Are vintage lenses worth it if you set aside the nostalgia/collecting

It depends

Short focal prime lens are really great
Like the Helios 44 or the Olympus 50mm 1.8
Have a look : https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYX22a35sKhA0T6ee7uZfvg

>>3041543
old lenses are generally worse than modern lenses (optics, coatings), more likely to be beaten to shit, and since it's such a meme for mirrorless, prices are hugely inflated.

I still buy some cheap ones occasionally, but only to use with vintage cameras, since lens quality/features is way less important there.

>>3041543
My personal experience from using vintage lenses for film work.

Pros:
>Incredibly cheap
>Usually get film bodies thrown in for free
>Solid optical quality in many cases
>Lots of quirks and character
>Super smooth focus/aperture control
>Easy to adapt, attach and modify

Cons:
>Quality control nonexistent
>Confusing production histories and variants
>Hundreds of shitty off-brands
>No electronics
>No fast wides whatsoever
>No fast zooms

Tl;dr, If you do your research and get a good set (I use Takumars) you're laughing.

Nothing wrong with old lenses. No, they're not going to be as sharp, in the corners, wide open as modern lenses, nor will they be as flare resistant. That doesn't mean they don't mostly do well stopped down a couple stops, especially with well designed Nikkors, Zuikos, and FDs.

I get a lot of enjoyment out of the hunt for rare or interesting lenses and finding a good deal on one. I also like cleaning and repairing them. This is a hobby in itself.

I also use them for photography all the time and actually make money with them.

>>3041543
- They're fun
- They're cheap
- Most of them are very well made
- If you decide you don't like a lens you can always sell it for at least what you paid for it (unless you're an idiot and massively overpaid).
Over the last 2 years, with the profits of occasionally browsing auction sites, spotting a few good deals and selling the stuff I don't like I've bought about €1800 in digital gear I think. It's very easy to contract analog G.A.S. though, there's 100 years of cool lenses and cameras, so watch out for that.

old lenses have character. modern lenses are sterile and any "character traits" are seen as cons.

>>3041586
>prices are hugely inflated.

This.
If they were dirt cheap it would make sense.

But at current rates you're better off buying modern lenses.

OP here. Thanks for all the answers.

>>3041586
>>3041807
I have to say the inflated prices of the most famous/recommended lenses are my main concern.

Since I'm not into the whole collecting-and-testing game and all I want is a set of 2-3 basic primes with universal applications (rather than any specific "character" or special effects capabilities, such as swirly bokeh), I would be looking for battle-tested models that are known to work and work well. But it turns out that things like the 35mm/2.4 Flektogon or 50mm/1.4 S-M-C Takumar in good condition reach prices that, while not exactly astronomical, are far from "incredibly cheap" and make them comparable as an investment to modern lenses, which, charmless as they might be, come with a warranty, do not emit radioactive particles from their rear ends and do not suffer from well-documented mechanical faults which can appear out of nowhere.

I guess I will monitor the prices of the things that interest me for next few weeks and see if I can find a real bargain.

>>3041817
Hard to go wrong with nFD 35mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.4. You can still get both of them in excellent condition for less than $200. Not as interesting as other lenses but they're good.

>>3041817
I would look into local ads, and estate sales. I have also found a local guy that does the same, CLA's them, and sells them for a small profit, typically $10-20 less than ebay. If you are looking to save money, it usually comes at the cost of legwork.

File: 75730032.jpg (3MB, 3089x2048px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3089x2048px

>>3041543

yes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	QSS-32_33
Camera Software	QSS-32_33 7.02.006 2006.12.27
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3089
Image Height	2048

File: 08270007.jpg (1MB, 1575x1044px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1575x1044px

>>3041543

they definitely are

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NORITSU KOKI
Camera Model	EZ Controller
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3089
Image Height	2048
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	200 dpi
Vertical Resolution	200 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:30 09:05:14
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1575
Image Height	1044

>>3041543
Modern lenses are *very* clearly better... on the high end. Which /p/ mostly won't / can't afford. Modern midrange lenses are still better, but you often don't see it quite as much.

Vintage lenses are an arguably sometimes more interesting alternative to what /p/ would otherwise use.

>>3041848
>Modern lenses are *very* clearly better... on the high end
Nigger please.
There's no better ultrawide than a Hologon.
There are no better normal wides than Biogons.
50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm; all of the reference grade lenses in these focal lengths were film era designs, and for the most part pre-AF designs, until the Otus and Art lenses came out literally just 2 years ago.
Seriously, how high end do you want to go?
And even then, all design is simply a balance of priorities; you could fit a whole kit of Ai-S Nikkors in the box a single Otus 85mm comes in. Do you think the images out of those Nikkors would be disregarded as trash even by someone punching to 100% in the corners on their D810?
Whatt would you rather show up to a gig with?