The Official Vintage Glass Thread

I'm definitely getting a Hassy to Eos adapter just for the sake of it.

00CbwX-24239784.jpg


Why the eff not.
 
Hey NS,

so this is my first time thinking about trying to get a vintage piece of glass. I ended up winning this lens off of ebay from a seller who seems pretty legit when I've talked to him. He's going to include an adapter so that it will fit my t2i but does anyone have any personal experience with this lens or have you heard anything about it? I'm probably going to be using it mainly for filming and/or time lapses. I got it for about $110 dollars so should i spend the money and go for it? the link is here:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/130737999791?ssPageName=STRK:MEWNX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1439.l2649

and for anyone who doesn't want to open the link...the lens is a:

Derek Gardiner 28mm f2.8 M42 WIDE ANGLE LENS.

$T2eC16RHJH8E9qSEVoKIBQEY3SMwQw~~60_12.JPG


Thanks NS! +k for anyone who helps!

Also, I'm thinking about buying this then purchasing a Tokina 11-16. Should i still get this or just go ahead and opt for the 11-16?
 
That's awesome. I was in a shop last week and was having a photog-boner over the Hassy/Zeiss glass.
I think I might pick up the 50mm for the RZ. I want something wideeee.
 
Seems pretty pricey for vintage glass but who knows it could be ridiculously amazing, I'm just not sure. But The 11-16 and this lens are two very different lenses. The 11-16 is an UWA that costs $600ish, This is a sorta.. wide-ish vintage manual prime. It just depends on what youre shooting/looking for/ need.
 
Just because its vintage doesnt mean it has to be dirt cheap. I paid $120 or so for my S-M-C Takumar 50mm, but it literally looks like i just took it out of the box. Not a scratch on the body, nor any foreign objects in the optics. Pretty good for it being made decades ago. OP: I have no heard anything about that particular lens. A few things that pop up in mind are: its not THAT fast for being a prime. Secondly, i think 28mm on a crop is a bit of a weird focal length. Others will say differently, but its just personal opinion. What other lenses do you own? That might give us a better understanding of what you want/need
 
My lens set up as of right now is:

18-55mm Kit lens

55-250 Kit lens

50mm 1.8 Canon

I'm definitely buying a tokina 11-16 here in the near future and am thinking that this 28mm might be nice for filming/timelapses. Would it be better in the long run to just save the money from this lens and get the tokina 11-16? I have a glide cam and am looking for the tokina to mainly be used with that. Also, I don't have a fluid head for my tripod and am looking at getting a manfrotto fluid head so that the glide cam quick release will be smooth and interchangeable. So if i don't get this lens then i could go ahead and get the fluid head. I haven't sent the money to the ebay seller yet because idk if it will truly be worth it in the long run....
 
It's basically crop standard... it comes out to about 45mm, and then with any extra crop factor the adapter may put on it, it could end up even closer to that 50mm. Not all that weird, really.

28mm is usually the closest you'll get to crop standard focal length without getting something like the sigma 30mm 1.4, which is 400ish bucks, and doesn't have the quality of optics of vintage glass.
 
a crop body is 1.6x. so 28 + 15(~60% of 28) = ~43mm

I think im gonna go with a 24mm vintage prime next, which is more like a 35mm.
 
Was talking to Zach about this one tonight - for those with Full Frame, it's a pretty interesting option, for under 200$

16mm-DSC_1335-768.jpg


Russian made 16mm Fisheye. Cheap. Solid metal. Soft in the corners at lower apertures, but for at least a backup manual fish, would be pretty sweet.
 
Are you implying the Sigma optically of lower quality than vintage glass?

Also, what is everybody raving about 'awkward' focal lengths on different formats. It really doesn't matter at all, as long as you know how to use it. 28mm is wonderful FL, both on crop, FF or medium format (although very wide, which doesn't have to mean bad). It's just where you put it to use. 28mm is both a wonderful walkaround length on both crop and FF. Anyone saying otherwise doesn't know what he's talking about.
 
Eh not really. You gotta spend money on what you're gonna use.
Some focal lengths don't have a place in most people's lineup. If somebody handed me a 28mm to keep in my bag I'd be stoked, but I wouldn't buy one. My 24mm is better for my needs. If I had a 24 and a 28 and could only keep one in my bag I'd keep the 24. It's all about prioritizing.
 
I mean't to say 'many other options' rather than Vintage glass...

Truth be told the optics on it are pretty decent. It's just way too expensive for a lens that you can get similar if not better quality from other lenses. I'd probably take the 28mm 1.8 from canon over it now that I've had some experience with both lenses, realize it costs less or equivalent, doesn't have much if any performance dropoff (also 2mm of focal length is really unnoticeable), and is able to be used on an FF camera.. They both have MF override too, so it's pretty sweet. The 30mm 1.4 is better in low light, sure... but it's kinda shitty at 1.4 and it's not much sharper at 1.8 than the Canon 28mm 1.8. Plus the Canon has a focus window - which I am a fan of.

That said. pick up a MF Nikon 28mm f2 for like 100 bucks in great condition and call it a day, if you're doing film, or want to save like 300 bucks...
 
still looking for a 300+ lens. anyone?

of all the things i've heard, i was shocked the most that a tamron adapt-all lens (300 5.6) is actually really decent.
 
Sure is, but for 50$ more you can get the Tokina, which isn't as fast (f/3.5) but about 5 times sharper, without the ghosting.

What next vintage lens is everybody going to buy?

I'm in the market for a new 135mm, quite possibly an SMC Tak f/2.5.

That or a Nikkor 105. Or a 24mm... Choices...
 
I've used the takumar 200m f3.5 and I love it, it has something like 20 aperture blades. Check out pentax forums, they do reviews on almost every lens and they have examples
 
cheapest on keh was a leica r 16mm f2.8 for $890. Peleng is $300ish but looks pretty crappy, and its 8mm so I think it would vignette on a full frame sensor. Check skateperception though, they all try to find the cheapest fisheye short of an opteka on an 18-55 to use. Might be a little harder to find fullframe, but there should at least be some info, maybe in the photo forum
 
You *think* it vignettes? Apart from that it doesn't mount to FF, I think only 1/3 of the whole image would be visible, if that, haha.

Not many good 'cheap' vintage fisheyes available as far as I know. And the ones that are cheaper are mostly crappy.

I don't know if it's still made, but the 15mm Canon is a very good lens and not extremely expensive (not cheap either).
 
It says that it covers a 24mmx36mm sensor, but a sample picture shows full circle vignetting, I was just trying to throw some ideas out there
 
Two of the best value for dollar film camera's on the market. I strongly considered a sq-a instead of my Pentax 6x7, I just like the 6x7 format better. The canonet is so fucking sharp, like a mini fixed lens leica.
 
I really need to check out rangefinders. I'd love having one and shooting with one. The only rangefinder I've ever shot with was Leica M4, which I can't afford anyway. But I bet there's a ton of really cool, small rangefinders out there for real cheap (like the Canonet).

Let's do some research, eh?!
 
Talk to Zack, he always points them out to me on craigslist or kijijijijijijijijijijijijiji or whatever that website is
 
^probably KEH.com?

Anyways... Some cool rangefinders that AREN'T as expensive as a Leica... These are some of the ones I've used, and enjoy a ton.

Olympus XA

Rollei 35

Minolta Hi-Matic 7Sii

Ricoh 500G

Canon Canonet

Canon 7

Konica C35/Vivitar C35

Olympus 35SP

Minolta CLE (Pretty much a Leica, that Leica was too snobbish to sell, because it was killing the sales of it's M5 camera - the worst Leica model. It takes Leica lenses, and even though it's plastic and everything, it's my choice for the best rangefinder out there for under 1000$... You can find them for around 600-700 very easily. Maybe you'll find one as low as 400-500 if you really look hard. They're amazing.)

Then, if you want some russianmade Leica knockoff rangefinders, check out the Zorki's. They aren't as sharp or anything, but they are still pretty cool, and damn cheap.

 
D3S_1616-1200.jpg


Yashica Electro 35 is an amazing rangefinder! There are also Zorki's and FED's, they are pretty crude russian leica screw copies, they are no where near as sharp, but you can pick one up for like $10 on ebay. Canonet's are dope, the ql17 giii is an awesome camera, still pretty cheap, I believe they run around $75 for one in decent condition. Contax G1/2's are amazing, zeiss lenses, but a big step up in terms of price, a g1 with a 45mm will run you like $400 or $500, and they are pretty automatic.

 
A week before I left to America I bought a Konica C35, but it's back home so not much use for that now.

I don't really want one with screw in lenses. I'm just fine with a fixed focal length.

Right now, I'm looking at the QL17 and SP35. They seem simple, sturdy and fast (f/1.7). The Yashica looks great too, but that one has interchangeable lenses, right?
 
Yashica is a fixed 45mm f1.7, I'd also check out the OLY Trip 35, slower lens at 40mm f2.8, but it has a great vintage look to it.
 
I got it for 275 with a 220 back and the 80 2.8

I only saw 1 wlf on keh and it was way too expensive, its difficult to find them I guess. Next thing I am going to purchase is a 120 back anyway. Unless all I will ever shoot is Kodak Portra 160 or 400, since those are the only 2 films I can find in the 220 format haha
 
220 back systems are considerable cheaper, 220 is kinda non existent these days so you'll end up buying a 120 back anyways for more cash.
 
Im finding even 220 back systems in the upper $300 range, yet everyone seems to be finding them for much cheaper...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top