Native m4/3 lenses from Voigtlander? What do you think?

[squirrel$$$bandit]

It's not all that crazy an idea, really. Voigtlander of course makes a Leica-to-m4/3 adapter, and I was shocked to see, in the manual to my Nokton 50/1.1, a specific instruction that the lens could be mounted on an m4/3 camera.

Mr. K is obviously tuned in to this system. So what are the chances of some native manual focus lenses, along the lines of the SLII series, except smaller?

 

[GoneSavage]

I like this idea! But are the micro 4/3 cameras all that well suited to manual focusing as they are? It sure would be cool to see an EVF somehow emulate a split prism...

 

[Trius]

Oooh, I smell a surprise coming.

 

[mawz]

I like this idea! But are the micro 4/3 cameras all that well suited to manual focusing as they are? It sure would be cool to see an EVF somehow emulate a split prism...

They're extremely well suited to manual focus. Superior to most 35mm-format SLR's in fact.

It's easier to confirm focus in my G1's EVF than my F2a's OVF.

The ease of focusing is one major reason why they make such a good platform for adapting lenses to.

 

[Tuolumne]

What's wrong with using the standard M lens with an adapter?

/T

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

What's wrong with using the standard M lens with an adapter?

/T

Well, the wides don't do so well in the corners. And making native lenses could allow faster glass at smaller sizes.

Trius, I have no inside info! It just seems like an interesting possibility to me...

 

[ferider]

How about a half-frame film body to take m4/3 lenses instead ? 🙂 Or both film body and new lenses ....

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

Well, the wides don't do so well in the corners. And making native lenses could allow faster glass at smaller sizes.

Trius, I have no inside info! It just seems like an interesting possibility to me...

Hmm how wide are we talking about you say the corners suffer?

I had the idea in my head to pick up a CV 28/f2 for my 35mm needs and if I ever picked up a m4/3 body I could turn the 28 into a fast 56mm lens.

Would that setup give trouble in the corners with a 4/3 body?

 

[Trius]

21 - 28mm equivalent is what is needed. There are no m4/3 primes in that area, as far as I know. Have you ever priced an 8mm 35mm SLR lens? And 16mm in 35mm format is 32mm equivalent, not really where we want to be if we are WIDE shooters.

 

[ferider]

21 - 28mm equivalent is what is needed. There are no m4/3 primes in that area, as far as I know. Have you ever priced an 8mm 35mm SLR lens? And 16mm in 35mm format is 32mm equivalent, not really where we want to be if we are WIDE shooters.

Well, you could adapt a Pen F lens ... like the 25/2.8.

 

[Trius]

So what is Pen 25/2.8 equivalent on m4/3?

 

[ferider]

So what is Pen 25/2.8 equivalent on m4/3?

You're right, I misspoke ..... (48.5 deg diagonal FOV ....)

 

[kuzano]

Well, I was soundly corrected on this question.

Well, I was soundly corrected on this question.

So what is Pen 25/2.8 equivalent on m4/3?

I pondered in another post about the Pen lens focal length equivalent for micro 4/3.

It seemed to me that if the lenses on the Pens were designed specifically for the half frame film frame, and the focal length was 25mm, then if you used that lens on a digital sensor which is almost identical in size (half frame), the the resulting focal length equivalent would be 25mm????

I was informed that the multiple 2x factor would still apply. I'm having trouble swallowing that. I still think the focal length for the Pen 25 mm on half a frame of film would be the same on the M4/3. Remember that the lenses for the Pen were designed exclusively for that camera... a half frame camera.

The other set of lenses designed for a very close to half frame format, ie the 110 format, was the SLR lenses for the Pentax Auto110. They came in varied focal lengths and a nice little zoom. I've seen them adapted to m4/3.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

No, no, the Pen 25 gave you about 50mm equivalent FOV on half frame, and does the same on m4/3. I'm actually really into the Pen lenses on m4/3 right now! They are pretty much the same FOV as on the original Pens, and they work great. There were no true wides on the Pen system, AFAIK...20mm was the widest, which worked out to a 40 EFOV, and still does both on half frame and m4/3.

The ones I have currently are the 40, 60, and 100, and they're all really terrific--though the 100 is quite long on both systems, longer than I typically use.

The 110 lenses are incredibly cheap--you could get the whole set for less than the $100 adapter that is currently available. But there's no aperture control--you have to shoot them wide open. Still, I will probably try 'em out someday.

Many of them look absurdly tiny, even on m4/3 cameras...this is from somebody's flickr:

 

[bmattock]

They're extremely well suited to manual focus. Superior to most 35mm-format SLR's in fact.

Not in my opinion.

It's easier to confirm focus in my G1's EVF than my F2a's OVF.

The ease of focusing is one major reason why they make such a good platform for adapting lenses to.

I think there is a world of difference between them. Not even close. That's not to say that EVF won't get there, but not today, not the G1.

 

[Avotius]

After using my EP1 with my zeiss lenses I have to say I still reach for my zoom kit lens more often then not. the 21mm corners are pretty poor by any standard on that camera, and while manual focusing can be done well with the magnified view, it is slow and not nearly as nice as using an optical viewfinder solution, to me at least.

I think voightlander would need some auto focus lenses to make the most out of them, but that would be difficult because of the complicated lens technology behind m43 cameras.

 

[Ronald M]

12 mm on 4/3 should be wide enough for most.

Eventually K will have to go digital. Maybe this is step one

 

[count_zero]

I'm surprised to hear that the wide lenses don't do so well with 4/3. I would think just the opposite because of the cropping. Why is it that they suck?

 

[Avotius]

I'm surprised to hear that the wide lenses don't do so well with 4/3. I would think just the opposite because of the cropping. Why is it that they suck?

I am no expert on this but as I understand it has something to do with the fact that the back of the lens sits so close to the sensor that the light rays coming out the back are hitting the sensor at a bad angle which makes it so the image in the corners are not as sharp. This was not a problem in the old days of film because the medium could handle such angled light but digital cannot.

I have noticed this bad corner issues with my Zeiss 21 on a Olympus EP1, the corners have no detail and have some bad distortion. The kit zoom lens is significantly better because the light rays hit the sensor at a straighter angle. Also my Zeiss 50 is a lot better, not perfect, but better.

 

[count_zero]

Is the lens M mount? If not, I would think M39 to M to m43 would give it a little more distance away from the sensor. Maybe try placing some shims if you can find something in between the adapter and lens. I haven't noticed anything bad with my Nikon 35mm or Minolta 50mm lenses, but the adapters make the lens sit about 4-5cm away from the sensor at least. I think I've actually gained some f-stop so to speak with the adapted lenses sitting further away from the sensor. Not sure why, I was expecting to lose an f-stop or two.