I haven't done anything with adapted lenses, mostly because I don't want to screw around with non-automatic diaphragms. But I have a curiosity question for those of you who use both old and new lenses: In general, are the old high quality lenses (Zeiss Sonnar & Planar, Older film Nikon, Leitz, and Canon lenses, etc.) generally better or worse than the new lenses? I can think of some differences that might apply here: - Old craftsmanship vs. modern manufacturing that reportedly produces quality variations from lens to lens. - Old coating technology vs. better, newer AR coatings. - Old light absorbing internal black finishes vs. newer, more absorbent finishes - Rigid and precision all-metal construction vs. plastic. - Old slide-rule & ray-tracing optics design vs new computer software design tools. - availability of aspheric lens elements and low-dispersion glass to modern designers. I am sure there are others but I'm sure that you get the idea. On balance it feels to me like the newer lenses should have an advantage. What say you?