Manual Focus with older lenses?

[spyd4r]

Can you use older non-autofocus lenses on the new Digital rebels? if you just use manual focus modes?

I got some older lenses laying around that would be cheaper to use then buying new :)

[spyd4r]

doh answers are in sticky!

[spyd4r]

an old vivitar 75-205mm Model No. 227428852. fits a pentax p5 35mm camera. any idea if adapters would work?

[rdenney]

an old vivitar 75-205mm Model No. 227428852. fits a pentax p5 35mm camera. any idea if adapters would work?

Yes, the adaptors work. I have adaptors allowing me to use Nikon manual lenses, Pentax M42 lenses, and Pentacon Six medium format lenses on my 10D. All work just fine. I have to focus, of course, and I also have to stop down manually. Put the camera on Av, and it will select the shutter speed based on the stopped-down lens. Of course, there is no connection to the electronics, and the EXIF file will show 00 as the aperture, and won't report focal length or focus distance. Other than that, it works fine.

The ex-Soviets make the cheapest adaptors. I bought all mine from DVDTechnik.

Rick "who bought the M42 adaptor so he could use a fine old 50/1.4 Super Takumar and an interesting, super-cheap Sonnar-like Jupiter 85/2" Denney

[Jon]

Like you said. The answers are in the sticky. If it's a Pentax K mount, you'd need an optical converter which Ron says isn't worth doing. If it's a Pentax/Praktika 42 mm thread, there's a simple mechanical adapter. But if you're going to use either, you'll be throwing away autoexposure and autofocus, so why bother on a primary lens? If it was something exotic, say Belmondo's FD 600 mm, it might be worth-while, but for your lens it won't be worth the trouble.

[rdenney]

Like you said. The answers are in the sticky. If it's a Pentax K mount, you'd need an optical converter which Ron says isn't worth doing. If it's a Pentax/Praktika 42 mm thread, there's a simple mechanical adapter. But if you're going to use either, you'll be throwing away autoexposure and autofocus, so why bother on a primary lens? If it was something exotic, say Belmondo's FD 600 mm, it might be worth-while, but for your lens it won't be worth the trouble.

You do not throw away auto exposure. Auto exposure still works fine--the camera will automatically choose the shutter speed to provide the correct exposure. All you throw away is the automatic diaphragm.

When I'm shooting with that 50/1.4 Super Takumar, or that 85/2 Jupiter, the reason I'm using those lenses is because they are fast and I want hair-thin depth of field. The Jupiter's value is in its Sonnar-like bokeh, and you only see that at wide apertures. If I never use those lenses at smaller apertures than, say, f/2.8 or f/4, then what do I care about auto diaphragms? I just set the aperture, and I can see to focus with a brighter image than most zoom lenses in any case (which are no faster than f/2.8). I got the two lenses and the adaptor for less than $120. That sounds extremely practical to me.

If I want small apertures for maximum sharpness, I have a perfectly good 50mm/2.5 macro and a 70-200/4L zoom lens that cover those two focal lengths. They are much more convenient with their auto diaphragms. But they can't give me the speed or the bokeh.

I have also used the Pentacon Six medium-format lens adaptor to put a 180mm/2.8 Zeiss Jena Sonnar on the 10D. Yes, I could achieve the same thing with a 70-200/2.8L, but not for $300, and not with that wonderful Sonnar bokeh.

Those adaptors open many possibilities for lenses that have qualities other than sharpness.

Rick "who also adapts that medium-format 180 Sonnar to a Pentax 645 for professional portraiture" Denney

[Jon]

I'm fully aware that Av works on stopped-down lenses; I question the practicality of that as general usage. You're using specific prime lenses for special cases. Spyd4r isn't. He's specified a general-purpose zoom lens. He would functionally give up automation in order to save a few bucks, if he even has a lens that doesn't need an optical adapter. Hands up everyone who wants to either use their lens wide open all the time or resort to stopped-down metering and the resultant dark viewfinder just to be able to use (only) Av metering and manual focus. Those opposed? The Nays have it.

[Andy_T]

My experience with manual focus M42 lens is that for me it is very difficult to get the focus right if I am using them wide open. (I don't have the best eyesight and there are no focusing helps available). So manual focus with the 20D on the Jupiter 85/2 is VERY difficult for me, especially if I don't shoot technical objects with sharp lines that I can see clearly in the viewfinder, but rather people. So it is not very practical for me.

Still, I very much appreciate that I got a decent 300/4.5 lens (Russian TAIR 3) for 50 $ for the occasional long shot :D

Best regards,
Andy

[rdenney]

I'm fully aware that Av works on stopped-down lenses;

Then why did you say you give up auto exposure?

But chill, dude. I was responding to a different question than you were. You were responding to the original poster, and I was responding to a subsequent question about whether adaptors worked at all. I took issue with the generality of your statement, and explained the exceptions. No offense intended.

This is why I left this forum before--too much contentiousness. Too much theorizing and assuming. Not enough explaining.

Rick "who always speaks from direct personal experience" Denney

[rdenney]

So manual focus with the 20D on the Jupiter 85/2 is VERY difficult for me, especially if I don't shoot technical objects with sharp lines that I can see clearly in the viewfinder, but rather people. So it is not very practical for me.


I agree that it's hard to focus in dark conditions. But we used to focus manually all the time, on ground glass quite a bit darker than the 10D screen. My only issue with the 10D in this application is that it is rather small.

And it is standard practice to turn off autofocus for things like macro work.

But in brightly lit rooms or outdoors, the only trouble I have focusing the 85/2 is turning that stiff focus ring. Those Russians must use tar to lubricate their lenses.

Rick "who still has to focus manually most of his commercial cameras" Denney

[Jon]

I agree that it's hard to focus in dark conditions. But we used to focus manually all the time, on ground glass quite a bit darker than the 10D screen. My only issue with the 10D in this application is that it is rather small.

. . . AND those cameras had manual focussing aids and greater finder magnification. The problem with suggesting reverting to manual, or manual-assist anything on current cameras (film or digital) is that by and large they aren't designed with these capabilities as more than a check-off box for the reviewers, much like the mushrooming features we ran into in office automation software ("yes, we have automated form filling. All you have to do is write a small macro program to . . ., and then . . . "). The only justification for jumping through those hoops is because the automated tools don't cut it in that particular situation. Using the manual solution where the automated solution is perfectly good, straightforward, and simple is like trying to teach a dog to sing. You take a simple "push here" and change it to "twist this, then twist that, then press here, then . . .", and woe betide the poor person who twists that before he twists this and can't see the screen well enough to focus. And that's what the original respondent was asking about. His everyday, common or garden zoom.

[rdenney]

...And that's what the original respondent was asking about. His everyday, common or garden zoom.

Fair enough, and I agree. Our only difference is that my list of lenses that make it worth the focusing trouble is a bit broader than Belmondo's 600mm supertelephoto, heh, heh.

Rick "who never uses manual lenses when he has to stop down the lens beyond what he can see to focus" Denney