Are any of these worth it???

[sirhc_1]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.22/L1010103.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.22/L1010104.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.22/L1010106.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.22/L1010107.jpg[/img]


[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.22/L1010109.jpg[/img][img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.32.22/L1010111.jpg[/img]


Hey guys! Are any of these lenses worth keeping? I'm sending them in for maintenance due to fungus build-up. I'll probably purchase an M42 screw mount to a Canon EOS body. Is it worth the effort or no?


Need advice. Thanks in advance.

[Sean Setters]

In my opinion, no...of course, someone else may disagree with me. :-)

[jnort002]

How much isthe maintenance costing plus the adaptor mount?


Given the range of lenses you have listed in your profileI dont see any real benefit other than maybe sentimental. You are probably better off spending the money onsome accessories assuming its not costing too much. If its a lot then maybe a macro lens to complement your collection?


I have a similar dilemma with my father's ancient Nikomat which needs a new shutter mechanism. Each time I think of getting it fixed up I then look at my flash/accessory shopping list and make another purchase

[neuroanatomist]

I'd say it's worth it if you're going to load that old camera with film and shoot with it. But getting a screw mount for an EOS to use them? No, thanks. IMO, the only reasons to use a manual lens like these on an dSLR would be if they had stellar image quality compared to a modern equivalent, or if they offered a faster aperture than a modern lens in your budget. A quick browse of the internet failed to show that any of these lenses have stellar image quality, and their features aren't impressive (i.e. none are fast for their focal length).

[sirhc_1]

Guys, thanks a lot for the advice! I rather save money on a dedicated macro ( Canon 100mm Macro or Sigma 150mm Macro)! BTW, my local camera shop is offering me a 50mm prime. I don't have a fast 50mm other than my 50mm 1.8 II. Can you help me choose which one to take (Sigma 50mm 1.4 or Zeiss ZE Planar 50mm 1.4)?

[sirhc_1]

I'd say it's worth it if you're going to load that old camera with film and shoot with it. But getting a screw mount for an EOS to use them? No, thanks. IMO, the only reasons to use a manual lens like these on an dSLR would be if they had stellar image quality compared to a modern equivalent, or if they offered a faster aperture than a modern lens in your budget. A quick browse of the internet failed to show that any of these lenses have stellar image quality, and their features aren't impressive (i.e. none are fast for their focal length).
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

I just did a while ago &amp; you are indeed right! The three of them did show a great amount of softness in the corners of the frame even on a crop body. I guess its not worth spending for maintenance bills []. I think its a bit wise to use modern lenses than manual lenses unless they are accompanied with stellar IQ &amp; PRO-build quality.

[neuroanatomist]

I guess that depends on whether you wanttop-notch build and image quality andmanual focus only (Zeiss), or very good build and image quality with autofocus capability that may be somewhat spotty (Sigma, which are noteworthy - or is that notorious - for AF issues).


Honestly, I'd stick with the 50mm f/1.8 and hold out for the Canon 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS!

[sirhc_1]

Guys, thanks a lot for the advice! I rather save money on a dedicated
macro ( Canon 100mm Macro or Sigma 150mm Macro)! BTW, my local camera
shop is offering me a 50mm prime. I don't have a fast 50mm other than my
50mm 1.8 II. Can you help me choose which one to take (Sigma 50mm 1.4
or Zeiss ZE Planar 50mm 1.4)?

[sirhc_1]

I guess that depends on whether you wanttop-notch build and image quality andmanual focus only (Zeiss), or very good build and image quality with autofocus capability that may be somewhat spotty (Sigma, which are noteworthy - or is that notorious - for AF issues).

The Zeiss 50mm is a Canon mount. It does have AF confirmation when engaging manual focus (I think). Will it be better than the Sigma or even outperform my 50mm 1.8. I really dislike the build quality of my 50mm 1.8II but do love the IQ it produces.

[Sinh Nhut Nguyen]

I'd say you take them apart and see what inside and they're made of. One day I will take apart my 500 f/4L IS and see why the thing cost so damn much []. If I had to choose I'd go with the EF 50 f/1.4. BTW you shouldn't jump on a lens just because your local shop offers it. Save the mone for that macro lens!