srtiwari
Daktari
I have been using the Lumix G1 with the 20mm/1.7 lens, and love it ! I am not as crazy about the 14-45 kit lens.
For other fixed focal lens I have been trying various M and LTM lens using the adapter from Cameraquest.
My impression is that the images from the legacy lenses ( ZM C35/2.8, Canon 50/1.4, Tele Elamr M 135/4 etc) are NOT quite as sharp as with the 4/3 Lens. AND there is a slight "haze" and "glow" to them, almost like using the the soft focus lens for portaraits. (Hopefully, this is not the famous "Leica Glow"
)
I have checked the lenses for any haze etc, and find none. The worst offender seems to be the Leica lens, but I cannot achieve the same degree of crspness with any of the Legacy lenses that I can with the 4/rds.
This is discouraging, since I was really excited about using the lenses on the G1. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. (Of course, I am using the "focus assist" magnification which is a big help.)
I am at work now, but will post some representative images later tonight .
Anyone else experience this, or know what it might be ?
For other fixed focal lens I have been trying various M and LTM lens using the adapter from Cameraquest.
My impression is that the images from the legacy lenses ( ZM C35/2.8, Canon 50/1.4, Tele Elamr M 135/4 etc) are NOT quite as sharp as with the 4/3 Lens. AND there is a slight "haze" and "glow" to them, almost like using the the soft focus lens for portaraits. (Hopefully, this is not the famous "Leica Glow"
)I have checked the lenses for any haze etc, and find none. The worst offender seems to be the Leica lens, but I cannot achieve the same degree of crspness with any of the Legacy lenses that I can with the 4/rds.
This is discouraging, since I was really excited about using the lenses on the G1. Maybe I'm doing something wrong. (Of course, I am using the "focus assist" magnification which is a big help.)
I am at work now, but will post some representative images later tonight .
Anyone else experience this, or know what it might be ?
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Perhaps you've got a faulty adapter? I'm finding that legacy lenses, especially Olympus Pen manual focus lenses and M lenses 50mm and above, are working great. I've also begun having some luck with the Canon FD tilt-shift.
Definitely post some images!
oh, one other thing--the Pana 20mm is made to be sharp wide open at the center--the trade-off is corner sharpness. Most M lenses, wide open, are unlike to be as sharp as that 20 is, at least in the center; they should be extremely sharp stopped down though.
Definitely post some images!
oh, one other thing--the Pana 20mm is made to be sharp wide open at the center--the trade-off is corner sharpness. Most M lenses, wide open, are unlike to be as sharp as that 20 is, at least in the center; they should be extremely sharp stopped down though.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
What I've heard from this and other websites is that digital sensors, especially those like on the u4/3 format that use slightly recessed photo-diode sites, require the image be projected more perpendicular to the focal plane, this lens property being termed "telecentric;" apparently this lack of telecentricity is not an issue with film-based sensors, due to the film emulsion having more of a three-dimensional thickness.
There's also the fact that with the Lumix lenses the off-axis aberrations are being corrected in firmware inside the camera; the lens and firmware together produce the final "correction" to the lens design's optical performance; you aren't getting this software correction with legacy lenses.
I also understand that this non-telecentric property of legacy lenses is most pronounced on short-focal-length lenses; you'll have better performance with longer legacy lenses, and those with more of a telecentric design.
For my money, at the wide-angle end, Lumix lenses are the best buy, whereas at longer focal lengths legacy lenses give more bang for the buck (and a wider choice of optical character).
~Joe
There's also the fact that with the Lumix lenses the off-axis aberrations are being corrected in firmware inside the camera; the lens and firmware together produce the final "correction" to the lens design's optical performance; you aren't getting this software correction with legacy lenses.
I also understand that this non-telecentric property of legacy lenses is most pronounced on short-focal-length lenses; you'll have better performance with longer legacy lenses, and those with more of a telecentric design.
For my money, at the wide-angle end, Lumix lenses are the best buy, whereas at longer focal lengths legacy lenses give more bang for the buck (and a wider choice of optical character).
~Joe
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
I feel that once you look into this thoroughly, you'll find it's not a defect or an incompatibility -- more just a matter of the fact that older lenses tend to have less inherent image contrast than modern ones.
Mostly this is thanks to the advances in coatings in recent years, and somewhat possibly because during the film era, moderate image contrast wasn't necessarily considered undesirable (some people felt that lower-contrast lenses had better shadow detail because of the phenomenon of "latensification.")
I agree that the 20/1.7 is a terrific lens... but I think that if you are able to try some modern "legacy" lenses as companions to it, you'll find their performance is comparable. For example, I often like to pair the 20/1.7 with the 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander Nokton (the modern LTM version made by Cosina.) I happen to have handy some photos I shot with both lenses the other night in the wings at a ballet performance; here's one with the 20:
With the 50:
Granted, you can't zoom in and examine them at the pixel level, but I think you'll see that they have a similarly crisp overall "look."
Mostly this is thanks to the advances in coatings in recent years, and somewhat possibly because during the film era, moderate image contrast wasn't necessarily considered undesirable (some people felt that lower-contrast lenses had better shadow detail because of the phenomenon of "latensification.")
I agree that the 20/1.7 is a terrific lens... but I think that if you are able to try some modern "legacy" lenses as companions to it, you'll find their performance is comparable. For example, I often like to pair the 20/1.7 with the 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander Nokton (the modern LTM version made by Cosina.) I happen to have handy some photos I shot with both lenses the other night in the wings at a ballet performance; here's one with the 20:
Granted, you can't zoom in and examine them at the pixel level, but I think you'll see that they have a similarly crisp overall "look."
back alley
IMAGES
i thought you left us jim...good to see you again.
joe
joe
srtiwari
Daktari
Here are the pictures...
Here are the pictures...
Jlw,
I agree that both your photos are "crisp". I would be more than happy with that.
The following were taken with a Tele Elmar 135/4 and a ZM C35/2.8. (Unfortunately I can't quite remember which of these were taken with which. They may all have been taken with the Leica)
As you can see, sometimes nothing seems quite in focus, and I do not think this is camera shake.
Also, could you tell me about any settings you use that might be the crucial difference ?
I usually shoot High quality + RAW, Aperture Priority, ISO 100, Automatic White Board, and Standard "film" settings on the G1.
Thanks.
Here are the pictures...
Jlw,
I agree that both your photos are "crisp". I would be more than happy with that.
The following were taken with a Tele Elmar 135/4 and a ZM C35/2.8. (Unfortunately I can't quite remember which of these were taken with which. They may all have been taken with the Leica)
As you can see, sometimes nothing seems quite in focus, and I do not think this is camera shake.
Also, could you tell me about any settings you use that might be the crucial difference ?
I usually shoot High quality + RAW, Aperture Priority, ISO 100, Automatic White Board, and Standard "film" settings on the G1.
Thanks.
back alley
IMAGES
subhash, you say that you are not crazy about the 14-45. my copy is so sharp that it hurts...if yours is not then i would say that maybe there is something wrong with the camera. my 20/1.7 is also very sharp and when i used m lenses i found them sharp as well, but i just prefer the autofocus panasonic lenses.
check out the camera.
check out the camera.
srtiwari
Daktari
No, I think the 14-45 is quite sharp, bu I prefer the crispness of the 20/1.7. Since what I prefer is a bit subjective, it may not be "sharpness" that is different.
It is my Legacy lenses that seem to be under-performing.
BTW, How do I get the camera tested ?
Here is one from the 14-45
It is my Legacy lenses that seem to be under-performing.
BTW, How do I get the camera tested ?
Here is one from the 14-45
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
The Tele-Elmar might be focusing past infinity--most legacy adapters for m4/3 do this, in order to make sure they are inifinity-focus-able. If you're just turning the barrel until it stops, you will not necessarily be in focus on m4/3.
The other possibility, at least in the picture of the SUV, is that you were using a low shutter speed and got some motion blur. It's hard to take a sharp handheld photo with a 270mm-equivalent lens.
The 35mm pictures don't look bad to me, though...I am not seeing much to complain about in #2 and #4.
The other possibility, at least in the picture of the SUV, is that you were using a low shutter speed and got some motion blur. It's hard to take a sharp handheld photo with a 270mm-equivalent lens.
The 35mm pictures don't look bad to me, though...I am not seeing much to complain about in #2 and #4.
srtiwari
Daktari
I try NOT to focus to infinity, since nothing I photograph is (usually) at that distance. AND I try to confirm the "sharpness" in the magnified EVF or LCD Screen.
It is possible that I am not adding enough "sharpening" or there might be some camera shake.
I will try with other lenses, tripod etc, and see how it goes.
Here's one from the 20mm/1.7. Thhis leads me to believe that the issue may be with the lens/adapter etc., rather than the camera itself.
If someone here would offer to test/compare my G1 with their lenses, I'll be more than to send it to them.
20mm/F1.7
It is possible that I am not adding enough "sharpening" or there might be some camera shake.
I will try with other lenses, tripod etc, and see how it goes.
Here's one from the 20mm/1.7. Thhis leads me to believe that the issue may be with the lens/adapter etc., rather than the camera itself.
If someone here would offer to test/compare my G1 with their lenses, I'll be more than to send it to them.
20mm/F1.7
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
Subhash, it looks to me as if most of your photos have good detail sharpness. What I think you're seeing in your 20/1.7 photos that you find lacking in your other photos is a quality sometimes called "microcontrast." Different people use this term in different ways, but one way to think of it is how much contrast there is at the edges of small details in the image.
Many older lenses are capable of rendering a lot of fine detail, but if you examine the image closely, you'll see that the details don't have a very abrupt transition across the edges. The lens may seem to have a "sharp within soft" quality. Sometimes this is desirable; in portraits, for example, this type of lens will show features such as eyelashes clearly, but won't exaggerate the skin texture too much.
Likewise, zoom lenses usually don't have quite as much microcontrast as good single-focal-length lenses; the fact that a zoom lens has so many optical surfaces unavoidably means there's more scattering of light inside it, and this stray light damps down the contrast at small edges a bit.
You mentioned earlier that you have tried the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens; this is a lens I used to own, and comparing it with my 50mm f/1.5 Nokton would show this type of difference clearly. Both lenses rendered about the same level of fine detail, but with the Canon lens the transitions between details were more muted; the same transitions with the Nokton looked much crisper.
Mind you, crispness is NOT always what you want! But if it is, I still think you may want to experiment with some other modern lenses and see if they produce better results.
I'll warn you that the 20/1.7 seems to me to be an exceptionally good lens in terms of crispness; you'll be hard-pressed to find a lot of others that match it! (All of you people who loved carrying around a Leica CL and 40mm Summicron "back in the day", well, a G1 or GF1 and 20/1.7 may be the digital reincarnation of that combo!)
Another thing you might want to try: When processing your raw files, cautious unsharp masking can help "punch up" a lens with low microcontrast. If you are careful to choose a conservative "radius" setting (which controls how wide a "border" gets sharpening applied to it) you can clean up the soft edges of details without giving the whole image an over-sharpened look. I can't give you any specific settings, because it depends on your software and also on the individual images. You may find that there's a setting that works best for each specific legacy lens you use; then you can save it and apply it to all images made with that lens.
This procedure doesn't exactly make my old 85mm f/1.5 Canon lens look like a modern 85/1.4 Nikkor, for example, but it's a bit amazing how much the images do "clean up." And if I still want soft portraits, I can just skip the unsharp-masking step.
Many older lenses are capable of rendering a lot of fine detail, but if you examine the image closely, you'll see that the details don't have a very abrupt transition across the edges. The lens may seem to have a "sharp within soft" quality. Sometimes this is desirable; in portraits, for example, this type of lens will show features such as eyelashes clearly, but won't exaggerate the skin texture too much.
Likewise, zoom lenses usually don't have quite as much microcontrast as good single-focal-length lenses; the fact that a zoom lens has so many optical surfaces unavoidably means there's more scattering of light inside it, and this stray light damps down the contrast at small edges a bit.
You mentioned earlier that you have tried the Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens; this is a lens I used to own, and comparing it with my 50mm f/1.5 Nokton would show this type of difference clearly. Both lenses rendered about the same level of fine detail, but with the Canon lens the transitions between details were more muted; the same transitions with the Nokton looked much crisper.
Mind you, crispness is NOT always what you want! But if it is, I still think you may want to experiment with some other modern lenses and see if they produce better results.
I'll warn you that the 20/1.7 seems to me to be an exceptionally good lens in terms of crispness; you'll be hard-pressed to find a lot of others that match it! (All of you people who loved carrying around a Leica CL and 40mm Summicron "back in the day", well, a G1 or GF1 and 20/1.7 may be the digital reincarnation of that combo!)
Another thing you might want to try: When processing your raw files, cautious unsharp masking can help "punch up" a lens with low microcontrast. If you are careful to choose a conservative "radius" setting (which controls how wide a "border" gets sharpening applied to it) you can clean up the soft edges of details without giving the whole image an over-sharpened look. I can't give you any specific settings, because it depends on your software and also on the individual images. You may find that there's a setting that works best for each specific legacy lens you use; then you can save it and apply it to all images made with that lens.
This procedure doesn't exactly make my old 85mm f/1.5 Canon lens look like a modern 85/1.4 Nikkor, for example, but it's a bit amazing how much the images do "clean up." And if I still want soft portraits, I can just skip the unsharp-masking step.
ed1234
Established
My G1's kit lens does perform better than the summicorn 35/2 on the G1 body.
srtiwari
Daktari
Thank you jlw .
I will see if RAW files do any better. Interestingly, I use Lightzone, which does develop RAW files, and has specific controls for Micro Contrast.
Thanks ed1234.
This is what I suspected, and in fact, the M4/3rds 45/2.8, when available, may make the need for Legacy lenses less attractive on a G1.
OT: I wonder how many people may come to this conclusion, and debate moving on to an X1 or M8/8.2/9
I will see if RAW files do any better. Interestingly, I use Lightzone, which does develop RAW files, and has specific controls for Micro Contrast.
Thanks ed1234.
This is what I suspected, and in fact, the M4/3rds 45/2.8, when available, may make the need for Legacy lenses less attractive on a G1.
OT: I wonder how many people may come to this conclusion, and debate moving on to an X1 or M8/8.2/9
ed1234
Established
Actually I did thought about the M8. The G1 is .....well yes it is very sharp , very colorful,..in a way it ...I just don't like it. I got it because I want to use it on Leica lens, at that moment I don't want to spend so much money on a camera, then I found out about the inexpensive little CL then the G1 just sit in the cabinet. I felt like selling it, but a digital camera might comes in handy.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
IMO, the X1 wouldn't even be in play because its lens is not interchangeable. For that kind of money, I'd need a lot more versatility than any fixed-lens camera can provide. The interchangeable-lens Leicas simply are impractically expensive for me to consider.
I suspect this whole issue may become a moot point once Panasonic (or someone else) introduces a fast "portrait-length" AF lens for Micro Four Thirds. Much as I like the imaging of my 50/1.5 Nokton, using the 20/1.7 has reminded me of how convenient AF really is, when it works as well as it does on the G1.
A reasonably compact 50/1.7 with imaging and performance characteristics similar to the 20/1.7 would be an ideal outfit for me. Throw in a 12.5mm f/1.7 and I'd have achieved Micro Four Thirds lens Nirvana!
[Back in my days as a newspaper reporter/photographer, I'd often go on assignments with nothing more than a Leica CL, 40mm f/2, and 90mm f/2.8 Tele-Elmarit in a little belt case. It drove the full-time photographer, who had to stagger around under a giant Domke bag of Nikons, mildly crazy... especially when I came back with shots he wouldn't have gotten, because it was so much easier for me to climb up on or crawl under or take a longer walk around things until I found just the right vantage point...]
srtiwari
Daktari
As jlw said ...I suspect this whole issue may become a moot point once Panasonic (or someone else) introduces a fast "portrait-length" AF lens for Micro Four Thirds. Much as I like the imaging of my 50/1.5 Nokton, using the 20/1.7 has reminded me of how convenient AF really is, when it works as well as it does on the G1.
A reasonably compact 50/1.7 with imaging and performance characteristics similar to the 20/1.7 would be an ideal outfit for me...
My hope is for the 45/2.8 (soon to become available) to be as good as the 20/1.7.
A reasonably compact 50/1.7 with imaging and performance characteristics similar to the 20/1.7 would be an ideal outfit for me...
My hope is for the 45/2.8 (soon to become available) to be as good as the 20/1.7.
The Pana glass is very good, but I still have much fondness for using legacy glass on my G1. I seriously doubt there will be a 50/1.5 AF Sonnar in native micro 4/3 anytime soon.
gho
Well-known
Interesting combination, jlw. I have thought about the same combination for some low light theater photography. Maybe I will even give a 3.5/90mm a try, depending on how close I can get.
Concerning legacy lens with an adapter on a G1, I do not have encountered any problems yet with the 50/1.5 or the J8, neither in terms of color, contrast or sharpness. Oh well, maybe except for camera shake and motion blur, but in my case this is clearly a matter of operator and not of lens performance.
Mostly I shoot raw with the G1 and develop with ufraw. No need for distortion correction with the Nokton or the Jupiter. For pictures taken on high ISO settings I tend to throw in a sprinkle of Noise Ninja, expecially when working in color.
Srtiwari, in your last picture, it looks as if the aperture is so wide open that the resulting depth of field is very shallow, but there is definitely sharpness in the picture.
Last edited: