SHOW ME YOUR 4:3 Alternative Lenses

Test shot at f2 to demonstrate bokeh of a 1942 Summitar LTM attached to my G1. My manual focus could be better on this one but the bokeh is impressive.


summitartest.jpg
 
In my experience, I have found no reason to adapt legacy lenses to M 4/3 bodies. I don't find the results worth the effort. Some lenses performed really poorly for me. I find the lenses that were designed for the system to work best. I can't find fault with others for using legacy lenses. Kudos to you all! Some of your results have been impressive. I need the quickness of the autofocus and the quickness of the system as a whole. Plus, as a wide angle user, any lens I would adapt, the focal length is doubled.
 
Last edited:
Vince Lupo said:
...my personal (limited) experience of using the manual focus option on my E-P2 has made me prefer the auto-focus.
Click to expand...

Vince and others: If you haven't been following Kirk Tuck's blog, you should be. He writes extensively about the Pen EP series, as well as many other matters from a successful professional's viewpoint. Here's a link to his recent review of the Pen EPL2. It's a great read.

http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/01/olympus-epl2-final-installment-kirks.html

For those who have difficulty with manual focus, I would say that you will probably always have difficulty with it until you get the VF-2. Then it becomes very easy. Here's a relevant quotation from his EPL2 review: "A quick note about manual focusing. Several other photographers have noticed this and conveyed it to me. When you rack in and out of focus with a manual lens you'll get a slight shimmer in the finder when you hit the point of "in focus". If you watch for the shimmer you have a built in autofocus indicator. Makes the whole process much quicker than zooming in to high magnification to check sharpness..."

There's much more Pen EP information on his blog, all of it well written and a good read. Check his blog archives all the way back to early 2010.
 
I've been shooting m4/3 for almost two years now, and I go back and forth and back and forth about adapted lenses. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is just so good -- if it were Leica branded, people would spend thousands for it without complaining.

I have tried numerous adapted lenses. The Leica glass that is so stunning on film --- well, it looks fine on m4/3, entirely acceptable -- but somehow to me it looks just not special enough to make it worth the extra effort.

However there are two adapted lenses I use regularly. The c-mount Angenieux 25/0.95 is in-freaking-credible. Without m4/3, I never would have encountered this lens. Probably my favorite lens in any format, in terms of signature. Also, it's essentially a Noctilux at one-tenth of the size!

The other is a c-mount Fujinon 75/1.8. An inexpensive lens, but gives beautiful results. And, having a compact stealthy 150mm lens (effective focal length) for casual walkabout is just great.
 
Newest franken-lens has the optic (22/2.8) from a Minolta 16-II and C-mount/focus assembly from a junked pentax CCTV fisheye that came out of a bin for essentially free. Using a C-mount adapter. Focuses from infinity to 10 inches, and can get that down to two inches by partially unscrewing the optic from the focus assembly.

The goal was a carry-around lens flatter than the grip on the camera body. Thanks to the focuser I scavenged, that goal wasn't quite met. I'll be trying a different one most likely. It also still needs some flocking/baffling inside.

Junky photo from webcam:
minpen.jpg


A sample taken with the lens:
canister.jpg


Yes, that's a film canister in her hand. She was pretending it was a bottle for a stuffed panda, and yelling "CHEESE" at me.

The quality is about what I expected, maybe a bit better than I hoped for. Minolta was capable of good work, and they did put some effort into this more capable end of their subminis (the ones with actual aperture adjustments and such). It doesn't have a thoroughly "classic" signature like, say, some of the old Russian lenses or old Leica/Zeiss stuff. But it is nicely gentle for portraits and general environmental stuff. That said, at its current size it doesn't have much advantage over either the 20/1.7 or the 17/2.8 except price. Which isn't inconsequential when you have little kids and aren't rich, but we're talking about a difference when all is said and done of a couple hundred bucks, not thousands, so.

Edit to add: this was inside at night hand-held at 1/25 with the wrong stabilization setting dialed in. It is capable of better sharpness than is on display here but there are limits.
 
Last edited:
Not thrilling, but I am liking my new Fotodiox EOS-M4/3 adapter. So far the stand-out lens for me is my EF 35/2 on the Oly. Have yet to try my EF 50/1.4...out on loan.

5406367759_532f11a13d_b.jpg



E-P1 w/Canon EF 35/2
5411598152_52367e4bb8_b.jpg



Jason C
 
I've been experimenting with adapted lenses on my GF1 as well. I have a working EOS adapter so I can use all of my Canon lenses (most are impractical though as they're huge!)

I have also recently acquired a number of Canon FD lenses, but the adapter I first got does not focus to infinity.

Does anyone have any recommendations?
 
This thread has created more GAS for me than any other in history and so I will be looking at either a GF1 or an E-P2 to replace most of my cameras. Hell the little beast could replace them all as i would be able to concentrate on nice glass and actually taking photos.
The idea of being able to use legacy lenses is exciting but i think i will start with the 20mm or 17mm.
Importantly for me it's affordable and when the next model comes out I can sell the old body keep the lenses and have even more fun.

😀
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom