21mm f4 Skopar performance on m4/3?

[ncc1701]

How does it perform?
Anyone tried it?

Shim needed?
Examples?

Thanks in advance

 

[Finder]

Try this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77218

And this thread:

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77429

I really enjoy my cv 21mm on my E-P1.

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=77690&d=1269183056

I use a Voigtlander adapter and I have no problems in focusing, although I don't know why you would think shims are needed.

 

[ampguy]

Does the fotodiox work without shims with the CV21 ?

 

[Finder]

I have never heard of an adapter needing shims. The adapter should simply be made to the right flange distance--there is no point in making it anything else.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Finder

Thanks Finder

Do you know if the fotodiox 4/3 to M is the right thickness / distance?

I have never heard of an adapter needing shims. The adapter should simply be made to the right flange distance--there is no point in making it anything else.

 

[kbg32]

Do you know if the fotodiox 4/3 to M is the right thickness / distance?

Yes it is.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Keith

Thanks Keith

Great info. The CQ ones look like they might be made better though.

Yes it is.

 

[rxmd]

Do you know if the fotodiox 4/3 to M is the right thickness / distance?

With Micro 4/3 that is pretty much irrelevant.

You focus through the lens and it doesn't matter if the rangefinder is accurate or not.

 

[JoeV]

With the exception that, if the adapter is made out-of-tolerance too thick, you won't be able to achieve infinity focus.

Not that it matters, since you can only see about 12 billion lightyears, which is far short of infinity. 😉

~Joe

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

So far I have only bought the very cheapest m4/3 adapters available, and they all work fine.

 

[ampguy]

Yes

Yes

I've read about the first generation of Novaflex (?) ones that would allow focusing beyond infinity, and that was a thickness issue that the company later fixed.

With the exception that, if the adapter is made out-of-tolerance too thick, you won't be able to achieve infinity focus.

Not that it matters, since you can only see about 12 billion lightyears, which is far short of infinity. 😉

~Joe

 

[laverda3c]

Not intending to be a jerk here, but why wouldn't one just buy the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7? Of course I say this in-spite of the fact that I use a CV 28mm f/3.5 and L 50mm f/1.4 on my G1 and enjoy it. It is just that I hear the reputation of the Panasonic lens has reached almost divinity so I wonder what advantage the slower CV 21mm might have.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

Regards,

M

 

[le vrai rdu]

Not intending to be a jerk here, but why wouldn't one just buy the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7? Of course I say this in-spite of the fact that I use a CV 28mm f/3.5 and L 50mm f/1.4 on my G1 and enjoy it. It is just that the hear the reputation of the Panasonic lens has reached almost divinity so I wonder what advantage the slower CV 21mm might have.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

Regards,

M

because he has a RD1 and bessa R3 too

 

[Finder]

Not intending to be a jerk here, but why wouldn't one just buy the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7? Of course I say this in-spite of the fact that I use a CV 28mm f/3.5 and L 50mm f/1.4 on my G1 and enjoy it. It is just that the hear the reputation of the Panasonic lens has reached almost divinity so I wonder what advantage the slower CV 21mm might have.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

Regards,

M

I zone focus with optical viewfinders. I enjoy working that way. I do have the 17mm m4/3 lens and manual focus does not feel as good.

 

[ampguy]

fair question

fair question

In my case, I have a CV 21/4 (the 1.7 would be nice though), and second, I wouldn't want to spend $400 on a plastic lens that only works on a p&s, and not a real camera body 😀

I have noticed that MF wides are soft in edges and corners, but on the other hand, the Panasonic 4/3s have tremendous noise issues, which is probably from taking a lens with extreme ~5-10% barrel distortion, and correction for it in-camera.

some results show chroma noise to be about 1/2 for the Olympus family, so the Olympus offerings, while still tiny p&s gadgets, should do better at say ISO 800+.

We'll see soon, but I'm still leery of this whole market, reminds me of when APS film started ...

Not intending to be a jerk here, but why wouldn't one just buy the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7? Of course I say this in-spite of the fact that I use a CV 28mm f/3.5 and L 50mm f/1.4 on my G1 and enjoy it. It is just that the hear the reputation of the Panasonic lens has reached almost divinity so I wonder what advantage the slower CV 21mm might have.

Looking forward to hearing your responses.

Regards,

M

 

[Finder]

I have not noticed a large problem with the corners--it is equal to or better than the m4/3 17mm. But I wonder if the corner "problem" is simply folks not knowing how to use the DoF scales on the lens. You lose two stops, so at f/11, you use the f/5.6 scales.

I don't really care, but curvilinear distortion is corrected optically in the cv rather than digitally in the Panasonic 20mm. I also understand that CA is an issue in the Panasonic, I have not really noticed it in the cv, but I may not have come across the right conditions. The cv can flare and I have seen reflections when the Panasonic is used with a filter. I guess you can go on and on, but you pay your money and take the lens that suits you.

None of this will prevent you from taking bad pictures...

 

[JoeV]

I'm curious if the manual lens RAW files can be correct in Silky Pix for off-axis aberrations? Obviously the lens has no firmware chip to pass correction data to the camera, but in SP, shouldn't a person be able to apply corrections manually?

~Joe