Leica M mount lenses on Micro 4/3 Cameras

R

rdeleskie

Well-known
Local time
8:32 AM
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
211
Location
Toronto
View My Gallery
Apologies if this link has been previously posted: I couldn't find anything in a search.

Anthony Frattaroli from Camera Traders in Vancouver did a series of comparisons between M mount lenses on an M3 and a GF1. I've heard it said that M mount lenses look "terrible" on m4/3 cameras. That hasn't been my personal experience, and I don't see it in these photos. Have a look if you are interested (and remember, he's comparing Velvia 100F with unadjusted RAWs converted to TIFF then JPEG).

http://cameratraders.blogspot.com/2010/08/lens-comparison-leica-mount-lenses.html#more
 
Leica lenses are never going to look as good on a micro 4/3 camera as they do on a Leica. They cant - they were designed in most cases to project there image on a 35mm film.

Combination of the smaller sensor and the fact that digital sensors prefer the light to hit them perpendicularly mean that they will produce a different image.

The only real question worth asking is does a M Mount lens on a micro 4/3 body give you images that cant be achieved with native micro 4/3 lenses?

To me the answer is quite definately yes. My Leica wielding partner lets me use her lenses on my E-P1, and here are some of the results

Noctilux


Night Bell by kevinparis, on Flickr


summilux 75


Eat on the Go by kevinparis, on Flickr

More examples using leica and many other legacy 35mm lenses here.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157622730407793/with/5107515348/
 
You hit the nail on the head. Legacy lenses can create images of a high technical quality, and they do impart a character/signature/rendering that I recognize from using them with 35mm film. What they do not do is turn a GH2 or EP2 into a discount digital M. Nice shots, btw.
 
"Terrible" no. Or, I suppose you could say it depends on what your definition of terrible is. I think that SLR wides tend to do better than RF wides on m4/3, due to the oblique angles of light-to-sensor with RF lenses wider than 28. The fall-off is correctable with Cornerfix, though. Transitions between in-focus and out-of-focus areas are more a product of lens design than a sensor's qualities. Ditto quality of bokeh and pure resolution, at least on center. I bought an Oly EP-2 and a NEX-5 -- I pretty much only use them with legacy glass (big exception: C/V 25 0.95 on the EP-2) and have been very happy with the results. And the vignetting from my very-wides (e.g. 15, 12mm Heliars) is much worse on my M9 than it is on either of the two smaller-sensor cameras. And correctable there too . . .

So maybe we should go back to the word "terrible". In what way, exactly?

Ben Marks
 
I don't know exactly why, but I don't like the results of my M-Mount lenses on my GH1.
I use very often Voigtlander 12mm, 28mm f2 and 35mm f1.4 on my R-D1 and they're my favorite lenses, but on the GH1 they don't convince me.

But I like very much the results with cheaper lenses, as Pentax Auto 110 18mm and 24mm, C-Mount SOM Berthiot Cinor 20mm f1.9 and 50mm f2, CCTV Pentax TV 25mm f1.4.

I like they're light-weight lenses, so the combo camera/lens is well balanced. Very often M-Mount lenses are a little bit heavy.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom