1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Legacy Lens Flops

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by shakeyhands, Jun 14, 2013.

  1. shakeyhands

    shakeyhands New to Mu-43

    2
    Jun 13, 2013
    Everyone always wants to know exactly what glass works best, but what's some legacy glass that you've found to be particularly awful on the M43?
     
  2. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I did not like rokkor or OM, which many people swear by. I found Rokkor too soft/hazy and OM too clinical. Have not found anything in pk mount to my satisfaction, though I didn't try many.

    I prefer older Takumar (though you have to stop down). My favorite is FD. Limited CA and nice color and contrast, but the focus rings are not great.

    I liked CV m mount on NEX, but find it shows a lot more CA on m43.
     
  3. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    Any particular OM or MD Rokkor lenses?
     
  4. WT21

    WT21 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 19, 2010
    Boston
    I've tried the OM 50 1.8, 1.4 and 2.0 macro. My fave was the 2.0 macro, but all of them were sharp, but low in contrast.

    I tried various 50ish Rokkors. Didn't care for any of them. These were the older, metal ones. I think there are more modern plastic ones? Didn't try any of those.

    I wouldn't both with any legacy wide angle. They tend to be slow (2.8 and slower) and need to click down once for sharpness, so unless you want really deep DOF, they aren't that useful, and the excellent compact, fast and sharp P20 is not much more than a legacy wide angle.

    Legacy telephotos can be fun, but the crop factor really makes the specialist lenses. For a while I had a Takumar 135/3.5, which make some gorgeous images, but I often didn't want to carry around such a long lens with limited purpose. YMMV.
     
  5. Petrochemist

    Petrochemist Mu-43 Top Veteran

    652
    Mar 21, 2013
    N Essex, UK
    Mike
    So far I've not had much sucess with my longer legacy lenses, but I put it down to the adapter (which feels a little loose) and the more exacting focusing needed.
    If the sun would shine when I'm out playing with them it would help too!!
     
  6. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    You are a hard man to please! :tongue:
     
  7. Grinch

    Grinch Mu-43 Top Veteran

    813
    Jan 9, 2011
    Canada
    He will never find a lens that satisfies him...not his fault though, it's due to his illness. He's got gear churnitis, and its terminal.
     
  8. nsd20463

    nsd20463 Mu-43 Regular

    116
    Apr 30, 2011
    Santa Cruz, CA
    dislike FD mount

    I disliked the fiddle factor inherent in FD-to-m4/3 adapters so much ,that I won't mess with FD lenses no matter how nice they are. Too many times the the adapter got stuck on the lens, or got installed wrongly so the aperture didn't close. No other legacy mount adapter I've tried (Nikon, Pen-F, LTM, Leica M) gives me trouble like the FD did.

    As far as lenses go, the biggest disappointment was a Komura 400mm f/6.3. It was the same low contrast and unsharp picture from f/6.3 to f/16, and way too slow to be useful even in sunlight. Thinking it may have been messed with by previous owners I opened it up, and now it's worse than ever :biggrin:

    A free Nikon 50 f/1.4 kit lens from the 70s had too many red/green CA in the out-of-focus areas to be anything but artsy. (the OM 50/1.4 is a much much better nifty 50).
     
  9. pdk42

    pdk42 One of the "Eh?" team

    Jan 11, 2013
    Leamington Spa, UK
    My experience is limited, but I'm not at all convinced about legacy lenses at all. Personally, after a very brief foray (50/1.8 OM Zuiko, 135/3.5 OM Zuiko and Cosina 100/3.5 macro OM), I gave up. None of them got close to a good native lens IMHO.

    Anyhow - just my view. YMMV of course!
     
  10. Drdave944

    Drdave944 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    698
    Feb 2, 2012
    The pictures on legacy lenses look like the ones you take with the native lenses except not as good. Am I too much a cynic?
     
  11. mumrar

    mumrar Mu-43 Regular

    35
    May 30, 2013
    Well, here's the caveat. Legacy lenses will not outshine newer native lenses, without considering focusing and metering. If you can find one that only compromises on contrast then that's fine because you can PP the image. I have only used an OM 50 1.4 and it's super sharp on my cheap adapter at all but f/1.4. Lacks in contrast but that's sorted in seconds.

    All I want is sun for 1/800th second, do you think I can get it?
     
  12. RobWatson

    RobWatson Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Kowa 1.4mm F1.4 1/3" format c-mount. The novelty wore off rapidly.

    My Nikkor 28mm F2.8 is very mushy.
     
  13. Steven

    Steven Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2012
    USA
    I know what you mean, but it's only a problem if you take the adapter on and off all the time. I keep the adapter on the FD lens I use most, so it' s not a bother.:smile:
     
  14. Steven

    Steven Mu-43 All-Pro

    May 25, 2012
    USA
    You are sort of right, but they are a good way to go if you don't want to spend a lot of money on the native lens or if there's no equivalent native lens available. I also like it for video because I can adjust aperture, which I cannot do with GX1.
     
  15. nsd20463

    nsd20463 Mu-43 Regular

    116
    Apr 30, 2011
    Santa Cruz, CA
    There are looks the native lenses can't achieve. The look of the out-of-focus areas isn't, AFAIK, photoshopable. Nor is a curved field of focus. Photoshopped tilt-shift doesn't look right.

    So if you want a look other than "zoom lens ugly bokeh" or "well corrected prime bokeh" you can't use a native [AF] lens.

    -Nicolas
     
  16. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    I can't say I was too pleased with the Soligor 135mm/2.8. Granted I knew it was a soft lens before I bought it and should not be taken too seriously. It was cheap enough. ;) I actually spent a lot of time going through 135mm/2.8's, as much as I have going through 50mm/1.4's, before finding one that I just fell in love with - my Zeiss Sonnar in C/Y mount.

    zeiss_sonnar_135mm_2,8_web.jpg
     
  17. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    I am pretty convinced of the worthiness of good fast 50s, as well as any of the better Macro lenses on Micro 4/3s. I'm not sure that I could make much of a case for anything other than these on their technical merits, other than the fun factor.
     
  18. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    There's always a bit of love-hate with most legacy lenses unless they are just truly and absolutely outstanding, when you are used to the quality of pro-grade digital glass. Here's an uncoated lens which can sorely disappoint under harsh conditions, but can take your breath away with its quality and character when the conditions are ripe. Definitely not the lens you want for general purpose, but a great lens to have in your collection... the KMZ Jupiter-3 50mm f/1.5:

    jupiter-3_web.jpg
    (It's also so nice to look at...)
     
  19. uci2ci

    uci2ci Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 22, 2012
    Los Angeles, CA
    Sam
    I've only had experience with 4 legacy lenses. A Canon nFD 50mm 1.4, Vivitar 100mm macro, and two Konica Hexanon 50 1.8 (or 1.7, I cant remember)

    The Canon 50 and Vivitar 100 I still have and love. But one of the Hexanons was rather soft and had noticeable spherical aberration wide open. I gave that lens away to my nephew. The other one was sharper, but the Canon 50 was still sharper and more contastly wide open. I sold that one.

    Now the Hexanon 50 get praises left and right and the image thread pics prove it, which leads me to believe that A) I had a bad adapter or B) samples varry significantly among legacy lenses
     
  20. Ned

    Ned Mu-43 Legend

    Jul 18, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    Interesting. My Hexanon 50mm f/1.4 I absolutely adore in every way. The 40mm/1.8 on the other hand I felt to be too washed out in comparison to all my 50mm's. Of course that's to be expected to some extent, but it's not like the lens was that much smaller to justify it. Especially when I also had Zuiko 50mm lenses which were just as small as the Konica pancake, but with noticeably richer color. Anyways, I'm guessing you're right about variance between samples.

    konica_hexanon_50mm_1,4_web.jpg

    The Vivitar 100mm f/2.8 Macro is the same as the Kiron 105mm f/2.8 Macro. At least I believe there is only one version of that lens made, but you can always double check by looking at the serial number. If it starts with 22 then it's a Kiron lens for sure. Those lenses are legendary.

    vivitar_100mm_f2,8_web.jpg