Bill Pierce
Well-known
The shorter film to flange distance of small, mirrorless digital cameras means that adapting older lenses from our 35mm film cameras is rarely more complicated that buying an adapter. The steeply angled edge rays of some short focal length lenses may show compromised edge performance even with less than a full frame sensor, but is that always important? I use a number of relatively wide Leica lenses on mirrorless cameras just because they have focusing scales, something that is handy when you are street shooting and prefocusing. For that kind of shooting, a lack of sharpness in the corners of the frame is rarely noticeable. And long lenses are effectively longer frame fillers on cameras with smaller frames. All in all, the ability to adapt a variety of lenses you already own seems a very real advantage that is, understandably soft pedaled by camera companies that want to see new lenses sold. But the negative comments that I hear about old lenses on digital sensors seem overblown. What is your experience?
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
I used the 21mm Super Angulon f/3.4 on a Leica M9 and loved it. Edges were not unacceptable at all and only the very far edges were smeared a bit.
I just got a 2.1cm Nikkor O lens which is very similar to the SA. I'm thinking seriously of getting a full frame Sony or an older full frame Nikon (or even Canon) to modify by having the mirror removed so I could use this lens on a digital.
Phil Forrest
I just got a 2.1cm Nikkor O lens which is very similar to the SA. I'm thinking seriously of getting a full frame Sony or an older full frame Nikon (or even Canon) to modify by having the mirror removed so I could use this lens on a digital.
Phil Forrest
sreed2006
Well-known
One data point tells me more than a load of negative "experts" on the subject, and it is that old wide-angle manual focus lenses sell out faster than the second-hand photography store I frequent can get them in stock. The lenses wider than 50mm are being snatched up quickly by users of newer digital cameras.
Last edited:
Iestrada
Well-known
I am using the voigtlander 25mm f4 on a fuji X-E1. I was hesitant because of the negative chater on the net. If there is any noticeable effect of any kind, I have discovered that my vision (I am 50 and wear glasses) and ability as a photographer are not good enough to notice it or care. I am loving the expreriance. It's my poor man's digital leica, my digital CLE (as we have lusted after many times on the forum - a digital CLE - same size also).
burancap
Veteran
My negativity was driven by realizing that native lenses simply perform better than adapted legacy lenses. Once the novelty wore off -I had lots of surplus adapters.
BTW, that would also be a most compelling reason for buying a digital M!
BTW, that would also be a most compelling reason for buying a digital M!
rscheffler
Well-known
It depends on your expectations and the subject matter you photograph. The technical image quality problems of older wide angle lenses resulting in smearing of image details near the edge of the frame is much more noticeable with landscape type scenes shot with focus at or near infinity. If one compares the results against the same lens on a Leica digital M, it becomes pretty obvious how much worse some lenses perform on the non-Leica cameras. Something else to consider with adapter use is that many allow lenses to focus past infinity, which means the distance scale may not be entirely accurate at nearer distances, though sufficient depth of field will usually minimize this problem.
02Pilot
Malcontent
I'm really enjoying using legacy lenses on my X-E1. It normally mounts a Voigtländer 21/4, but I've used a variety of other LTM lenses from 35 to 135. I'm perfectly satisfied with the performance - whatever corner degradation there is doesn't matter to me.
zuiko85
Veteran
It is cut and try for the most part, some work well, some don't. The adapters are cheap enough if bought from no name shops in Asia. Don't know if they are properly parallel and of the exact right thickness. You don't get much precision for $18 shipped from Hong Kong. So far I've only put my OM Zuiko glass on a creaking Olympus E-410. Had to shim the cheap adapter so infinity on the focus scale was infinity at the sensor (more or less). Perhaps it is these cheap adapters that ruin results but I don't know that for sure.
On my E-410 the 50 f1.8 Zuiko is not too bad from f4 to f8 and the little 135 f3.5 Zuiko I picked up for $15 is real crisp by 5.6, ditto the 200mm f5, a tiny lens with the AOV of a 400mm on 4:3 cameras and it focuses to 8 feet.
On my E-410 the 50 f1.8 Zuiko is not too bad from f4 to f8 and the little 135 f3.5 Zuiko I picked up for $15 is real crisp by 5.6, ditto the 200mm f5, a tiny lens with the AOV of a 400mm on 4:3 cameras and it focuses to 8 feet.
Pioneer
Veteran
I love old lenses on new cameras.
I use Leica LTM lenses on my Leica Monochrom.
I think my Pentax Super Tak 50/1.4 has morphed into a gorgeous portrait lens on my Pentax K10D if I use a Katzeye Focus Screen. And I have learned to only trust the real Pentax M42/K adaptors.
But, that is about as far as I have ever gone with old lenses on new cameras.
I use Leica LTM lenses on my Leica Monochrom.
I think my Pentax Super Tak 50/1.4 has morphed into a gorgeous portrait lens on my Pentax K10D if I use a Katzeye Focus Screen. And I have learned to only trust the real Pentax M42/K adaptors.
But, that is about as far as I have ever gone with old lenses on new cameras.
Corran
Well-known
I suggest you don't. I have tried the 2.1cm Nikkor on my M9 and it really doesn't work.
I didn't save any of the test images because they were so bad, but if you want I could take another couple this weekend. The vignetting was so bad the lens seemed to not even cover the sensor. The outer 3rd of the frame was just black. 50% of the frame was purple and totally unfixable. I even tried making a CornerFix profile to no avail. It completely failed to make a usable profile after several attempts.
AlwaysOnAuto
Well-known
I enjoy having a new camera every time I put a different old lens on my NEX 7.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Some lens-sensor matches work well, regardless of the specifics of resolution, corner coverage, color shifting, etc. Some do not.
This is because while photography is a highly technical endeavor and photographers are often driven by technological superiority, at the other end of photography are aesthetics. This is a slippery and challenging thing to measure as aesthetics have more to do with the vision and skill of the photographer overcoming the technical constraints of flaws and aberrations in the equipment to produce compelling, visually appealing work.
I have found several very sweet and useful combinations of older lenses with current bodies. I use FourThirds, APS-C, and "FF" 35mm format bodies with Leica M, Voigtländer, Nikkor, and Leica R bodies. I also use pinhole, zone plate, toy camera lenses, and a couple of weirdly adapted C-mount lenses. None challenge the modern, dedicated-for-the-mount lenses for ultimate resolution, contrast, edge to edge evenness of performance, etc, but each useful pairing produces aesthetic results that I find satisfying and appealing.
G
Sony A7 + Skink Zone Sieve 24mm
ISO 25600 @ f/71 @ 1/250~
This is because while photography is a highly technical endeavor and photographers are often driven by technological superiority, at the other end of photography are aesthetics. This is a slippery and challenging thing to measure as aesthetics have more to do with the vision and skill of the photographer overcoming the technical constraints of flaws and aberrations in the equipment to produce compelling, visually appealing work.
I have found several very sweet and useful combinations of older lenses with current bodies. I use FourThirds, APS-C, and "FF" 35mm format bodies with Leica M, Voigtländer, Nikkor, and Leica R bodies. I also use pinhole, zone plate, toy camera lenses, and a couple of weirdly adapted C-mount lenses. None challenge the modern, dedicated-for-the-mount lenses for ultimate resolution, contrast, edge to edge evenness of performance, etc, but each useful pairing produces aesthetic results that I find satisfying and appealing.
G
Sony A7 + Skink Zone Sieve 24mm
ISO 25600 @ f/71 @ 1/250~
willie_901
Veteran
I thought there were at least four factors that determined the off-center frame quality when using older lenses on digital bodies.
Retrofocus designs perform differently than telecentric designs. But I don't remember which of these is more compatible with most sensor micro lenses. But if I had to bet, I would bet in general retrofocus lenses display less edge artifacts than telecentric lenses.
The microlens design itself is relevant. The angle the light rays hit film is essentially irrelevant so the frame edges are no different than the center. But this light ray - microlens angle is important with digital sensors so differences in microlens designs matter.
Of course sensor area is also a factor. Lenses designed with an image circle suitable for 24 X 36 mm media could display less artifacts on an APS-C sensor.
As far as I can tell more recent versions (the Max-sensor?) of Leica M cameras have an improved microlens/sensor-well interface that minimizes off-center artifacts. If I remember correctly, the earlier sensors also use a micro-lens designed to minimizes the loss of signal due to the light-ray angle of incidence at the frame edges. Perhaps someone better aquatinted with Leica's sensors can provide more details.
The Fujifilm X-100 sensor uses different micro lens designs as the distance from the center of the frame increases. As far as I know the details (how many different lenses are used, etc) are proprietary. Supposedly the sensor micro lenses efficiently compensate for light-ray angle differences. I am not aware of other brands with specialized microlens arrays.
With so many variables it isn't a surprise the anecdotal reports one reads might seem inconsistent. I guess if you own a lot of old lenses (I sold all mine) then the cost of a decent adapter is worth it to see what lenses work for your camera(s) and your needs. I played a bit with adapted lenses during the short time I owned a m4/5 camera and in my case just ended up wasting time and effort.
Retrofocus designs perform differently than telecentric designs. But I don't remember which of these is more compatible with most sensor micro lenses. But if I had to bet, I would bet in general retrofocus lenses display less edge artifacts than telecentric lenses.
The microlens design itself is relevant. The angle the light rays hit film is essentially irrelevant so the frame edges are no different than the center. But this light ray - microlens angle is important with digital sensors so differences in microlens designs matter.
Of course sensor area is also a factor. Lenses designed with an image circle suitable for 24 X 36 mm media could display less artifacts on an APS-C sensor.
As far as I can tell more recent versions (the Max-sensor?) of Leica M cameras have an improved microlens/sensor-well interface that minimizes off-center artifacts. If I remember correctly, the earlier sensors also use a micro-lens designed to minimizes the loss of signal due to the light-ray angle of incidence at the frame edges. Perhaps someone better aquatinted with Leica's sensors can provide more details.
The Fujifilm X-100 sensor uses different micro lens designs as the distance from the center of the frame increases. As far as I know the details (how many different lenses are used, etc) are proprietary. Supposedly the sensor micro lenses efficiently compensate for light-ray angle differences. I am not aware of other brands with specialized microlens arrays.
With so many variables it isn't a surprise the anecdotal reports one reads might seem inconsistent. I guess if you own a lot of old lenses (I sold all mine) then the cost of a decent adapter is worth it to see what lenses work for your camera(s) and your needs. I played a bit with adapted lenses during the short time I owned a m4/5 camera and in my case just ended up wasting time and effort.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
At least.
But I won't belabor it... When I was first using FourThirds SLRs, I experimented with a bunch of adapted lenses. Some worked very nicely, but I eventually filled out my lens kit with FourThirds lenses which worked better.
When Micro-FourThirds came out, I experimented briefly with some adapted lenses but already knew that the best performance was to be had with FT SLR and mFT lenses designed for the format. Most of my adaptations were (are, since I still have them) oddities that produce nice results when I'm in that frame of mind/vision quest/etc.
I bought my Sony A7 specifically as a body to try my Leica R lenses on, since you cannot buy a Leica R digital body. To my delight, even though I think the A7 is a rather clunky camera, the Leica R lenses match well with its sensor and the A7's customization capability is just extensive enough that I have been able to configure it to work fluidly for my purposes. So I now have the "Leica R Digital" camera I've wanted, and can use these superb lenses on a digital sensor where they image as well as they do on film.
There are all sorts of ways to cut this stuff. ;-)
G
Ben Z
Veteran
My newest Leica lens is the 4th version 28 Elmarit dating from 1994. Everything else is older, on back to screwmount lenses from the late 40's-early 50's. All of them have worked fine on M8, M9 and M240. So have all my Voitlander's. I read a lot of complaining and nitpicking about this or that lens and really what I suspect is maybe a very very few really are awful, and the rest is just people who place lens performance at the top of the list of criteria of what's essential for a good photograph. The day I can with a straight face stack my photography up against Doisneau, Burri, HCB Winogrand et al, that's the day I can start obsessing over needing the latest and greatest state of the art lens performance.
As for adapting SLR lenses, I have not done it much, but not for reasons of performance. I really don't like using an EVF, it's just not an enjoyable experience for me. It's like watching a little TV monitor through a keyhole. Lacks the vitality of even an entry-level mirror prism DSLR. And I have a Canon 5D which because of it's register length, can be fitted with adapters for Leica R, Nikon F, and Pentax screw lenses which are the one's I happen to own.
As for adapting SLR lenses, I have not done it much, but not for reasons of performance. I really don't like using an EVF, it's just not an enjoyable experience for me. It's like watching a little TV monitor through a keyhole. Lacks the vitality of even an entry-level mirror prism DSLR. And I have a Canon 5D which because of it's register length, can be fitted with adapters for Leica R, Nikon F, and Pentax screw lenses which are the one's I happen to own.
kxl
Social Documentary
I bought an A7R primarily to use the F- and M-mount lenses that I already owned, and have so far been happy with the results, especially with the Sonnar lenses.
I also experimented with other mounts, primarily FD and M42, but found them less than desirable so I eventually sold them.
I also experimented with other mounts, primarily FD and M42, but found them less than desirable so I eventually sold them.
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
It was tempting to think that the sensor just replaced the film and the lens would perform as it always has. But, then we saw problems with many wide angle lenses on digital sensors. Time for new thinking, that the system performance depends on the lens, the sensor, and how they work together. We've read about angle of light rays hitting the sensor, about microlenses, and recently about the effect of the 1-4mm glass covering the sensor.
Because of this, and the opportunity for the camera engineers to work their magic, I'm tempted to think that lenses designed for the sensor/camera system have an edge.
That said, I love using my MF lenses on my Sony gear. I use the NEX-5n or A6000 with an adapter and 50 or 58mm lenses for portraits.
To go wide, I'm inclined towards the Metabones Speed Booster, a focal reducer designed for the sensor and cover glass in my APS camera. I put the Nikkor 20mm f/4 on the Sony crop-sensor cameras for a very interesting perspective. Speed Booster adds a chunk of weight. Feels to me like it would be good for planned shots on a tripod, but not the gear for carrying around.
Because of this, and the opportunity for the camera engineers to work their magic, I'm tempted to think that lenses designed for the sensor/camera system have an edge.
That said, I love using my MF lenses on my Sony gear. I use the NEX-5n or A6000 with an adapter and 50 or 58mm lenses for portraits.
To go wide, I'm inclined towards the Metabones Speed Booster, a focal reducer designed for the sensor and cover glass in my APS camera. I put the Nikkor 20mm f/4 on the Sony crop-sensor cameras for a very interesting perspective. Speed Booster adds a chunk of weight. Feels to me like it would be good for planned shots on a tripod, but not the gear for carrying around.
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
Bill, I used the Voigtlander 15mm Heliar on my Fuji X-Pro1. It gave excellent results. If there was any so called 'smearing' in the corners, I never noticed it. I've always felt that most adapted lens issues raised on the web are overstated by folks that like looking at pixel-level details that are never seen in prints.
rlouzan
Well-known
All this talk about lens smearing, vignetting, color fringing ... reminds me of a tale that I was once told by Bob Schwalberg. A famous photojournalist friend of his had asked him about a new lens that had just been released. After Bob painstakingly explained the lens design, the friend said, "Hmmm, so they made the lens sharper." When Bob said that that was indeed the case, the friend said, "I wonder if the manufacturer thinks that by doing that it would reveal more thruth."