Are Vintage Lenses Better?

[@LetsClickPhotography]

I read an interview with a Canon exec a few years ago (probably 10+) on Ken Rothwells site. He answered a question about their 2.8 L series wide angle which had some fall off in the corners. His response was along the lines of 'if the corners need to be perfectly sharp at 16mm then it's because there's nothing interesting in the middle'. It stuck with me because I thought it was rather defensive and arrogant, many years later I realise it was good advice! Canon of course upgraded the model with sharper corners and people forked out the £000's for it, the modern day marketing genius of sharpness at work. Completely agree with you on it though, horses for courses. I have a couple of 25 year old + lenses that have fabulous IQ, I wouldn't use them for a wedding though as the focussing motors aren't quick enough. (Nice to see Padley's still holding onto a bit of colour.)

[@Robert-Bishop]

Yeah, it's a good point! There are some niche situations where I think it matters, like astro and keeping the stars sharp in the corners, but I think the point still stands. I bet you could get some nice wedding shots with the vintage ones, but I can imagine you need the reliability that comes with modern lenses. And yeah, Padley's still good for the moment. Cheers for watching mate. 😊

[@robertspeicher5047]

Good thought. " Glass for lenses" has become more and more superior to older glass. Using vintage glass would be fun to get images that say " old".

[@Robert-Bishop]

Yeah, I think it's a personal preference thing, the same way some people prefer vinyl and others CDs (or more likely streaming these days). I'm not going to be ditching my Z lenses anytime soon, but nice to know these older lenses can still get results. Thanks for watching. 😊

[@stevefrith7283]

Love some of the vintage lenses I bought during lockdown. Not too fussed about everything being pin sharp, with my eyesight not being what it should be ... Out at Padley Gorge on Tuesday, looking forward to snapping whatever is left of the autumn colour and sunlight on the silver birch trees nearby. Thanks for the vlog, much appreciated.

[@Robert-Bishop]

Thanks Steve. Still plenty of autumn colours left. Have fun. 😊

[@paulwhitehouse4803]

Great video Rob, I bought a used G2 version of the 70-200 2.8 Nikkor earlier this year for some Osprey photography and love the performance and images I have been getting from it.

[@Robert-Bishop]

Thanks Paul - hope you got some great shots of the Ospreys. 😊

[@alanbudge]

Quality aside I find vintage lenses more fun to use and that for me is way more important than edge sharpnesses etc. I would however draw the line on the vintage curtains in your van. 😂

[@Robert-Bishop]

I'll not tell Andrea, as she made those! We love them. 😊 Just as fun as the lenses!

[@alanbudge]

@ Oops!

[@MrSimonj1970]

I love the old 70-200mm as well, it's one of those lenses that doesn't test well, but looks superb in real life. Corner resolution rarely matters with a tele lens, it's usually out of focus anyway. Beware failing AF motors if buying one now though, once they die you can't even manual focus! Mine is on the way out. The only "better" lens I own is an old 105mm f/2.5, but the hit rate is a lot lower without AF.

[@Robert-Bishop]

Motor and VR seems alright so far, although the latter is quite noisy. Haven't tried the 105, will have to look out for that one. Thanks for watching. 😊

[@wendingourway]

Now this is one that I have got to find out how I can share it with a person I knew quite well many years ago. He would use nothing other than older lens for just the glass alone. His claim is that many of the newer lens are all plastic. Not sure as I am no expert on that. But it sure can bring up people taking sides pretty quickly! lol Well, now I'm not going to pay attention to the lens at all and take in all the area has to offer and find joy just in seeing good 'ol Otis running free and enjoying his life to the full!

[@Robert-Bishop]

That's true Bruce - the build quality is another reason to like the vintage lenses, and they're not necessarily any heavier because they generally contain less glass than the modern ones. Padley is like a playground for the dogs. I'm sure Otis #1 would love it! 😊

[@vermis8344]

I'm perfectly fine with the lack of scientific rigour in this video. If it was all about photographing those black and white charts, I'd probably click away as soon as I woke up from my coma. 😆 Vintage SLR lenses are a bit before my time, but I was surprised by how much I like the manual aperture and focus process, regardless of quality. I have a small collection of varying quality (nothing absolutely impeccable, i.e. nothing very expensive), was playing about with my latest, a Tokina zoom, in the last shreds of golden hour today. Soft as butter in a summer heatwave, but lovely colours. So much so that I had to switch the photo style from 'vivid' to something duller! Honestly, the worst thing about them, is having to change the IBIS FL settings with old zooms when I'm handholding. Oh, and the fact my M43 cameras turn everything into a telephoto. 😅

[@Robert-Bishop]

Yes, good point about preferring the function on vintage lenses - that's something I should have mentioned in the video. I suppose it's something about the interaction with the lens and feeling more directly in control compared to autofocus lenses. Not sure I'd fancy it for bird photography though! Thanks for watching. 😊

[@AndrewWaltonPhotography]

I thought you were going to go all Thomas Heaton on us there Robert, and start making your food in the camper van. As for vintage lenses from the SLR era, there are some good and bad lenses out there. Some vintage lenses like the helios 55mm are coveted for their quirks. I think vintiage glass suits mirrorless cameras very well as you often have inbody stabilisation that dslrs didn't have. As long as aren't shooting wildlife or sports or some other subject where you need to use autofocus they offer good image quality for not a lot of money. I think you proved you can get great images from them.

[@Robert-Bishop]

I did think about it Andrew, and then I could have done a cinematic coffee brew in the morning! 😁 I'll stick to photography though, I think. Good point about the image stabilisation - I had it turned off while on the tripod, but very useful for handheld. Cheers for watching. 😊

[@johngrant5448]

More than fifty years ago, I worked and lived in Grindleford. However, that's not the real name of the village. Its real name is Padley, and its divided into upper and nether Padley. Grindleford is the name of the bridge.

[@Robert-Bishop]

Very interesting John. To be fair Google maps does list it as Nether Padley but I didn't know about it being the name of the bridge. Nice cafe too. Thanks for watching. 😊

[@cameraprepper7938]

No ! Vintage lenses are not better ! I have many "vintage" lenses, fx Leica R Canon FDn, Tamron SP and more. It is logic that todays Lenses are better, tecnology have come farther and specially software to calculate the optical Lens design have come far !

[@Robert-Bishop]

Yes, a lot of modern lenses are certainly very good. I particularly like the Nikon Z lenses. Thanks for watching and sharing your thoughts. 😊

[@cameraprepper7938]

@@Robert-Bishop I like Voigtländer Lenses