1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Bang for the buck?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Aug 15, 2010.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I've been thinking about this now for a week or so and I (as well as doing a lot of looking at images and I have a few additional questions (well maybe more accurate to say I have a few assumptions I'd like to confirm). It looks like the screw mount Pentax Takumars are a nice match with the m43 cameras but I wonder do the K mount Pentax stack up well against them? From what I gather the Takumars have better build quality, are sharper and have terrific bokeh. The OM lenses do not seem to be that highly thought of. I have always thought they had terrific color rendition, were well built, and compact but I also was never entirely satisfied with them on my old E520. They could never produce something like the images I have seen from the Pentax 50/1.4 Takumar (like this one) or even something as sharp as the Konica 40/1.8 (swirly bokeh and all).

    FWIW I just picked up an OM to m43 adapter since I have 3 OM lenses but I don't plan on getting any more OM lenses. I am hoping to pick up another adapter so I'm trying to decide which one to get based on what lenses I want to use. I'm leaning toward screw mount as there are a LOT of lenses available but I also need to figure how likely it will be that I can afford the lenses. For instance I wouldn't pick up a Leica to m43 adapter (despite the fact that I'd love to use 40/s Summicron) because I simply can't afford the lenses. I guess what I am looking for in my own inarticulate way is which line of lenses gives me the best "bang for the buck". I've narrowed it down to Pentax K, M42, Minolta MD (because they seem to be cheap and plentiful) and Konica AR.
  2. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    firstly thanks for the link to my pic :) 

    can't comment on the Minolta or the Konica as I haven't tried those.

    I did try a pentax K 28 mm i had bought last year and never used yesterday - wasn't exactly blown away.

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    I notice you haven't mention Nikon as part of your range of adaptors - generally I have been pretty happy with old manual focus nikkors and they are not that expensive.. or weren't a year ago when i was on my buying spree... then again expensive is relative

    Nikkor 50/1.4

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Nikkor 105/2.5

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Nikkor 50/1.2

    View attachment 148958

    also don't dismiss the OMs

    OM 28/2.8

    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    there are more here if you haven't already looked

    Legacy lenses - a set on Flickr


    • Like Like x 2
  3. alex66

    alex66 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jul 23, 2010
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

    Love this pic :thumbup:
  4. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    kevinparis...no need to thank me, your stuff is gorgeous. You are right I didn't mention Nikon (or Canon) as I don't particularly want to use either. I have nothing against either I just would prefer to go with something else. As far as OM lenses, well I have a 50/1.8 MIJ, 28/2.8 and 35-70/3.5-4.5 and none of them were all that special on either my E500 or E520 but that is just as likely operator error. That said, I looked at your OM 28/2.8 images and they are pretty nice but the 50/1.4 Takumar has just have a something special in the look that the OMs can't seem to match.

    Do you agree or am I just seeing what I want to see?
  5. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    One option is just add another focal length to what I have and see what I can make of it. An OM 100/2.8 is appealing. Then again I'm not all that sure a 200/2.8 is all that useful for what I like to do (portraits, closeups and flowers). Maybe...just not sure.
  6. JoepLX3

    JoepLX3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Jun 13, 2010
    Kevinparis - as usual - your shots are great!!!

    Bang for the buck is to my opinion a very correct way to look at investments, but it is difficult to look ahead on how your hobby is going to develop.

    First I was in love the GF1, then I wanted GF2 with build-in electronica view finder, now I see I want optical view finder and start thinking about the compact K-x. Hmm, the K-7 is also cool...

    What results in best IQ for my applications (candid portraits of my 2 & 4 years young children - in- & outside - not too far away)?
    - Very comparable investment

    K-x + Pentax DA 16-45 mm F4 + Sigma 50-150 mm F2.8
    K-7 + 2 kit zoom lenses

    Is the this the right answer?
    - Good lenses will keep value, camera's get replaced?

    What is the IQ difference for a Sigma 50 mm F1.4 on a K-7 vs K-x?
    - Significant or not?
  7. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010

    So I made a few decisions (and purchases). I picked up a Hexanon 50/1.7 for next to nothing ($12) and an AR to Micro 4/3rds adapter courtesy of rainbowimaging on eBay. Small investment and not much risk.

    The 50/1.7 should be very sharp, it's small and it'll be a nice little lens to experiment with. I'm torn with the Canon FD 50/1.4 and 135/2.8 I own because I have never liked that setup (with my AE1P) and don't expect to like it any more with the EPL1. I have an OM to Micro 4/3rd adapter on the way and I'll use the OM 50/1.8 and 28/2.8 with it. I'm not expecting much out of the OM 50/1.8. Most of the examples I've seen shot with that lens look pretty pedestrian. The 28/2.8 should be fun. I'll also try out my 35-70/3.5-4.5 OM zoom. As I recall it was pretty darned sharp on the E520.

    I like the dreamy image quality of the Super Takuamr 50/1.4 but the prices seem a bit high so I'll hold off for now. Since I'm committed to Hexanon (at least a little bit because I bought the adapter) with the 50/1.7 purchase I think I might try to find a deal on a 40/1.8.

    As far as other sizes (thanks to whomever suggested that) I like the Olympus OM 135/2.8, 135/3.5 or 100/2.8 but am open to suggestions.
  8. classicus

    classicus Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 2, 2010
    Small price & tiny sizes: Great lenses

    Lenses with LTM M39 are small, the adapter is less than 1cm thick... in total from body to end of filter thread: 45mm!!! diameter max of the lens 50mm: It makes my GH1 almost a pocket camera...:smile:

    If you look into old USSR lenses, particularly Jupiter 8:2thumbs: and 11, you get at very low prices great lenses (often made after Zeiss old designs...) some are razor sharp and have very nice bokeh...

    Jupiter 8 weights 172 grams, GH1+Jupiter 8: 610 grams

    :wink:about M39 adapters get one with orientation ring so that you can adjust your lens orientation (same for M42).
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    So now you have my attention...I have thought quite a lot about some of those Russian lenses. Anything in particular to look for...or avoid?

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.