Modern vs 'legacy' macro lenses on m4/3

M

mani

Well-known
Local time
7:23 AM
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
786
There are probably too many variables to a question like this, but I’m interested whether modern digital macro lenses - in this case made specifically for m4/3 - are better or worse than older manual lenses, made for ‘full-frame’ film cameras?

Seems to me the full-frame lens, used with an adapter, would only be using the ‘sweetspot’ central part of the lens, and should therefore exceed the performance it had on a film camera, and therefore be at least as good as a digital, AF macro lens?

Does this sound reasonable?
 
I use a Vivitar 24mm F/2.8 macro lens in Minolta MD mount, and while it's a fine lens, it's not as sharp as a Lumix. I can't speak for other lenses, however.

But is softer any worse? I happen to like the way the Vivitar lens renders, especially for video work with a moderately wide aperture.

Others might disagree; there certainly seems to be an advantage for the system Lumix lenses in terms of in-camera correction of aberrations like CA.

I think these lenses gather light the same regardless of the camera format, it's just the image frame gets cropped down further at the "film plane", due to the smaller sensor. So I think it's a myth that only the center of the optics get used. More of the center of the projected image circle - yes.

~Joe
 
I have a 50mm f2 Olympus Zuiko macro 4/3 lens for my Olympus E1 that with an adaptor also works on m4/3. It is a superb lens as you will see from the numerous favourable reviews. It would be hard to imagine even the "sweet spot" effect of older lenses producing better images. It's also weather sealed and beautifully made. Haven't compared it personally to any legacy macro lenses though.

Steve
 
Thanks for the answers so far!

The specific reason I'm asking is because:
- most of the new lenses strike me as flimsily constructed in comparison with the old, metal manual focus lenses;
- the price is much higher for the 'digital' lenses than for used legacy macro lenses;
- many of these older lenses have stellar reviews - so I can't imagine they've suddenly become soft;

Naturally my concern would be that the older lenses maybe don't revolve the resolution for modern digital cameras - if I'm not talking nonsense, which is definitely possible...
 
I bought a Tokina 90/2.5 due to the raves I read about sharpness and bokeh. A friend loaned me an older Nikon F 60/2.8 too. Then like Steve above, I also bought the Zuiko macro 50/2 in 43 mount. Despite only using the center of the image circle on the two full-frame lenses, the Olympus absolutely kills both of them for sharpness.

Probably not surprising as I've heard the Olympus 50/2 macro is known in Japan as the "eye of god" :cool:
 
Harry Caul said:
Now the real question should be -- is the old 43rds Oly 50/2 considered a 'legacy' lens or a 'modern digital' lens? ;)
Click to expand...

:) Well I wanted input on any sort of 'legacy' lens I guess - though what I actually had in mind were the old Zuiko OM macro lenses, for instance. Most of them seem good.
And when I look at lenses like the newer M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm f/2.8 Macro for instance, even in spite of the rave reviews I can't help feeling meh because of the plasticky feel of it.
For a macro, (for my uses anyway) autofocus wouldn't be needed.
 
On micro4/3, my Olympus OM (Zuiko) 90/2.0 macro meets or exceeds any of my Nikkor Micro lenses (all F-mount AI or AIS) or my Zeiss Planar 50/1.8 on extension tubes (and/or reversed), or my OM 50/3.5 macro. In terms of best performance from any of these lenses, I feel the m4/3 sensor (mine is ~12MP) is the limiting factor. On fine-grain film (e.g., Panatomic-X), all of these lenses seem to shine with some showing a little edge softness, but that's really very difficult to find in your typical macro image (DOF and all that). On the Nikon D610, the Nikkors definitely exceed my lowly m4/3 images (again, I think sensor), and on a friend's Oly OM-D E-?, the adapted Zuiko 90/2.0 looked pretty amazing. Another friend wants to try it on an A7, but I'm getting a little protective of that lens. Not sure I want to let it out of my sight.

Never tried the new m4/3 Zuiko 50/2.0 macro, or any dedicated m4/3 modern macro lens, so I guess I'm not really helping with the OP question. But, I'm getting pretty awesome images from legacy lenses. To be honest, the limitation is most decidedly the photographer, not the lens.
 
mani said:
:) ...lenses like the newer M.Zuiko Digital ED 60mm f/2.8 Macro for instance, even in spite of the rave reviews I can't help feeling meh because of the plasticky feel of it.
Click to expand...

On the other hand, there is nothing plasticky about the M. Zuiko Digital 50/2 macro lens. Manual focus-by-wire is possible but has a different feel than a manual focus lens, but it works fine. Some modern lenses are very good both optically and build-wise.

Steve
 
The old manual focus gear might be a great intro, to see if you really need a full macro lens or if a regular 50/100mm might be fine with an extension tube or glass adapter.

I've had the OM 50/3.5, it is lower in contrast than the newest gear, especially if you are using back lighting or strobes. Could be a great intro to the genre/style of working, however, as it is cheap and lightweight and compact. I now prefer 90+ mm for more working room and I like the way macros look with the longer lenses.
 
I think Fixcinator said it in far fewer words than I.

Grab a legacy lens. It'll be great, and inexpensive. See how you love it.

At least 2 of us prefer 90-ish lenses over 50-ish. Might be an important trend here?
 
The use I have in mind is for a 'scanning' setup with a sensor shift camera (probably the new Pen F), so that's why sharpness and flatness are my main concerns.
But judging from what's been said I think one of the old lenses will probably be fine for this purpose.

Thanks for all the input!
 
If you're looking for sharpness/accuracy from a lens, then modern lenses are very likely going to better 'fill the bill'. Computer-aided design and modern glass formulation has improved performance over the years. "Plasticky" feel is probably not the best thing to go by to judge actual image-making performance.

I use the Fuji X system. I've tried over the past few years to adapt legacy glass, but I keep coming back to the modern Fuji lenses that perform at least as well and usually much better. The modern lenses are more expensive, but they're lighter, they auto- or manual-focus, and they take advantage of the camera's internal software that automatically corrects for things like chromatic aberrations and distortion.

After all my attempts to use legacy glass, I think I've finally cured myself of the habit and am now entirely happy with modern glass.
 
Jamie Pillers said:
...The modern lenses are more expensive, but they're lighter, they auto- or manual-focus, and they take advantage of the camera's internal software that automatically corrects for things like chromatic aberrations and distortion.....
Click to expand...

The lens designs correct for that, and have since the 1700s for chromatic aberrations, and since 1890s for other distortions. That's why the Zeiss anastigmats were so good, better selection of glass with different refractive indexes became available. I didn't know any camera software is doing aberration correction "on the fly."

Anyway, I shoot only legacy, and did some macro this morning with a 1952 Nikkor 50/1.4 with an extension tube and focused out almost all the way. They came out fine.
 
I like using my old SLR lenses on an old E-PL1 or E-P2 camera for beautiful looking images, but they don't provide me with AF capabilities. Therefore, I bought a Panasonic 25mm 1.4 Summilux M 4/3 lens. I use both types of lenses. Today, the 25 1.4 is on the E-PL1 while the 75 1.4 Summilux is on the E-P2.
 
I just took this with a Nikkor 50/1.4 on extension tube. What is it?

25556396663_90088346c7_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom