance, everything in focus.
> 
> What defines the sharpness is the quality of the elements in the lens, the area of the lens that is being used (defined by the aperture) and not where the focus is or how wide the hyperfocal distance is. If that where true, then focusing on a flat object at f/1.2 should give you the sharpest pic you've ever seen, and that is never gonna happen. If you use hyperfocal distances on the sweet spot of the lens (usually 3 stops above the lowest f stop of the lens) , then you get your best sharpness no matter where or how you focus.



Yes there is a technical reason, that there is a quality loss using hyperfocal distance. Hyperfocal means, that from a certain distance, more specifically half the hyperfocal distance, to infinity everything is _acceptable_ sharp. The sharper accaptable sharp is for you, the farer away is your hyperfocal distance on the same focal length and aperture.
This also means, that it might happen, that you use a hyperfocal distance for a certain lens and aperture combination, that was once considered to be acceptable sharp, because the film used back in the day didn't have a high enough resolution to get much sharper images anyway, and find yourself unpleaed with the result on your canon 800d.

It's similar with small apertures. What defines sharpness is definitley the elements in the lens and the area of the lens that is being used, but it is also where the focus is (when using hyperfocal distance at least) and how wide the hyperfocal distance is (well kind of the other way around but see above) and other stuff. As this is true, focusing on a flat object at f/1.2 doesn't give you the sharpest image you have ever seen (and I don't see why it should), but the object in focus is sharper than it is in an image taken at f/1.2 taken with the according hyperfocal distance (with the object being somewhere between half the hyperfocal distance and infinity). Or it is at least as sharp, if you have a sensor behind the lens that has a resolution that's shit anyway it won't make a difference.



> What seems to be that you are saying is that if you where already putting 50mm lenses on a cropped sensor camera and then go and get more 50mm then no math is needed if what you are after is improving lens quality, then it would be ok.


That's what I meant. Or if you have used a 50mm on your lens and want something wider and come across a 35mm designed for 35mm film. Then you don't have to calculate if the 35mm is wider on your ap-c camera or not. Don't know how to express this better, maybe say something like given focal length on lenses is not given in relation to any specific film or sensor format.
When you hear your favourite photographer saying he's shooting a 35mm lens and you want the same look, you need to know on what camera he uses it, that's true.



> MF "old" lenses have nothing to envy to the new super expensive stuff. There are lenses made in the 60's that beat the crap out of any modern lens.


Well they do lack some functions comopared to the new super expensive stuff. If youo are just talking about image quality, there are indeed good old lenses, that's what I said too. I don't think that there are lenses made in the 60's that beat the crap out of any modern lens, at least not in the most common focal lengths. There might be old lenses, that are better than the newer ones in som focal lengths, but the new good ones are so good, that they are all pretty close together on the top range. At least that's the impression I got, I might be wrong since I didn't check any test results to back this up.



> You just have to research.


As I said.



> Its true that adapting is a tricky thing (depending on the adapter), but if you are buying voigtlander lenses to adapt them to a cropped-sensor sony camera and come back at me saying that there is quality loss compared to when its mounted on a leica m9, well.. what can I say. oh yeah, get a proper body.


It's about the different flange-to-film-distances, as said above. If you adapt a lens with a designed for flange to film distance, which is shorter than that of the camera body it is adapted one, you will either lose infinity focus or image quality due to the necessary correction lense. As I said, this is a problem for some adaptions. The voigtländer to sony isn't one of them.


----------

