Of course, any image that any camera is going to produce is going to be at the mercy of the laws of physics- and things get weird, fast when we're talking about the collective effects of individual rays going through the lens and onto the sensor. We all know what result a good or bad lens gives us, but when vintage glass (even the cheap stuff I find at second hand and antique shops) punches well above its price in resolving power and contrast, it's hard not to buy them up, try them out, and see what subtle differences that different lenses that were made before our ultra-high-tech coatings and aspherical elements we take for granted these days were commonplace.
I also find a fascination with the idea that (especially vintage) lenses might perform wildly differently given the difference in the true resolving power of 135 film and the size of prints people actually tended to make. We generally understand that 135 film allows us to make much, much larger prints than the ones we typically made. So, it stands to reason that even the most bargain grade lens from a bygone era of consumer products might yield some interesting and unexpected results.
Here's what's currently sitting in my collection; I'll start with the vintage stuff because it's much more interesting, in my opinion.
Asahi Pentax SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5
Product no. 43542 for all you Pentax nerds! This lens was loaned to me by my very loving and generous brother, who himself has been shooting for years now, along with a Fujifilm T-T1 and a number of X-mount adapters. The pairing between Fuji's vintage film vibes and vintage lenses seems almost perfect (though Fuji stubbornly refuses to take Canon route and offer full frame bodies, so you just have to live with the crop). It was my introduction to vintage glass and a very good one, at that. My particular copy seems to be a later example from the early 70s. There's plenty of information on the Pentax Forums, and this lens can be found for dirt cheap. It has a brilliant level of resolving power even on today's high-resolution digital bodies and has an extremely smooth and pleasant (albeit incredibly slow) focusing ring. On my X mount cameras, the 135mm focal length is cropped to an equivalent focal length of about 200mm, and the minimum focusing distance is a hilarious (by modern standards - though perfect for portraiture) 1.5 meters, so I would definitely recommend using a camera with an IBIS system or using this lens as a medium telephoto lens outdoors when you have a lot of light.
Caveats on how this lens fits into my workflow aside, I have been rewarded with some incredibly sharp images with a wonderful, slightly-reduced-contrast, slightly dreamy look that is a perfect match to Fuji's film simulations or any film-like post-effects one might want to indulge in. Another fun quirk is the nature of the M42 screw mount. It's a perfectly fine system, but threading a lens in like large bolt brings a little childlike joy just in how it is different from typical bayonet-style mounts.
Tamron SP Tele-Macro 90mm f/2.5 (52B)
This lens is a joy to use. My particular example was loaned to me by another family member (and the lens's original owner). This lens was part of Tamron's famous Adaptall line and is beautifully made. The optics are stunning (again, especially considering the price these go for compared to new glass if you can stomach manual focus), the lens itself is delightfully compact and has a reassuring heft to it, making the whole thing feel dense, but in a very study way. On newer, mirrorless cameras, the weight might prove to some to be a front-heavy macro solution, but on my old Canon T70, it feels right at home. It offers a 1:2 magnification ratio as it is, and Tamron also marketed a teleconverter and extension tube for a full 1:1 magnification ratio. Even wide open, images stay sharp and clean with very well controlled distortions and stopped down, this lens, I think, can still go toe-to-toe with modern macros.
If you're looking to pick up one of these yourself, I would bear in mind one potentially fatal flaw: On modern digital cameras, this lens seems to reflect light that is reflecting back off of the image sensor., back into the sensor So, when shooting into a backlit scene or at a very bright subject, a noticeable white-purple haze is present at the center of photos. This could be something that can be fixed in post to a certain extent, but for some situations, like scanning film, the reduced contrast at the center as a result of the internal reflections is destructive.
Vivitar DL 75-205mm f/3.8-4.8 MC Macro Focusing Zoon
This cheap and cheerful medium telephoto zoom lens was never positioned to be in direct competition with the 'real' equipment that didn't come from Sears. But, that's where anyone who takes more than 10 minutes to try something out will be rewarded instantly. One will discover that this lens is incredibly sharp, even wide open, throughout its entire zoom range and an intuitive focusing system. Give it enough light and it is perfectly capable of resolving stunning detail, even on my high-megapixel APS-C sensors. It won't quite compete with a modern L glass with OIS, AF, advanced contrast-enhancing coatings, etc, but remember for what market this lens was designed. It's a little heavy, but it also has a very nice, solid feel to it. My particular copy is a 'one touch' version, with a combined zoom and focusing control. Pull the grip towards you to zoom out and away from you to zoom it. Twist it to focus. This makes tracking moving subjects a lot easier at the expense of some focal length stability; it's VERY easy to accidentally change your focal length. For the $25 or whatever it was that I paid for this lens in 2025, it was a steal, and it's almost a little upsetting how little people ask for in exchange for the level of quality that went into this lens (and many other vintage lenses, for that matter). My example came designed for the Pentax K mount, so maybe I'll have to be on the lookout for a K1000 or something. This lens advertises a 'macro focusing' mode, and while I wouldn't consider it to be a true Macro lens, being able to focus closer than a standard telephoto lens at the time certainly ramps up the versatility and value proposition for this guy.
Tokina SD 28-70mm f/3.5-4.5 (FD Mount)
This little lens seems to be a bit of a mystery online. There seems to be two versions- and older "RMC" model, and a newer SD version with a red ring around the focusing ring à la L glass. L glass, this is not, but the addition of an early "SD" low-dispersion coating helps this lens stand up to time a little more. I can't find a manufacture date for my copy (there's a lot of opinions online about this lens, but very little actual information). It seems to have been marketed as a cheap first zoom lens for those who bought their camera with the standard kit prime, but just like in many other industries, survivorship bias has taken hold, and this 'cheap' lens seems to be a surviving example of cheap =/= low quality. As they were marketed at cheap kit-level zooms, these seem to have been tossed into bins for attics and garage sales and can be had for next to nothing on ebay. They're cheap enough that, if you want to get adventurous, get one in rough shape and learn to disassemble, clean, calibrate, and reassemble on it. They're easy to work on and to set infinity focus, and you probably won't be that upset if you fuck it up.
Should one take the extra time to look at these 'flea market' grade vintage lenses, they'll be rewarded with this lens's sharpness, near-true macro capability, and color rendition, and low CA.
Canon FD 50mm f/1.8
This lens is the first of the 'boring-to-me' lenses on this list. It feels like a survivor of a bygone era - a fast 'kit' prime that had to compete with the optics offered by third parties at those third part prices. They had to compete on quality, and to an extent, their expertise on a single platform. I have a later model with a plastic - not EF-level plasticy - body and without the iconic breech-lock that I picked up at a local antique store. This model also has the much maligned 5-bladed aperture, but I have never found this to be a problem with how I shoot. This lens is plenty sharp, and on SLRs, the wide-open maximum aperture provides a delightfully bright and clear viewfinder. It might as well be glued to my T70 - plenty bright for indoor shooting, and the medium focal length and tiny size make this as good a runabout or travel prime as ever. On mirrorless systems, you will lose that compactness advantage, but these can be picked up for cheap since Canon made millions of them. But, if you're shooting on an FD body, it's just about customary to have one of these on you. The aperture ring is adjusted in half-steps, and the focus ring is beautifully smooth and precise.
Canon EF 35-80mm f/4-5.6 III
Isn't it funny how, 30 years later, this lens still manages to be someone's introductory lens to Film photography? My Fiancée's father purchased this lens with a Canon Rebel G in the mid-late 90s before his honeymoon. After most labs closed down in the early-mid 2000s, it sat in an old camcorder bag for 20 years, surviving many moves but never being used. I come along, having not shot film since I was child shooting on what was essentially a toy, expressing my interest to expand my photography interests into the analog world, though unsure how to most smartly spend my first dollars on an SLR. As dads who never express their interests are wont to do, he immediately brings up how he's been holding on to an old camera for just this reason. The Rebel line was famous for cementing Canon's reign as the hobby-photographer king in its day, and that legacy seems to live on with me 30 years late (note my careful use of late and not later). Technically, this lens (along with a Rebel G and a 100-300mm USM) is on loan to me from him... but cheekily I don't know if he's getting them back! Yeah, the autofocus sounds like dying PowerWheel toy driving over gravel, but there's a certain 90s charm to that which matches perfectly to the sound of the motor drives of the day. Modern Canon users probably aren't racing to used camera stores to collect these, and there don't seem to be any correction profiles available. However, it weighs nothing, covers a very useful focal length range, can be had for cheap, and, if we're honest with ourselves, produces very good, clear images that have a perfectly acceptable resolving power for small-medium prints. I won't pretend that this thing is some special diamond in Canon's line, but it's certainly no slouch- just outdated.
Canon EF 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM II
This lens is also on loan to me from my father-in-law. The story goes with this example is that he bought it shortly before his honeymoon to Alaska, but the wildlife was so close that it was just about worthless. Since then, it seems that this lens also has spent most of its life sitting in a camcorder bag. The USM motor is a welcome upgrade, and I find that its softness at the long end is overblown online. My particular example has suffered some ravages of time, like a lens hood that disintegrates if I look at it wrong, and the loosest zoom mechanism I've ever experienced. Point the camera down and after a plasticky thunk, you're at 300mm. But, like many other lenses of its day, it's perfectly fine. The plastic shell is much maligned, and that often somehow translates online to poor build and image quality overall. The lesson here is that if you're buying equipment, especially used, you must know what it was designed for, as a whole. This was never meant to be a lens for high-ranking professional sports photographers, so don't treat it like one. You wouldn't expect Leica results from a PowerShot, would you? Don't look at it that way- use it like a hobbyist who saw an interesting bird on a vacation. Keep your camera in Auto or P and let the camera work out what the sharpest aperture will be. The silent, completely internal autofocus was probably enough of a selling point for most amateurs, especially on the resolving power that 135 film limits you to.
Canon EF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 III
This is another one of those 90s Canon travel lenses that, if you're buying one, you must keep in mind who it was marketed for. This guy is basically the same lens as the 100-300, down to the supposed softness at the long end. It belonged to my late grandfather, who left his photography equipment to my brother. Another couple non-professional photographers - the people this marketed for. It's plasticky, does not have the USM motor, and the focusing ring is at the far end of the lens, which I find boneheaded for a lens without an aperture ring. I haven't tested any of my FD or EF lenses on my digital bodies (I only have Fuji digital bodies at the moment), but I'm very curious to pit this lens against the 100-300 USM considering this lens was release only a year before Canon released the D30. That being said, the effective resolving power of (especially low-iso) 135 film is generally purported to be much, much, higher than even modern digital sensors, but I also don't see people flocking back to medium format ISO 50 film over digital for professional product shots either. I'm extremely interested to see how these lenses will perform on my Fuji body compared to what people seem to like to say about these non-L Canon lenses online.
Fujinon XF 16-80mm f/4 R OIS WR
This is the lens that I picked up a couple of years ago when I bought my Fuji X-T5 and got back into photography. I have very little technical to add about this lens that has already been said. This lens has gone through the wringer and there are thousands of people who have detailed its performance for both photo and video. What I can say is that as long as this lens is on a Fujifilm body (where the camera can electronically correct distortions - I find that modern zoom lenses seem to suffer more from computer-correctable geometric distortions in exchange for sharper and higher-contrast images, things that are harder to fix in post) this lens is perfectly fine. It is extremely sharp throughout its entire range (even at f/4- but stop down to f/5-5.6 and you'd think it's a prime) with a plenty-fast, quiet autofocus and OIS as a bonus. There seems to be some discourse about this lens online, and while the criticisms may be valid, I find that their effects on images and my workflow to be incredibly overstated. The video breathing is annoying, but I'm not shooting video handheld, and it's not marketed as a cinema lens. I expect that Fuji will release a version 2 with a slightly reworked autofocusing mechanism to make the lens a bit more useful for hybrid/video users. I also expect that will not happen until Fuji gets as brave with the XT series as they did with the X-T4. This is my workhorse lens and will be my go-to travel lens for a long time.
Fujinon XF 35mm f/2
This lens is another loaner from my brother, along with the aforementioned X-T1. It's a useful focal length, small, optically fantastic, and the autofocus is great. I think everyone who shoots fuji should have this lens if they want to take sharp images, but man, it's boring. Everything about the lens is technically perfect as can be, but I despise lens manufacturers' insistence on electronically controlled focus rings, and the lack of imperfections translates to a lack of character in my eyes - perfect for people who rely on postprocessing and/or work professionally, but for someone who simply finds joy in using cameras and recording what I see through, literally, another lens, this means that this lens, unfortunately, sits on my shelf a lot unless I'm worried about compactness. But, at the same time, I will not part with it until my brother wants it back because it is so technically good, which is a shame. Does any of this matter at all? No, it just means I have my head up my ass a little bit sometimes, and I wanted to share that. Because, anytime this lens is on my camera, the photos are great.
Fujinon XF 50mm f/2
This is my favorite prime lens to shoot with. The 50mm focal length on APS-C is perfect; it's small, light, produces beautiful bokeh with a bit of retro swirl, and I can't overstate how sharp it is, especially stopped down a little. At f/2, it's plenty fast for indoors, especially with how good sensors are nowadays. It's a very uninteresting lens. It doesn't complain - it just focuses instantly and produces beautifully rendered images. They go for about $350 used at KEH (which is where I got mine), but if you can swing that, you will not regret the price tag. My X-T5 (as well as many other digital bodies) supports pixel-shift, so I am very excited to set this combo up on a tripod next to my Yashica-A for some fun, swirly bokeh, high resolution fun.