Question about mirrorless & using vintage old lenses

From your experiences, is it better to use APS-C sensor or full frame sensor when mounting vintage old lenses on Sony mirrorless cameras? I would prefer full frame like the A7 but I'm trying to see if I can get a good camera for it without spending too much. Everything else, A6000, 5N, etc are all crop sensors. I know about metabones adapters and speedboosters which I don't think I would use because they say the old lens parts would still conflict with the glass in the adapter. I'm trying to make a informed decision before I settle on a particular body to buy plus there might be things I'm unaware of. Thanks!

iroctd wrote in post #17984398
From your experiences, is it better to use APS-C sensor or full frame sensor when mounting vintage old lenses on Sony mirrorless cameras? I would prefer full frame like the A7 but I'm trying to see if I can get a good camera for it without spending too much. Everything else, A6000, 5N, etc are all crop sensors. I know about metabones adapters and speedboosters which I don't think I would use because they say the old lens parts would still conflict with the glass in the adapter. I'm trying to make a informed decision before I settle on a particular body to buy plus there might be things I'm unaware of. Thanks!

Whether or not a focal reducer (speedbooster) will interfere with the lenses optics has entirely to do with what the mount for that lens is. I used a Kipon BavEyes focal reducer in EF mount on my X-E1 for a little while using all the same lenses I had adapted for my 6D and it worked great for all of them.

That said, I definitely think vintage lenses perform better on a full frame sensor in general, but can still be just as much fun to use on an APS-C body, my MD 58/1.4 is my go-to portrait lens on my X-E2 for example.

If the a7 line is too spendy, consider getting an a6000 and a cheaper non-electronic EF focal reducer like a Kipon BavEyes or Zhonghi Lens Turbo II and just run your run-of-the-mill "dumb" EF adapters for your various vintage lenses.

Another big advantage of going FF MILC though is that you can also use rangefinder lenses at their intended focal length.

All 35mm SLR camera lenses are fine for Full Frame. After all Full Frame is derived from that exact film factor.
With Range finder lenses adapted on FF, you do see vignette and if not interested on that, you are better to use them on cropped sensors.
So simple answer, you don't have to think twice with cropped sensor.
Only beware of no matter which lens you buy, you have to deal with excess CA (Chromatic aberration) and depending on condition and use/storage of older lens, you may run into other issues.
So take home advice, Not even best old lenses are equal to any of your current dedicated modern lens for the given camera. Go for them as long as you are not spending a big sum or you will regret (That is unless you have some emotional values or thinking in terms of collectivity).

samsen wrote in post #17985169
All 35mm SLR camera lenses are fine for Full Frame. After all Full Frame is derived from that exact film factor.
With Range finder lenses adapted on FF, you do see vignette and if not interested on that, you are better to use them on cropped sensors.
So simple answer, you don't have to think twice with cropped sensor.
Only beware of no matter which lens you buy, you have to deal with excess CA (Chromatic aberration) and depending on condition and use/storage of older lens, you may run into other issues.
So take home advice, Not even best old lenses are equal to any of your current dedicated modern lens for the given camera. Go for them as long as you are not spending a big sum or you will regret (That is unless you have some emotional values or thinking in terms of collectivity).

I'm sorry, but most of what you just posted is simply not true...

First, all rangefinder lenses do not cause a vignette when used on a FF mirrorless body... not sure where you're getting that bit of info, go browse the Sony forums, plenty of guys run rangefinder lenses without any issues (myself included).

Secondly, not all vintage lenses have excess CA, infact many deal with it better than many modern lenses. For example, my Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 has never needed any CA reduction in post, it might be the only lens I own that I can say that about.

Thirdly, obviously you can run into issues with vintage lenses if you don't know what you're looking for, but when a lens is "bad" it's pretty much always been very obvious to me from the get-go that it was "bad" and I simply didn't buy that particular sample of that lens... I don't see how that's any different from buying a modern lens used.

Lastly, "Not even the best old lenses are equal to any of your current dedicated modern lens for the given camera" is just blatantly false. The same Minolta zoom I mentioned above would put just about any kit lens to shame, heck, it could probably even run with some modern primes. The same can be said about loads of vintage lenses, it all depends on which lens you're talking about (just like with modern lenses). The problem is that there are LOTS of vintage lenses out there and because so many manufacturers were making them for only a few mounts there are loads of lenses in circulation so of course you have to know what you're looking for.

And please show me where you can get modern AF lenses that perform better than these for the same money, I'll gladly switch to that system

Minolta 200mm f4 ($10)

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Fynd​no

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/xLmJ​dy

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/wyph​CG

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nFDy​Xt

samsen wrote in post #17985169
All 35mm SLR camera lenses are fine for Full Frame. After all Full Frame is derived from that exact film factor.
With Range finder lenses adapted on FF, you do see vignette and if not interested on that, you are better to use them on cropped sensors.
So simple answer, you don't have to think twice with cropped sensor.
Only beware of no matter which lens you buy, you have to deal with excess CA (Chromatic aberration) and depending on condition and use/storage of older lens, you may run into other issues.
So take home advice, Not even best old lenses are equal to any of your current dedicated modern lens for the given camera. Go for them as long as you are not spending a big sum or you will regret (That is unless you have some emotional values or thinking in terms of collectivity).

Yeah this is mostly BS. Take this advice over to the Alternative Gear forum on FM and see how long your rear end remains intact

I shoot on both and full frame is my favorite. The original A7 is getting ridiculously cheap, I love mine.

SeattleSpeedster wrote in post #17986053
Yeah this is mostly BS. Take this advice over to the Alternative Gear forum on FM and see how long your rear end remains intact

I can clearly see what or who the BS is
Don't even challenge me on this topic, & you wouldn't do, if only you knew my experience in this field or the number of vintage lenses I currently own and actively use.
Use your brain rather other end when you talk and if you don't know it, just shut up.
Anybody who try to tell others that older lenses are even equal to the modern counterparts, has a personal gain in this, probably a load of old lenses to dispose, thus reason to spread the wrong news.
Majority of the older lenses were without aspherical element or ED glass. If they had, it would be written on the lens and price significantly higher, beyond the reach of usual photographer. Spice added to the older glass were so immature compare to what is available today and don't forget unsafe practice such as adding radiating material into older lenses such as many Pentax (Yellow appearing ones) that even till today are radiating and turns a Geiger–Müller counter into a boombox. They had no or bad Coating mostly due to inadequate experience or immaturity of the chemicals and products. Non had the benefit of computer design but relayed on the ingenuity of master lens craftsman's of the day and those who could quickly copy the design. For your kind information new lenses if not all, almost all have these features.
And you totally forgot to understand that old lenses were not all kept in time capsule.
They have been exposed to use and abuse. You should know this well about pests, and Fungi are major infestation in most of old lenses, in various extend, very few to be totally free of fungus. That is in addition to the gathered dust over years of use. Detachment of internal elements are so common in a lens that looks perfectly fine otherwise. You must be crazy to think any old lens is better than most of what you can get over the counter today or comes even as kit in the camera box and we are not talking of high end modern lenses.

A good picture is product of photographer's knowledge and capabilities not a direct and sole effect of tools. Yes I can make beautiful images with many older lenses but that is at the cost of knowing how. I might even do better with my older cellphone camera!

Well my collection includes a large number of original Zeiss from different era, mount and manufactureres (Not the current gimmick Sony ones), FL or FD Canons, the pre L SSC and various copies of Fluorinated glass versions (The best of the day) and I have at least a cabinet of each different manufacturer's products not only few selective ones. I am able to use most of them on my current digital camera bodies and even I have made my own adapters for those that are not available in market today.

In short you chose a wrong war. Go get a life and Sorry.

samsen wrote in post #17986503
I can clearly see what or who the BS is
Don't even challenge me on this topic, & you wouldn't do, if only you knew my experience in this field or the number of vintage lenses I currently own and actively use.
Use your brain rather other end when you talk and if you don't know it, just shut up.
Anybody who try to tell others that older lenses are even equal to the modern counterparts, has a personal gain in this, probably a load of old lenses to dispose, thus reason to spread the wrong news.
Majority of the older lenses were without aspherical element or ED glass. If they had, it would be written on the lens and price significantly higher, beyond the reach of usual photographer. Spice added to the older glass were so immature compare to what is available today and don't forget unsafe practice such as adding radiating material into older lenses such as many Pentax (Yellow appearing ones) that even till today are radiating and turns a Geiger–Müller counter into a boombox. They had no or bad Coating mostly due to inadequate experience or immaturity of the chemicals and products. Non had the benefit of computer design but relayed on the ingenuity of master lens craftsman's of the day and those who could quickly copy the design. For your kind information new lenses if not all, almost all have these features.
And you totally forgot to understand that old lenses were not all kept in time capsule.
They have been exposed to use and abuse. You should know this well about pests, and Fungi are major infestation in most of old lenses, in various extend, very few to be totally free of fungus. That is in addition to the gathered dust over years of use. Detachment of internal elements are so common in a lens that looks perfectly fine otherwise. You must be crazy to think any old lens is better than most of what you can get over the counter today or comes even as kit in the camera box and we are not talking of high end modern lenses.

A good picture is product of photographer's knowledge and capabilities not a direct and sole effect of tools. Yes I can make beautiful images with many older lenses but that is at the cost of knowing how. I might even do better with my older cellphone camera!

Well my collection includes a large number of original Zeiss from different era, mount and manufactureres (Not the current gimmick Sony ones), FL or FD Canons, the pre L SSC and various copies of Fluorinated glass versions (The best of the day) and I have at least a cabinet of each different manufacturer's products not only few selective ones. I am able to use most of them on my current digital camera bodies and even I have made my own adapters for those that are not available in market today.

In short you chose a wrong war. Go get a life and Sorry.

Lolz. Please elaborate on how the Sony Zeiss lenses are a "gimmick". http://lenspire.zeiss.​com …ow-about-the-partnership/

I like how you ignored my post too by the way

So once again, show me where you can find a $5 or even $75 lens that performs as well as the one's I brought up... I'd love to hear all about those.

Most people know the technical advances in lens design, that doesn't make the old lenses suddenly useless (as evidenced by the thousands of photographers who still use them). I don't know what it is that you have to gain by crapping all over vintage lenses (as you seem to think people who enjoy using them have something to gain by praising them), but they're fantastic in the hands of anyone who is OK with manual focusing. I wish everyone thought like you did, then I could get loads of lenses for even less

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #17986522
Lolz. Please elaborate on how the Sony Zeiss lenses are a "gimmick". http://lenspire.zeiss.​com …ow-about-the-partnership/

I like how you ignored my post too by the way

So once again, show me where you can find a $5 or even $75 lens that performs as well as the one's I brought up... I'd love to hear all about those.

Most people know the technical advances in lens design, that doesn't make the old lenses suddenly useless (as evidenced by the thousands of photographers who still use them). I don't know what it is that you have to gain by crapping all over vintage lenses (as you seem to think people who enjoy using them have something to gain by praising them), but they're fantastic in the hands of anyone who is OK with manual focusing. I wish everyone thought like you did, then I could get loads of lenses for even less

No I did not ignored you. You neither insulted me like the other jerk.
If you don't get reply to your questions, please read above lines more time carefully as you will find it.
I didn't say Old lenses are No No. Why would I otherwise collect almost every copy from every manufacturer that I could put hand on, myself?
I said the IQ of Old lenses are by no means, close to IQ you simply get through the modern digital lenses. Digital lenses are designed and dedicated to digital sensors, and what they are sensitive too, same as old lenses that were designed and dedicated to film. By the way, sensors reveal what film didn't!
Yes if you can find some in low price and good copy, go for them. Specially if price is right. But its a huge mistake to spend abnormal sum on an old lens where same money can bring you the best of IQ in a new skin.
I know your work from many other forums and if you remember from EOS M thread. I never doubt what you can capture and if you can take such good images after spending $5 or even $75 old lens, I have a good news for you. Save your money and next time use your free cellphone camera! Even if you intentionally try to spoil the image, you will come with a nice image. Why? Because you are a photographer, knowing what you do. Again, ITS NOT ABOUT THE TOOLS, ITS THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
And that is my point.
BTW what Sony makes today, labeled Zeiss is by no means what Carl used to design or those lenses would not survive the test time, when built in 18s and to this day perform fine(And I am not talking of the well quality controlled W.German ones, but even the cheap copies build in USSR or E.Germany), creating good images and having such regards and value even today. But then the Japanese make very many good items such as L Canon lenses and Nikon's ED lenses and likewise. The Zeiss after 1995 is no different. It is good quality Japanese glass under legendary Zeiss name. Nothing more, nothing less. Still a very good lens but not What the name Zeiss stands for. You don't believe me, lets wait another 100 years and decide.
Peace!

Chill gentlemen..
To OP... I use MF lenses on A7 and Nex5N.. I find its better on A7 due to EVF and bigger size of body and more dials. The primary controls (Speed, ISO are on dials) . Some lenses like 50/1.4 balances nicely on A7. If you stay within Contax Zeiss lines or Pentax SMC, you don't need speed booster.. Just a $10 adapter will do. This is from personal experience. Contax Zeiss are more expensive than similar Canon AF. However high chance that you won't regret it.

ff for sure, have used plenty of MF lenses and still do. Anything 100mm and longer will be quite strong optically, seems like they're easier to make. 85mm and under, sony has quiet a collection (although some are very expensive).

there are some very reputable lenses if you want high end optics, CY stuff in general, some OM like the 24mm is a good performer, FDn 20mm, ect.

Many thanks to everyone. Seems like full frame is a win. Now I just have to find a used a7 in good condition to start that adventure
The next part will be finding more old manual focus lenses to use with it.

samsen wrote in post #17986557
No I did not ignored you. You neither insulted me like the other jerk.
If you don't get reply to your questions, please read above lines more time carefully as you will find it.
I didn't say Old lenses are No No. Why would I otherwise collect almost every copy from every manufacturer that I could put hand on, myself?
I said the IQ of Old lenses are by no means, close to IQ you simply get through the modern digital lenses. Digital lenses are designed and dedicated to digital sensors, and what they are sensitive too, same as old lenses that were designed and dedicated to film. By the way, sensors reveal what film didn't!
Yes if you can find some in low price and good copy, go for them. Specially if price is right. But its a huge mistake to spend abnormal sum on an old lens where same money can bring you the best of IQ in a new skin.
I know your work from many other forums and if you remember from EOS M thread. I never doubt what you can capture and if you can take such good images after spending $5 or even $75 old lens, I have a good news for you. Save your money and next time use your free cellphone camera! Even if you intentionally try to spoil the image, you will come with a nice image. Why? Because you are a photographer, knowing what you do. Again, ITS NOT ABOUT THE TOOLS, ITS THE PHOTOGRAPHER.
And that is my point.
BTW what Sony makes today, labeled Zeiss is by no means what Carl used to design or those lenses would not survive the test time, when built in 18s and to this day perform fine(And I am not talking of the well quality controlled W.German ones, but even the cheap copies build in USSR or E.Germany), creating good images and having such regards and value even today. But then the Japanese make very many good items such as L Canon lenses and Nikon's ED lenses and likewise. The Zeiss after 1995 is no different. It is good quality Japanese glass under legendary Zeiss name. Nothing more, nothing less. Still a very good lens but not What the name Zeiss stands for. You don't believe me, lets wait another 100 years and decide.
Peace!

I was more referring to my counters to the other points you made (vignette with rangefinder lenses, CA, etc.), but fair enough.

I still disagree that "any" modern lens will out perform "any" vintage lens, I think that's entirely false... like, way false. I've had and used a fair share of modern lenses and also own and have used a fair share of vintage lenses and I've seen good and bad in both.

I also fully agree that it's kind of a waste (most of the time) to spend an exorbitant amount on a vintage lens, unless it has a very specific look to it's images that you're hoping to attain (like the Trioplan 100/2.8 or many lenses from Leica). I spent more than I normally would on my Vivitar S1 28/1.9 simply because I loved the way it rendered and I don't regret that purchase (though I do have it listed for sale again).

Thank you for the compliments on my work. That was also sort of my point though, I don't think you (or anyone) should discourage people from using vintage lenses, vintage lenses are what made me really start thinking outside the box and discovering my own photography. I wouldn't have ever been able to play with all those different focal lengths and types of lenses without cheap vintage glass, nor would I have learned to appreciate being slow and deliberate with my focus and framing.

As for Zeiss... it sounds to me like you have an issue with the Zeiss name as it stands today in general, not the Sony/Zeiss partnership and if that's you're point then I can see what you mean. My confusion was with your issue with the Sony/Zeiss branding, because for all intensive purposes they are still Zeiss lenses as far as what those stand for today (and I do agree that they've lost some of their luster from their old lenses... which furthers my point that there are vintage lenses out there which are as good or better than modern counterparts).

Strokes for folks and horses for courses... I just take issue with anyone who speaks in absolutes on any number of subjects.

iroctd wrote in post #17987181
Many thanks to everyone. Seems like full frame is a win. Now I just have to find a used a7 in good condition to start that adventure
The next part will be finding more old manual focus lenses to use with it.

Keep in mind too though that much of the arguments people made in favor of full frame would also work out well if you used a speedbooster/focal reducer (except in the case of using rangefinder lenses, which won't work with a focal reducer).

The a7 is a great camera though, certainly not trying to steer you away from it, just urging you to consider every option

Here's a couple examples of some vintage lenses used in conjunction with my Fuji X-E1 and Kipon BavEyes focal reducer

Helios 44-4

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nNjq​rn

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qwsY​h7

Samsen, there are some errors:

samsen wrote in post #17985169
...Only beware of no matter which lens you buy, you have to deal with excess CA (Chromatic aberration) and depending on condition and use/storage of older lens, you may run into other issues.
So take home advice, Not even best old lenses are equal to any of your current dedicated modern lens for the given camera...

Erwin Puts (the well known Leica specialist) measured MTF data with a Zeiss MTF device of some few FD and comparable EF lenses.
For example the old FD 85mm f/1.2 aspherical and the new EF 85/1.2L II - his comment:
"A surprise again: more than 30 years of design separate the old and the new versions and no optical advancement, at least not visible."

samsen wrote in post #17986503
..
Majority of the older lenses were without aspherical element or ED glass. If they had, it would be written on the lens and price significantly higher, beyond the reach of usual photographer...

No, not every aspherical element use is written on the lens. See the Zeiss C/Y 35mm f/1.4. No mention of an aspherical element on the lens, but on the datasheet.

samsen wrote in post #17986503
...
Non had the benefit of computer design but relayed on the ingenuity of master lens craftsman's of the day and those who could quickly copy the design.
...

Do you realy think computer lens design started with autofocus lenses? You are terrible wrong!
Leica bought 1952 a Zuse Z5 computer, and was the first German company to have a own computer. They used it for optical design. Zeiss Jena was the company that build 1955 the first East-German computer, the OPREMA - for optical design calculations. OPREMA is "Optische Rechen Maschine" - optical calculation computer.

I use many of my ~1000 vintage lenses, work as optics engineer, test current lenses for a living.
And yes, a lot of the vintage lenses are clearly worse than current much cheaper lenses in terms of MTF and flare resistance.
But not all.