p.2 #1 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
I still think that the terms "filmic look" or "vintage" are at least as vague as "3D pop," actually much vaguer. There were countless different films, which could be processed in different ways and, moreover, looked different in different formats. And it's the same with "vintage," which presumably refers to the optical quality of the lenses; there were countless different types, and whether "vintage" refers to the 80s, 50s, 20s, or even earlier remains unclear. I think I know what's meant, but I believe it should be called something else or described differently.
p.2 #2 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Really useful comparison thank you, Jonas. Those pen lenses do look super compact but even that 35/1.8 MD doesn't look too bad.
I appreciate I could be wrong you know about vintage lenses and modern lenses when you stop them down as I have not done extensive testing. But with the mir 24h there's no ambiguity, you can see the difference without any edits. It's just I don't like it long distance. It's too messy.
I'm looking at my nikon 35/1.4 ais vs distagon 35/1.4 zm at f8. And there's just some funk everywhere you look closely on mine while the distagon is defined everywhere, no mistakes, no glitching. I can reduce clarity, texture, contrast, negative dehaze (probably the most helpful), reduce sharpness but it's not the same. It's funkless. Even if I add in radials in the corners, linears to the midframe and reduce it that way, it's just not the same look.
Perhaps the distagon isn't the right surrogate for the CV 35/1.4 classic, even when stopped down and longer distance, I'm not sure.
I don't recall seeing the tta 40/2, or the sigma 35/2, or the x100vi with the same kind of glitches I see with the older lenses. If I did I'd probably have returned them . But maybe the CV classic has them stopped down too.
That funk does help sell the image as being more authentic but maybe that's placebo or my editing skills or I don't know, an excuse to go down another rabbit hole.
I wish I knew the terms and could identify it with confidence etc, but I don't and can't so don't take this as anything more than just chat. They're just missing some funk that glimmer glass doesn't really make up for.
I really like the look of the CV classic and I'm going to pick one up on sale but I don't think it's going to be as good for this as an actual vintage lens. Maybe if you're going for a leica vintage, which maybe is more clean stopped down? I'm not sure.
p.2 #4 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
100%
I think it would be helpful if the OP would post a few images that show what he is after, eg color profile, sensitivity as well as lens quality.
IMO, I think the allure of vintage lenses for some is the lack of perfection, it just helps to understand which imperfections you are looking for and then identify which lenses have those qualities. For instance, are you looking for glow wide open? Are you looking for swirly bokeh? Pronounced bubble bokeh?
@Yogify, do you have an image that shows what you are looking for in a lens?
Kk
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I still think that the terms "filmic look" or "vintage" are at least as vague as "3D pop," actually much vaguer. There were countless different films, which could be processed in different ways and, moreover, looked different in different formats. And it's the same with "vintage," which presumably refers to the optical quality of the lenses; there were countless different types, and whether "vintage" refers to the 80s, 50s, 20s, or even earlier remains unclear. I think I know what's meant, but I believe it should be called something else or described differently.
p.2 #5 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
And one more thing. Back in the "vintage days," there was no IBIS; perhaps turning off image stabilization often brings just that touch of imperfection that makes the subtle difference. In any case, I've resolved to experiment with it sometime in the future. If I remember.
Of course, there is one crucial disadvantage. You can't buy new equipment.😄
p.2 #6 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
I don't care about the bokeh as much, I don't want the swirls, I don't want the bubbles but if a lens has them it doesn't matter because I'm going to be shooting at f4-f11 mostly maybe a touch at f2.8.
There's some photos on the previous page, I don't have a bunch of examples of vintage lenses used on modern cameras with film post processing that I've come across unfortunately. I saw a pretty nice video of the Canon 35/f2 when I was searching but I heard it has issues with the bearings that will lead to a headache.
I want something with low or easy-to-correct distortion, not too heavy on the CA, not a lot of flaring even without hood, not annoyingly low definition at the edges by f8, but not too defined elsewhere either, not too contrasty, and with a little general funk.
Like a high quality but assuredly vintage lens that's not too big when mounted on Sony.
Nifty Fifty wrote:
Have you ever looked at the Pergear 1.4 35?
I did but not when I was looking for one for this purpose, might actually be a good one for it though it didnt call to me. I didn't like the flaring either, I hated it actually but I imagine the cv classic has quite a bit of that too but hopefully not stopped down.
With the mir24-h I noticed a lot of contrast lost centrally with sun in the frame, even behind clouds that you only discover in post and reduce the highlights - and it gets worse when you stop it down.
p.2 #7 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
I still think that the terms "filmic look" or "vintage" are at least as vague as "3D pop," actually much vaguer. There were countless different films, which could be processed in different ways and, moreover, looked different in different formats. And it's the same with "vintage," which presumably refers to the optical quality of the lenses; there were countless different types, and whether "vintage" refers to the 80s, 50s, 20s, or even earlier remains unclear. I think I know what's meant, but I believe it should be called something else or described differently.
Yes, and no. Yes as I also would like another description. No the lens is the lens and the film is the film. So when discussing lenses we can disregard the whole film discussion. What we cannot disregard is how the lens renders when used with a digital camera.
So, no complete solution.
When I mention I today would buy the Voigtländer Classic 35/1.4 saying it is vintage enough for me it is thanks to its (albeit a little modified) double gauss design with everything that comes with that classic design. In comparison the Voigtländer 50/1.2 is not really vintage as the double gauss design is quite modified and there are also two ASPH elements included.
I see the problem though when referring to different lens designs as the mnaufacturers themselves are mixing names and designs. OTOH I'm no friend of fundamentalism either... It's a blur, as usual.
p.2 #8 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Yogifi wrote:
[...]
I really like the look of the CV classic and I'm going to pick one up on sale but I don't think it's going to be as good for this as an actual vintage lens. Maybe if you're going for a leica vintage, which maybe is more clean stopped down? I'm not sure.
There are two versions of the Voigtländer 35/1.4 and you may check this before sending your money away. Version one is in M-mount only and it's the true classic.
Version 2 are made for M- and E-mount and the optical formula is different and for example the focus shift is improved (or better put is less of it, maybe none? I don't know). Perhaps you can find aversion 1 and then mount it to a Sony using an AF-adapter...?!
p.2 #9 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
And one more thing. Back in the "vintage days," there was no IBIS; perhaps turning off image stabilization often brings just that touch of imperfection that makes the subtle difference. In any case, I've resolved to experiment with it sometime in the future. If I remember.
Of course, there is one crucial disadvantage. You can't buy new equipment.😄
You know, I'll actually try this with the x100 xD. That would be the perfect body for this purpose it's just a bit too clean for this, and not clean enough for regular. I love almost everything about that camera, except the images. I'm not selling as I'm hopeful that maybe I'll figure it out in the not-too-distant future.
Jonas B wrote:
There are two versions of the Voigtländer 35/1.4 and you may check this before sending your money away. Version one is in M-mount only and it's the true classic.
Version 2 are made for M- and E-mount and the optical formula is different and for example the focus shift is improved (or better put is less of it, maybe none? I don't know). Perhaps you can find aversion 1 and then mount it to a Sony using an AF-adapter...?!
I knew there were two versions of the m-mount but I didn't know the e-mount was based on the second, nice one thanks again.
p.2 #10 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Yogifi wrote:
I want something with low or easy-to-correct distortion, not too heavy on the CA, not a lot of flaring even without hood, not annoyingly low definition at the edges by f8, but not too defined elsewhere either, not too contrasty, and with a little general funk.
Hmm, this is interesting. Do you have by any chance a sample shot of the same scene with a lens that meets these vintage criteria and one that doesn't?
Personally, I think wide open it's rather easy to show this, but stopped down to f8 most lenses become really close in my eyes...
p.2 #11 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Given your responses, I think you would be happiest with one of the 40mm Heliars. I understand that it isn't 35mm, but it's close and even though it's an older lens design, it performs quite well and has its own look. After that, one of the Noktons that's based on a double gauss as mentioned before, or a color skopar would be good options.
p.2 #12 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Jonas B wrote:
There are two versions of the Voigtländer 35/1.4 and you may check this before sending your money away. Version one is in M-mount only and it's the true classic.
Version 2 are made for M- and E-mount and the optical formula is different and for example the focus shift is improved (or better put is less of it, maybe none? I don't know). Perhaps you can find aversion 1 and then mount it to a Sony using an AF-adapter...?!
If everything depends on the Double Gauss Type", why not the E-mount? Judging by this diagram, that's exactly what it is. https://www.voigtlaender.de/objektive/e-anschluss/35-mm-f1-4-nokton-classic/
p.2 #13 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
When I look at the Kodak E100G slides from my Rolleiflex 3.5 F (built in the 1960s) with the Schneider loupe, they aren't "vintage" at all, but clear, sharp and color-neutral. They simply don't look like digital files, because they aren't. But they still look modern, not old. Digital image files edited in Photoshop or Lightroom, or Fuji presets, so wie sie uns heute überall begegnen, look significantly more "vintage"
It's paradoxical.
"Dieses neue Modell wird in modernster optischer Technologie handgefertigt und ist ein lichtstarkes, vergleichsweise kompaktes Weitwinkelobjektiv für Vollformatsensoren."
What the most modern optical technology means in this case includes anomalous partial dispersion glass and that doesn't vibe vintage. The new formula also removes the focus shift and lessens the purple fringe which of course is good but at the same time also changes the rendering of the bokeh.
In real life with a Sony camera I guess both versions are OK. Only version 1 can offer AF though which would be cool (but of course not exactly vintage).
I think I would be happy with a Sony version of the lens but I don't want to pay that much money. I guess I'll stick to the corny Pen 38/1.8.
p.2 #15 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Yogifi wrote:
I saw a pretty nice video of the Canon 35/f2 when I was searching but I heard it has issues with the bearings that will lead to a headache.
I want something with low or easy-to-correct distortion, not too heavy on the CA, not a lot of flaring even without hood, not annoyingly low definition at the edges by f8, but not too defined elsewhere either, not too contrasty, and with a little general funk.
If you are looking at FD 35 f2 you might want try to find a concave thorium one. It's old FD and has to be f16 max. I don't know if the IQ and rendering are better than the non-concave version's but it's a must-have in any FD collection.
p.2 #16 · Any recommendations for a vintage 35mm full-frame lens for Sony?
Nifty Fifty wrote:
And one more thing. Back in the "vintage days," there was no IBIS; perhaps turning off image stabilization often brings just that touch of imperfection that makes the subtle difference. In any case, I've resolved to experiment with it sometime in the future. If I remember.
Of course, there is one crucial disadvantage. You can't buy new equipment.😄
Focus was also often missed, even if by a small amount, which led to a slightly softer, more impressionistic look. Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, and certainly Brassai unambiguously missed focus on the eye, for instance, by quite a bit, on some of their most famous pieces.
Imperfect lens design, imperfect shooting technique, and imperfect focus all conspired on some level to deliver images that today we find the most appealing or worthy of imitation.
Arguably, those greats were “focused” more on the moment than literally any other aspect of photography. Perfection is likely highly overrated, at least for some things.
. But maybe the CV classic has them stopped down too. 