I take the opposite view. I use Zeiss, Leica and Voigtlander lenses on my m4/3 cameras almost exclusively and its like a veil has been lifted. Exceptional clarity, sharpness and colour. They are not cheap, but neither are many of the Panasonic or Olympus native lenses. For example I bought a 1968 Leica 135mm for £300 and it produced exceptional results. I like the 14mm, 20mm and 45mm primes from Panasonic but I get significantly better results from my manual focus lenses. The Voigtlander 25mm, though not a "legacy" lens except in design, also produces results I've never been able to get from a "native" m4/3 AF lens. At f/8 its one of the sharpest lenses I've ever used. Other Voigtlander lenses such as the 35mm and 40mm f/1.4's are capable of producing seriously sharp images in the f/5.6-f/11 range.
Not suitable for all situations, as AF is very useful, but when I'm shooting landscape or have the time to work with the MF lenses they produce images that I've never been able to replicate with anything Panasonic or Olympus have come up with. At low ISO's the m4/3 sensors are capable of extraordinary resolution, the GH2 in particular responding really well to these top class lenses.
I've got a Zeiss 50mm which for the majority of the images I take with it produces zero CA and fringing, something I've never yet seen on a native m4/3 lens.
Some legacy lenses will not realise this potential, but if they were great for film they will generally be great on digital. m4/3 gives a wonderful opportunity to use some top class optics and produce top class images. I'm maybe not typical in that I rarely use zooms. I used mostly primes on my DSLR's also and on my Nikons most of them were MF lenses, like the 50mm f/1.2, 24mm f/2 and 135mm f/2.8. When I started with m4/3 I liked the concept and the results were OK. It was only when I started using those Nikkors that I realised what it was capable of. When I saw that those lenses coupled with a GH1 body could equal and sometimes surpass the quality I was getting with the same lenses and a D3 at low ISO's, I was hooked. I've been using MF primes extensively ever since.
I have no problem with the Panasonic primes but the zooms, particularly the kit lenses just don't deliver for me. They are incredibly useful admittedly, but after the results I can get with my metal marvels, I'm always disappointed with what they produce.
My living depends on the photographs I take so when I took the decision to sell my Nikon and Canon DSLR's and the lenses I had for them, I had to be sure. I now work with small light cameras and lenses and earning my living is now a more pleasureable and less physically demanding activity. This is down largely to my confidence in the results I know I'm going to get from my m4/3 cameras and MF primes.
Hi,
Great argument position on the legacy side. Very well stated, and useful too!
However, while agree with just about everything in your comments..
You'll note I said getting the "most / best". I really believe you get
the most from your 4/3 camera body when you can pick it up under any circumstance and just shoot.
Hey, were I swimming in Leica glass, and shooting beautiful landscapes I'll bet my opinion would come 360 to yours. Probably smiling all the way there too.
But still and all, I really enjoy the beauty, functionality, elegant design, ergonomics and simplicity of the mu 43 systems, not to mention the wonderful IQ.
I abandoned the DSLR world for ease of equipment luggage, and to get myself back into a mode where taking photos, REAL photos was fun again. So for my part, carrying lenses with adapters, collecting adapters (to have enough for every lens?) then taking the time to focus manually gets a little too close to what I was trying to escape.. complexity, size, weight etc.
As you know, I do have some legacy lenses. Though not on par with your collection of very fine glass Leica etc. Along those lines I've enjoyed taking photos of my grandchildren with a lens I purchased when I was 19 years old. It's also sort of a rush to think of all the film that I dragged behind that glass when I was much much younger.. and to think it's still here capturing images. Awesome really.
All that said we won't do much to advance the future of m43 if we content ourselves to look in the rear view mirror, and not place demands on the manufactures to provide us with fast primes and fast zooms..
And hey, I like old things, I appreciate antiques, a portion of my home was built in 1878 as a one room schoolhouse, (The Willis School) and I have an antique Spitfire...
But, my house is converted to a "normal antique home" with several additions, and I don't drive the Spitfire everyday, too much maintenance required. It's just not practical, sort of how I feel about the legacy glass I guess. Nice, fun, nostalgic..not practical for everyday use IMHO.
There's room for all of under the 43 tent..
.
