Discussion in 'This or That?' started by kitaro9202, Jun 9, 2013.
although i have native len, but i most of the time use adapted len to shoot
how about you guys?
I played around with that in my Sony NEX days, and a bit after getting into micro four thirds. Frankly, for me, it's more trouble than it's worth.
On the NEX with focus peaking I could shoot things reasonably quickly -- but I still missed too many shots.
Technology has its uses for letting the camera system get out of the way of getting your shot and adapted lenses defeat that for me. I could shoot them in some tripod situations -- but I'd rather have modern glass designed for the system.
My photos have been consistently sharper and my keeper rate better with native glass.
The price you pay is... price, lol! You can get a lot for a little money with adapted lenses, but the price you pay is in getting the shot.
I know somebody is going to claim they never have any focus problems and they can do anything with a manual focus adapted lens just as well as a modern lens. I'm not one to call somebody a liar -- but I will say I don't believe such claims, lol.
I use both. I use the native lenses on my G3 and and mostly the adapted glass on my EPL2. My favorite to us is my Minolta Rokkor X 50mm 1.4. But I've been using a Pentax 28mm 2.0 lately also. But I have a Pentax 50, A Sears 50 1.4, A Minolta 55 1.7 and a couple zooms (that really are to big for the EPL2). Actually the only native lenses I have are the kit lens from the G3 and the wonderful Sigma 19 and 30 combo.
I don't really have a problem with focusing with the legacy glass. I came from using an all manual Pentax K1000, everything was manual - even using my zooms and filming auto races I never had an issue. Now on my EPL2 it really isn't that much different, just snap on my VF3 and I'm ready to shoot. Practice makes perfect . . . well, not perfect but in the ballpark
But mostly, for years I've been using my old lenses
Just got mZD 17mm f/1.8, because it's not easy to get wide manual prime lens which is not that expensive for four-thirds system :smile:
For wide, I only have OM 24mm and FD 35mm. Samyang 14mm is quite big unfortunately
Yes that's not too bad a challenge but focusing on ground glass of a film camera is worlds apart from digital. I would say pretty much focusing further out is easy -- but try working in close quarters with narrow depth of field. I'm sorry but adapted lenses just don't excel here.
I shot on ground glass SLR finders for over 20 years. No digitals in manual focus can even come close. Best non-AF these days is a good rangefinder like a Leica.
I use both, but I find it more fun to use legacy glass. Today it was the Pen F 38 1.8. I tried to take pictures of little ducklings in a pond. The percentage of sharp pictures without flare weren’t high, but it was fun. :smile:
With the Oly 75 it would have been a breeze.
I shoot both, and actually have a higher rate of in-focus keepers with the Zuiko 300mm f4.5 than I ever did with using the 4/3 70-300 on my m4/3 cameras, so I think the experience of focusing legacy glass on on the digital bodies is not universally better or worse, but different, and in some situations -- like at the very long end -- preferable. I would much rather focus a manual lens, designed for manual focus than use the (to me) troublesome "focus by wire" that I always had to engage at the long end of the 4/3 70-300. The legacy glass is faster and as sharp as the digital lens at 300.
For me the 4/3 glass on m/43 is what is more trouble than its worth. Shooting a bird through a bunch of leaves confuses auto focus, even native lenses, I simply don't like focus by wire. Give me glass I've spend years with.
With my DSLR's I used to be able to swap out focusing screens to ones that were built for manual focusing - which were excellent. Hard to describe it, but they made your images 'snap' into focus much better, sort of like peaking I guess. I had about five to six 50mm's in OM and m42 mount, plus a handful of cheapo re-badged 135 f/2.8's and 3.5's. Really got to learn those FL's
These days I only have a Super-Takumar 50 1.4 and an Industar-50-2. The Tak for sentimental reasons (I spent the whole day in the garden with my Tak today - just for fun) and the Industar because it's just so damned small, even with adapter
Both, but the adapted lenses are mainly used on planned or staged shots. My favorite is probably my OM system 50mm f/1.4 -- it works out to a fast short telephoto which comes in handy.
For native lenses I find myself using the Sigma 19mm and Pany 45-150 a lot.
I find myself shooting primarily legacy lenses since I got them. I enjoy the process much more and there's a certain quality to the resulting photos that I don't get with my native lenses. For sure I miss shots as I don't get the focus spot on or don't get the focus close enough to fire the shutter before the moment is over, but that's why I still keep the P20 in my camera bag. I really only use native lenses if I'm trying to capture/document an event rather than indulge my artistic side.
I use both as well. The main lenses I use are the 14-42mm kit lens that came with my camera so I can shoot wide, and my Canon nFD 50mm f/1.8.
For me it's about 50/50, but it feels like the Legacy lenses give me a much higher chance of getting what I want in terms of focus control.
I don't use native lenses any more. If I miss a shot, I miss a shot. No big deal. Its just a hobby for me. My 300mm f4.5, 180mm f2.8 and 105mm f2.5 Nikons have been far cheaper than any native lens, and there is nothing wrong with some old fast glass
I use both, mostly because I'm cheap, but also because I'm still learning. When(if) I get to the point where I totally understand the mechanics of taking a shot manually without thinking about it, I might decide I don't have to fiddle with lens rings any more, but I'm not there yet. So my E-PL1 generally gets the manual lenses, and my E-PL5 gets the native. Most of what I shoot with the E-PL5 with the kit lens or sigma 19mm is for my wife's facebook, so those are less about being all deep thought photography, more snaps to get a picture of something.
Both. On Canon, my most used 50 is the Contax/Zeiss 50/1.4. I tend to mostly use native glass on MFT, because I'm not a huge fan of longer focal lengths or slower, wider glass.
Other than they're pretty big and heavy for balancing on a Micro 4/3 camera - although I use all three of those (actually, I sold the 300mm f4.5 when I got a deal on a 300mm f2.8 ED with broken auto diaphragm) on 4/3 bodies.
For important events, native. For fun/experimental stuff, native & adapted.
Separate names with a comma.