Adapted lenses

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by winnie123, Feb 16, 2012.

  1. winnie123

    winnie123 Mu-43 Regular

    95
    Feb 9, 2012
    London, U.K
    Marilyn
    Is there any real benefit buying non-M 4/3 lenses + an adapter for M4/3 body. As you often seem to lose the autofocus facility with non M4/3 and have to factor the price of an adapter into the purchase, what are the big gains that make this worthwhile for you?

    Also do Panasonic & Olympus not yet produce an extensive enough range of M4/3 lenses to meet most requirements.
     
  2. dpj

    dpj Mu-43 Regular

    142
    Jul 20, 2011
    For me the Pros of Adapted Lenses, outweigh the Cons. With legacy lenses you have an endless choice of classic lenses that have great reputations. Also, the cost of them is far lower than most Native lenses, thus allowing me to amas a good collection of varying lenses. I find them great for photo work as i get the end result i am looking for. And for video they are brilliant as you get a certain "look" that i find only comes with vintage lenses.

    It's all about your preferences really. Some people like myself came from old film cameras where manual was the key word, you chose everything about the shot, shutter speed, iso, apperture etc. For me this made me less wastefull of a shot, you only get to do it once, it's not "lazy" like digital.

    If you like A/F and I/S etc. then stick with natives, but if you fancy expanding your horizons, then an older manual working lens can really teach you a few little lessons that you otherwise miss out on.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    For me, I only use adapted lenses in a few situations: They fill a gap that native m43 lenses don't cover, I already own them, so the adapter is cheap, it's something I won't use often enough to justify buying a new lens, or AF doesn't matter for that particular use. Or some combination of the above.

    So I already own a Canon FD 50mm 1.4. I've got the focal length range covered by two zooms, so I probably won't use a fast prime like this often enough to justify the price of the Oly 45mm 1.8. An FD adapter was cheap by comparison.

    And I just ordered a used Canon FD macro. It's a lot cheaper ($85) than the Pan-Leica lens, I won't use macro a lot, and MF for macro shots isn't as big a deal for me. AF would be nice, but not enough to justify the cost for a lens I won't use a lot. Should I get heavily into macro, I'll look at the PL 45 and the new Oly 60mm.

    OTOH, I use my 7-14 a lot, so even if there were something comparable in legacy lenses I wouldn't use it because I like AF too much. Same with the 20mm / 25mm lenses. I'd never choose an MF legacy lens in place of one the Panasonic lenses. Especially shooting in dim light or wide open, AF is too valuable for me.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. vidiot72

    vidiot72 Mu-43 Veteran

    208
    Aug 11, 2011
    Montgomery, Alabama
    I really love legacy lenses. I don't mind manual functions, I actually prefer it. I like trying out different lenses too, I always have 3 of 4 in my bag and it's alot of fun experimenting. I have the kit lens that came with my camera and I use it the least of any of them. I would like the 20mm panny for my g2 though. OH! The best part is the price, I bought 5 lenses to fit an MD mount on ebay for $36. They are all mint and I use them all the time.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  5. fin azvandi

    fin azvandi Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 12, 2011
    South Bend, IN
    It is true that giving up autofocus hurts in some situations, especially if you aren't coming from a MF background. I was upgrading from a small P&S camera and thought that I wanted to get in to photography as a hobby. I spent nearly all my budget on a used m4/3 body and the Lumix 20/1.7 lens, so I decided to broaden my options by getting some legacy lenses. In addition to the ones in my signature, I've played around with another 5-6 lenses and was able to sell them for about what I paid.

    Like dpj mentioned, the "manual" aspect (especially choosing your aperture) can force you to think about some other photography fundamentals. If you stick with high quality "classic" lenses, the only real cons are lack of AF and that they are probably a little soft at widest aperture. On the pros side, they are significantly cheaper, they can rival native lenses for sharpness once stopped down a bit, and they each render the colors/textures/etc a bit differently giving you a different feel than a modern lens.

    For me, it came down to the tradeoff between $$$ and autofocus. I really enjoy the look and feel of my Takumar 50/1.4 and it's a nice focal length for me, so I'm on the fence as to whether I should save up for the native Olympus 45/1.8 or put that money into a future camera body upgrade (or a wider lens than my 20mm).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. winnie123

    winnie123 Mu-43 Regular

    95
    Feb 9, 2012
    London, U.K
    Marilyn
    Thanks for the feedback Guys. I get it now & will have a look around (on Ebay I guess) to see if I can pick up one or two legacy lenses to add to my collection.
     
  7. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    The only adapted lenses which will retain Autofocus are Four-Thirds, which does include some incredible AF glass from the Zuiko, Sigma, and Pana-Leica collections (including the fastest zoom lenses in the world at f/2 constant apertures, from the Zuiko lineup)...

    Nope, not yet. What's missing are fast lenses in the telephoto range (both zoom and primes), and fast zooms in all ranges. For some people like me, we don't even look at slow glass so the effective focal range available to native Micro Four-Thirds mount is really only up to 45mm, though there is a 75mm f/1.8 and 60mm f/2.8 Macro which are slated to be released this year from Olympus.

    However, the Four-Thirds lens collection has a great choice of fast telephotos and zooms, plus they are also all weather sealed to match the new weather-sealed OM-D E-M5 and MMF-3 mount adapter. They're just slower to AF because they were made for DSLRs using PDAF (Phase Detect AF) rather than CDAF (Contract Detect AF). The legacy primes however, offer the best selection of lenses which are also compact and easier to carry around. So my lightweight kits consist of legacy primes, and my heftier commercial kits consist of Four-Thirds zooms. I won't bother completing a Micro Four-Thirds kit until there are enough lenses. The coming 75mm and 60mm Macro will help a lot in making that a reality, though I would still like to see something in the 200mm range soon.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. hodad66

    hodad66 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    806
    Jan 27, 2010
    Indialantic, Florida
    Many of us purchased ours BEFORE there were alternative,
    native lenses. That said, I use the M4/3 lenses for "quick
    and dirty" and fall back to my legacy stable for enjoyment.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. meyerweb

    meyerweb Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Sep 5, 2011
    Umm, there's no reason you can't choose your own aperture with native, AF lenses.
     
  10. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    You are correct Grinch, in that it can often be just as fast to manually focus as to autofocus many of these lenses, especially if you're well-accustomed to manual focus. That's why it's usually a toss-up for me to invest in Four-Thirds glass or Legacy glass... I like the legacy primes because of their wide variety and often compact nature. However, in terms of sheer optical quality the Four-Thirds Zuikos can't be beat. Plus, they offer full electronic control (ie, like aperture control!) which is something that you won't find easily with other modern digital lens collections. The AF can come in handy in low visibility, plus you have the advantages of automatic IBIS (no need to input focal length) and automatic MF Assist (no need for Magnifier button).

    If you're looking for a lens that doesn't currently exist in native mount, then you really have to find some kind of adapted choice, whether legacy or digital. Though the legacy lenses certainly keep up in most instances, especially the primes, if you're a professional photographer like me or just plain picky, then the difference in quality between a legacy lens and a digital-spec lens is an important consideration. Besides quality however, a Four-Thirds lens doesn't offer that much advantage over a manual legacy lens that has all the physical control with aperture and focus rings.

    However, if you do need a digital-spec lens then the Four-Thirds collection is a pretty obvious choice for those who aren't starting with an existing collection. The Four-Thirds Ziuko lenses were known for their incredible resolving power and sharpness, as well as their fast apertures in the SHG category. Yet they still tend to be less expensive than their Canikon counterparts... so what's not to love about that? These lenses have native electronic control including aperture, so you only need a $150 adapter. The Four-Thirds lens will have full communication though, which allows all the added extras such as live IBIS reading (no need to set a focal length - the camera will read it automatically), as well as automatic Manual Focus Assist (no need to press the Magnifier button, the camera will know when you touch the focus ring). And of course you get full EXIF data as well so you know what lens and settings were used. Plus... if you need AF it's there. Some lenses in fact are actually just as fast with AF as native m4/3 lenses, but these don't include the higher-end fast lenses which you can't find counterparts for in m4/3 natively. However, there are times when even slow AF comes in handy over MF, such as during low visibility or awkward angles.

    So there are advantages to using Four-Thirds over other digital-spec lenses as well as legacy lenses. If you're on a budget or don't want to carry around the weight of pro-spec glass, then legacy lenses are probably a better choice for you. I use both Four-Thirds as well as Legacy, as the legacy glass provides me with more compact options for a lighter kit. Now I only bring out the big guns when I need to (and I'll be honest - I use my Four-Thirds glass less and less now over my easier-to-carry legacy primes).

    If you need the digital spec glass though, then Four-Thirds is the best choice if you don't have another existing system. If you do have another existing system though, I would try to adapt that before anything else. If you have to buy a $400 Redrock or Birger adapter for your Canon L-glass for instance, isn't that saving you more than the 50% loss you would take just selling a single lens? You bought that glass for a reason - probably because you NEED that kind of lens, right? So why should those needs for lens performance change, just because you decided that your DSLR body was too excessive to carry around?

    Now, one day the native m4/3 lens collection will actually grow to the point where it covers all lens types necessary for a serious photographer. ie, fast telephoto primes, fast telephoto zooms, and fast standard zooms. When that happens, then yes I would say that adapting Four-Thirds glass will be no longer necessary. We haven't gotten to that point yet though, so Four-Thirds is still relevant as well as legacy glass...
     
    • Like Like x 3