help/questions Canon adapted to OLY

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by knfeparty, Jan 25, 2014.

  1. knfeparty

    knfeparty Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 30, 2012
    I got a PM-1 a year or more ago due to already have a couple of old nikkor prime lenses with aperture rings. I have a lot of success shooting with the wide-angle nikkor and the 135mm telephoto gets some good shots too, although not as clear as the wide. I would consider myself very proficient at manual focusing.

    I was given a film canon rebel with a 75-300mm telephoto. The aperture isn't adjustable because its a newer AF lens, and shooting closeups of flowers it works ok but trying to take shots at 300mm does not work well. I'm focusing using the VF-3 and the clarity and definition is never any good.

    Here's an uncropped photo of some ducks shot at 300mm at 1/1000 shutter speed. I think the aperture is 5.6 since the lens is 4-5.6 and is zoomed all the way in. Crop or zoom in a bunch and you'll see that the area around the duck's head, for example, has poor definition and is just hazy.
    The second photo with the flower is the same canon lens but shot at a shorter distance. It's nice and all but if I want to shoot photos of stuff up close I'll just use one of my other lenses; I need this one to shoot telephoto with for far-away subjects like sports.


    I don't see any fungus on this lens. Is it my adapter, just a crappy lens, what?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. wanderenvy

    wanderenvy Mu-43 Regular

    153
    May 11, 2012
    Too many variables in that duck picture, try it with a stationary distant subject and use a tripod and timer. To my eyes, even the water looks fuzzy.

    • It could be camera shake, the E-PM1 does not have the best stabilization and the configured focal length may be a mismatch if you are zooming in/out.
    • It's possible that the Canon lens is at f/4.0 since there is no electrical interface to the camera. You should be able to check from the front if the diaphragm moves when you zoom.
    • It could be a crappy lens. Check online reviews for that particular model. Many zoom lenses will soften up at max focal length.
    • It could be a focus issue since the ducks are moving.
    And it could be all of the above adding up.

    ~W
     
  3. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    The 75-300 canon lenses (consumer grade black bodies) are not particularly great performers.
     
  4. gcogger

    gcogger Mu-43 Veteran

    342
    May 25, 2010
    UK
    Graeme
    I'd go further and say that it's generally regarded as one of the worst lenses Canon have made.
     
  5. knfeparty

    knfeparty Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 30, 2012
    Thanks for the replies, guys.

    I figured with 1/1000 shutter speed (it was pretty bright out) that shake wouldn't have been an issue, but I've never shot any more than 135mm zoom before. I actually had IS off since it isn't a prime lens and, as you said, you can't exactly match it.

    The lens definitely doesn't feel high-quality. It sticks a bit zooming in and out but the focus is pretty smooth. Nothing like the buttery smoothness of my 70's nikkor lenses though, which feel like they are brand new still.

    I got my money's worth on the lens, then (I paid nothing for it).

    I'll shoot a few more test shots with IS off, a tripod, and ridiculously high shutter speed to eliminate camera shake as an issue. I would say that the lens probably is at 4 f-stop. I have the body but didn't want to pay $20 for the battery just to use the body to step the lens down to 5.6, which is I think as much as the aperture closes if I am reading the outside of the lens right.

    What I need is an actualy AF capable micro 4/3 telephoto lens, but that is way outside my budget. Do telephoto converters work with adapted lenses, as in would it work alright with my 135mm? There is a local flea market with a 200mm nikon lens that fits my current adapter. It has aperture rings and looks to be in good shape and they only want $50 or so for it I think.
     
  6. HarryS

    HarryS Mu-43 Top Veteran

    921
    Jun 23, 2012
    Midwest, USA
    I think your 75-300 will go down to f32 at 300mm, but diffraction effects would be bad there. You probably want to use it at f8 for best results but of course you have no way to get there. There are EOS-M43 adapters with rear mounted iris mechanisms, but I doubt they can sharpen a lens. I see it's nominally a $119 lens brand new. For hobbyist film users, it was fine 14 years ago. Your ducks would have made a good drugstore print. Now that we can pixel peep with digital, we're all critics.

    I have a OM 200mm f4, bought used in 1995. It's probably like any other 200mm on M43. Big, heavy, and very hard to hand hold. Purple edges in bright light. I use it on a lark because I own it, but I wouldn't buy one. Maybe you can get the Nikon seller down to $40.
     
  7. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 3, 2014
    I picked up my Canon FD 400mm ƒ4.5 for a $150 and honestly it is the best $150 I have ever spent on camera gear. Yes it suffers from CA, especially when photographing white birds in bright light, but it is pretty easy to fix in post. Until they come out with a lens (that I don't have to sell my car to buy) that can equal the image quality of my Canon I will continue to use this 34 year old manual focus goodness.
     
  8. knfeparty

    knfeparty Mu-43 Rookie

    19
    Aug 30, 2012
    Thank you for the kind words about my ducks.

    Glad to see that there is some hope for adapted, economic telephotos. I actually don't mind the heft of the older lenses. The feel of build quality is outstanding and manually operating the aperture and focus is a pleasure. If I can get a great deal on something that has more zoom than my 135mm, I'll go for it, but I'm getting by with what I have.