IQ and adapted lenses?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by JoeG, Apr 28, 2010.

  1. JoeG

    JoeG Mu-43 Regular

    A really interesting discussion on Soundimageplus (who have also posted on this site) about what to expect from adapted glass. Likely to prove controversial, but seems well supported to me.

    Soundimageplus: m4/3 and lenses

    What do you think?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  2. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus Subscribing Member Charter Member

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    What makes a great lens better than a good lens is Contrast.
    Leica glass has the best, always did.

    Years ago I tested my cribs against Nikons ...
    Sharpness was close but the Leica's had that magic contrast.

    I use a few Hexanons. The 40 1.8 & 57 1.4.
    Both are excellent in this format but the contrast is lower than the dedicated lenses.
    They record beautifully and do the low light thing perfectly.
    With film, I would never have used them.

    I would imagine that with PP you could get great results with anything but Leica glass will always be on top and that means price wise too.
    Contrast determines everything.
     
  3. hmpws

    hmpws Mu-43 Regular

    177
    Apr 24, 2010
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I am confused as to what the article is trying to prove (and I am not sure they are talking about IQ and adapted lenses in general). The test that they have done seem a bit irrelevant... the premise doesn't support the conclusions haha..

    If they are trying to prove Leica lenses won't improve the quality of the image on m4/3, why not put the same Leica lens on the M9 and the GH1? That would seem to be the most direct comparison.
     
  4. kevinparis

    kevinparis Cantankerous Scotsman Subscribing Member

    Feb 12, 2010
    Gent, Belgium
    think what he says is true for wide angles - personally I have found using a whole range of legacy lenses on 4/3 and micro 4/3 including Leicas to be very satisfying

    Legacy lenses - a set on Flickr

    K
     
  5. Jonas B

    Jonas B Guest

    91
    Apr 23, 2010
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    How can we trust anyone not using a lens hood?

    and

    I am not at all always looking for highest possible contrast, or perceived "sharpness". Sometimes a somewhat lower contrast works just as good, perhaps even better, for the most of the time I prefer handling a manual lens allowing me to check DOF in magnified mode (for example), sporting a focusing scale or being possible to pre-focus, or... I also like lenses not producing a lot of CA.

    The list is long and not everything is about resolution. Then again, if I want max resolution anywhere else but at 20mm, what lens should I use then?

    I do understand what Soundimageplus is after, no doubt, and I agree with his main point. But why limit oneself to "sharpness" when discussing lenses. Are we living in the times of over-sharpness and over-saturation maybe? In the true times of P&S style in-camera JPGs with high sharpening filters turned on as default?

    /Jonas
     
  6. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    here is my take, i use voigtlander lenses, nikon lenses, contax g lenses, hexanon slr lenses, Panasonic lenses ,and olympus lenses on my gf1 and ep1

    i also have used pentax auto 110 lenses, canon 110 lenses, minolta 110 lenses, hanamex underwater 110 lenses, nikon rangefinder lenses , russian rangefinder lenses, rollei slr lenses, zeiss jena lenses even antique lenses at times , and a few that, frankly i cant remember at the moment

    allthough the micro 4\3 sensor is 12 mp and has resolution parameters lower than an m9
    is is clearly capable of displaying the varied difference between the color, contrast, and resolving power of the lenses that one may mount on a micro 4\3 camera,

    the question of whether of not a leica lens will give its all to the sensor is a moot one.
    the question here is how the sensor sees light and the quality and clarity of that light

    i firmly believe that the excellence of a great rf lens is clearly demonstrated by the photos themselves when compared to inferior lenses ,

    my nikons the 851.8 my 50 1.4 even the 50 2 are all soft wide open compared to most of my glass, my contax g 45 and 90 are sharper that all my other lenses .
    as i see these differences in the sharpness and contrast, and acknowledge they are real
    i cannot believe that leica lenses as seen by the sensor behave exactly the same way as a software corrected kit lend or software corrected kit prime ,meaningful differences are there

    just my 2 cents
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend Charter Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Real Name:
    Ray, not Oz
    I quite agree with the article, based on my experiences with Olympus, Leica, Minolta, Nikon etc lenses. Truth be told, if I could get the same lenses that I have for my 4/3s system in m4/3s, I wouldn't bother with any of the manual lenses that I now have. But I'm not happy with the current crop of m4/3s lenses, so I prefer to use manual lenses, primes, because they are more satisfying to me.

    Cheers

    Ray