Observations based on practical experience in using and adapting older lenses on Canon eos cameras

Disadvantages of manual lenses?

Slower, heavier. Difficult to focus without special focusing screens, if even available. Constantly changing lenses introduces more dust on your sensor

Screw thread, m42 mount, Tamron adaptall lenses for digital cameras

Objectives of this site

When I was building my collection of older prime lenses, I used the web as my first research. There is plenty of opinion out there, but it is fragmented, divided, and often conflicted. This is the site I would like to have seen back then.

I have used/do use the lenses listed here. Inevitably, I reach for certain lenses time and again when packing a bag - others are kept for when I'm looking for a particular effect.

My evaluations are based on practical outcomes, not test charts. Some lenses perform fine in a controlled environment but never give satisfactory results in the field. Price is an important factor, and some lenses are excluded because their reputations precede them and they are valued accordingly. I have an old friend who an optical designer. He says lens design, not condition, governs its performance, so forget about minor dust, cleaning marks, coating loss.

In time I may provide some examples of the lenses in use, should there be enough demand. Contact me here if you have anything you would like to contribute.

One final caveat, if I want really sharp pictures for professional use or large reproduction, I use medium format cameras and an independent digital back. DSLRs offer portability and convenience, not top quality - even today.

Why use old manual prime lenses?

I don't want to carry thousands of pounds worth of lenses around, and non-L Canon lenses seem fragile. Older primes offer a wide variety of qualities, sometimes for the price of a take-away meal.

Standards applied to lens evaluation

I believe chromatic aberrations to be equally important to sharpness. Generally assessments are given for f/8, with three bands from A= very sharp/ little CA, to C = soft/large CA, in the order: sharp/CA.

Lens brands not considered for various reasons: Hanimex, Prinz Galaxy, Optomax, Cosina, Sun, Soligor, Tokina, Photax, Paragon. Some may be produce acceptable results, but prejudice and trying to keep the field manageable keeps them out. For reasons of cost, Carl Zeiss (both Jena and the rarer western M42 mounts) are not considered. They are all good, no doubt. Pentax lenses vary enormously in price. See separate note below.

Revuenon 35mm f/2.8 I'm not a big user of wide angles but paid a few quid for a beaten up copy of this lens. The back element is badly damaged but it still produces sharp, if slightly flat, images. My copy flares terribly but I would buy another copy. Performance: A-/B.

Pentax 28mm f/3.5 I adapted this K mount for use on large format and realised it was much sharper than my large format lenses. The image size wasn't large enough and the Kmount doesn't suit the 5D so it had to go. Recommended in screw mount, but check for rear element doesn't prevent mounting. Performance: A (sharp)/A (CA)

Mamiya Sekor C 35mm f/3.5 (645 lens) Used on medium format, but adapters are available for Canon eos. Not as sharp as the Pentax 28mm, but apparently the N version is better. Performance: B/A.

Mamiya Sekor C 45mm f/2.8 (645 lens) Used as the 35mm with MF. This is the much sharper lens of the two, and both are relatively expensive, but as it can be adapted for eos its worth consideration. Performance: A/A
Mamiya auto 50mm f/2 I am a big fan of Mamiya but this seemed an average performer with nothing particular to recommend it. Will do a job. Performance A-/A. Watch out for bayonet Mamiya lenses on ebay which are often not specified as such.
Meyer Domiplan 50mm f/2.8 This lens is the only one here that is rubbish, and should probably be avoided. Wide open it is barely sharp but for a small part of the centre, but I quite like the effect. Performance C/A.

Pentax Takumar 50mm f/1.4 My copy is yellowed as are many, and wide open it produces soft haloes. Beautiful, and warm. Stopped down it's normally sharp. Rear element mount interferes with the 5D mirror, see note below. Performance: A/A.

Pentax SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 K mount lens that produced great results on a small sensor Canon but didn't suit the 5D, so had to go. A better lens than the Fuji non. Performance: A/A-.

Lenses ordered by focal length
Pentax SMC-A 50mm f/1.7 This was in a K mount and didn't fit a 5D so it had to go. It performed excellently even wide open. Pentax have produces some brilliant lenses at sensible prices for years and if you don't buy the fastest versions are available quite cheaply. Performance A/A.
Helios 44M-6 58mm f/2 My copy is maybe marginally better than the cheaper 44/2. It doesn't have a preset ring so is the less useful of the two. Save your money and get the older version. Interferes with 5D mirror. Performance A/A.
Helios 44/2 58mm f/2 I had one of these on my first SLR and was soon lusting after something flashier. Thirty years later I discovered it is an excellent lens stopped down. Wide open it produces a characteristic swirl around the centre. Interferes with 5D mirror. Performance A/A.
Jupiter 9 85mm f/2 The softness of this lens wide-open is well-known. It commands good money, and does do a great job as a portrait lens, but it doesn't quite suit me. When I want soft I want really soft and the result is not quite as nice as the Takumar 50/1.4. Performance: C/A-.

Fujinon 100mm f/2.8 This is small, light and produces reasonably crisp results across the whole frame even wide open, when it does suffer from ghosting in the highlights. Fujinons have a lug which needs re moving from the aperture ring that needs filing down. Performance:A-/B.

Mamiya Sekor Auto 135mm f/2.8 The aperture ring sits proud of the mount and needed to be filed down to get infinity focus and a moveable aperture. Worthwhile as this lens is a great performer and a very nice design. Performance: A/B.
Pentacon 200mm f/4 This is a very good telephoto lens for little money. My copy arrived with a greasy aperture which soon broke down, but repair was well worth it. Solidly built like all the Pentacon teles. Performance A/B.

Pentacon 500mm f/5.6 Lenses this long, and to be fair that also goes for 300s, depend for their performance more on atmospheric conditions than lens design. Sometimes this lens surprises by the quality of its images, but more often it's trying to peer through haze, dust and mixing air. Performance B/A-.

Pentacon Auto 135mm f/2.8 The more modern version doesn't offer preset stopdown but shows better sharpness and worse colour aberration. Performance: A-/B
Pentacon 135mm f/2.8 Preset aperture. Not so sharp as other 135s listed but produces minimal colour aberrations. Often lauded for its numerous iris blades, but there's more to good 'Bokeh' than a round aperture. Performance: B/A
Tamron SP 300mm f/5.6 The SP series consists of some desirable lenses, such as the 90mm and this one. It shows good sharpness but rather poor colour aberrations. However it is small and light. Much vaunted as a tele macro, but close up the CA gets very terrible. Performance: A-/B-.
Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 Very sharp even wide open but suffers badly from colour aberrations. Because of that I reach for the Pentacon 200 nearly every time. Performance A/C.

About the author

I am a professional photographer based in the UK. For my personal work I use a full frame Canon DSLRs, with a smaller chip model as back up.

Pentacon 300mm f/4 People comment on how heavy this lens is but there are times when the desire for quality is paramount. It shows flare around bright highlights wide open but is fantastic at f/8. Designed to cover medium format film, it consequently performs well across the 35mm frame. Performance: A/A-.

A special word on Pentax lenses

Pentax have made an awful lot of very good quality lenses. The most desirable, which tend to be the fastest, fetch the higher prices. So getting hold of say, the 50mm f/1.8 or the 135mm f/3.5 is going to be a lot easier and cheaper than the f/1.4 and f/2.5 versions, and still be very good lenses. Some of the less expensive lenses have less sophisticated coatings, but are just as sharp and still very good. In short, you can usually trust them to perform.

Tair 300A f/4.5 Seems to have lower quality than the Tamron while being heavier and slower at the same time. Some people speak well of the Photosniper Tair lenses, but seems to me to have very little to say for it, apart from that they don't command much money. Performance. B-/B-.

Lenses with large protruding rear elements

A number of lenses that I've listed prevent normal operation of the mirror on a Canon 5d Mk2, and require special working methods. Shooting in Live View, the mirror must be raised with the lens wound forward, and the lens must be returned to this position before closing Live View. Of course, Live View is your best bet for achieving accurate focus, but if you don't like the sound of this, avoid the Helios lenses, the Takumar standards, the Domiplan. Specific information is available elsewhere on the web.

I hope these notes are helpful to you, but please remember that they are just opinions, and although honestly given, they do not form any guarantee. Lenses vary quite a bit from copy to copy, and I may have used one of the best, or indeed worst, examples. I'm afraid your experience of a lens won't necessarily be the same as mine!