1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Another question about old lenses

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by colbycheese, Jun 2, 2012.

  1. colbycheese

    colbycheese Mu-43 Veteran

    378
    May 1, 2012
    Way up there.
    If i use old lenses with and adapter and the lens is f1.7 or something, would the aperature be equal to a higher number or not. So if it is f1.7, will it be the same once adapted?
    EDIT: How heavy are these prime lenses usually. Weight is an issue for me.
     
  2. petronius

    petronius Mu-43 Regular

    163
    Jan 6, 2011
    Yes, a 1,7 lens will be a 1,7 lens when adapted.
     
  3. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Most 50mm legacy lenses in the range 1:1.7 to 1:2 are between 200 and 300g roughly. 1:1.4 lenses can be significantly heavier.
     
  4. Hikari

    Hikari Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 26, 2010
    Focal length and aperture do not change, only field of view.

    Think of format as a window and focal length the distance to that window. If you change the distance, you change how much you can see out of that window. If you change the window size, what you can see also changes. Legacy lens were made for different window sizes, but you still view the window from the same distance.

    Aperture is like how much tinting is on the window--it will make the view darker or lighter. Window size does not change the tinting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. chicks

    chicks Mu-43 Top Veteran

    876
    Feb 1, 2012
    The Big Valley, CA
    Ah, but they look so good. :cool: :biggrin:

    1337656130015.
     
  6. Uwharrie

    Uwharrie Mu-43 Veteran

    239
    May 10, 2012
    North Carolina
    Lynne Ezzell
    Those of you that have a 50 1.4. How must faster is it than a 2.0? Well guess I really should phrase that differently.... How much better in low light is a 1.4 ( or even a 1.2) than a 2.0? Am asking as I have a Minolta 2.0 and wondered if it would be worth keeping an eye out for a 1.4 or 1.2?
     
  7. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Speaking for Minolta only, the 1:1.4 lenses are generally better than the 1:1.7 or 1:2 lenses. The 1.7 and 2.0 lenses invariably need to be stopped down to f/2.8 to get good centre contrast and sharpness, while most 1.4 lenses are good already at f/2. Moreover, I've never seen a 1.7 or 2.0 lens with really sharp corners, not even when stopped down to f/5.6, while my early and terrific MD Rokkor 50/1.4 is sharp across the frame at f/4 and below. Going by the tests presented on The Rokkor Files a 1.2 lens has inferior performance than a 1.4 lens at the same apertures.

    Other brands' 50mm lenses have different performances. In my Nikon days I preferred the 50/1.8 AI as well as the 50/2 AI over the 50/1.4 AIS.
     
  8. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    f/1.2 is half a stop faster than f/1.4, and f/1.4 is one stop faster than f/2, which is 1 stop faster than f/2.8.

    One stop of light allows you to double your shutter speed. For instance (assuming constant ISO) if you can only get 1/2s shutter speed at f/2.8, then you will be able to get 1/4s at f/2, 1/8s at f/1.4, and 1/10s at f/1.2.

    This is a pretty straight-forward comparison between an f/1.4 and an f/2 lens. The f/2 might be a little lighter and a little cheaper, but will generally not offer any better performance at f/2 than the f/1.4 lens would at the same aperture. The comparison between an f/1.2 and f/1.4 lens may be a little more complicated though, as f/1.2 lenses tend to have very different bokeh. Most would consider the standard f/1.2 lens to have "harsh" bokeh, which may be considered distracting to some but may be considered unique and artsy to others. It is generally more "distinctive" in either case.

    Myself, I like the f/1.4 lenses for being a good fast aperture with smooth bokeh which is good for "general purpose" use. It's just a good balance for me. Plus, f/1.4 lenses are generally not that much bigger or heavier than f/2 lenses. f/1.2 lenses don't have to be huge, but they are usually quite heavy.

    Of course, you notice that I used the term "generally" a lot. Until there are specific lenses to compare, this is all generalization.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I generally agree with Ned. :wink:
     
  10. Uwharrie

    Uwharrie Mu-43 Veteran

    239
    May 10, 2012
    North Carolina
    Lynne Ezzell
    Thanks! Will keep an eye out for a 1.4, never know when you may come across one.
     
  11. chicks

    chicks Mu-43 Top Veteran

    876
    Feb 1, 2012
    The Big Valley, CA
    I've come across three so far, all at the Goodwill. Any thrift stores near you?
     
  12. Uwharrie

    Uwharrie Mu-43 Veteran

    239
    May 10, 2012
    North Carolina
    Lynne Ezzell
    I have hit all the local ones ( very rural area) but will keep an eye out when I go to the bigger towns
     
  13. BobBill

    BobBill Mu-43 Veteran

    261
    Dec 29, 2010
    MN USA
    Bob Hively-Johnson
    Not just any old 1.4, in that each brand requires different adapter, so you might want to settle on a brand that offers what it is you want and go from there...
     
  14. kanasgowatom

    kanasgowatom Mu-43 Regular

    73
    Nov 11, 2011
    Kodak Chicks (?)
    Could you please let me know the name of your camera strp?
    Thank you,
    Kanasgowa Tom
     
  15. chicks

    chicks Mu-43 Top Veteran

    876
    Feb 1, 2012
    The Big Valley, CA
    It's a cheapie neoprene wrist strap from Op/Tech.

    OP/TECH USA Cam Strap - QD