Lenses to avoid?

Gregory

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Mar 4, 2017
Messages
153
I try to avoid lenses with fungus :eek:. My theory is the old lenses develop fungus in part due to the almost always present UV filter. There are other reasons that fungus thrive, e.g. they've been around longer so more chance to get it. I've read that exposing them to sunlight helps to minimize.
Wow! Thanks for giving me pause on the buying of UV filters. From now on I'll only buy non-UV for protecting my lenses.
 

RnR

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Sep 25, 2011
Messages
1,239
Location
Brisbane, Australia
Real Name
Hasse
Almost as cheap as 50mm, 28mm lenses on m43 platform will give you a long normal - ie a 'nifty fifty' :)

I can highly recommend the Tamron adaptall-2 28mm f2.5. Plenty around and fairly low prices.
 

Taurahe

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
307
Real Name
Brandon
Thanks eveyone for the posts. This has been a ton of help..

I purchased a sweet E-P5 a couple of weeks back that came with a Canon EOS to M43 adaptor. My guess is its for the EF mount lenses, but will the E-Fs glass work also?[/QUOTE

The lens needs to have a manual aperture ring, or else you will not have a controllable aperture range, since ef and efs lens are electronic. same problem with nikon AF and AFs/AFp lenses. I shoot nikon AI/AIS lenses, Canon FD lenses, Russian jupiter 8 ( both the 53 1.8 and the 5 f2 :) ... all are fun to play with. The easiest and cheapest starting point is with a 50 1.8...aka the nifty fifty.
 

HarryS

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2012
Messages
991
Location
Midwest, USA
Today I own the Olympus 17mm f1.9 and Panasonic 25mm 1.8, but there was a time that I thought a legacy 28mm f2.8 would make a good 'normal" lens on M43, and I wouldn't have to pay $400 for the Panasonic/Leica 25mm f1.7. I've tried several old 28's, and none of them was very sharp. My kit 14-42 zooms were always better. Going less wide, my 4/3 Olympus 35mm macro lens was far sharper than my original OM 35mm f3.5 or my Takumar 35mm f3.5. So my advice would be to avoid anything under 35mm unless it's free.

In the 50mm bin, it's pretty hard to go wrong with any camera maker's nifty fifty. The lens formula was well known, and everyone could grind the glass. The same goes for 135mm. Almost all are sharp. You might see some purple fringing, but that can usually be avoided or fixed later.
 

genesimmons

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2017
Messages
595
i have tons of minolta lenses fro 24mm to 200mm, u cant go wrong with any minolta, my favorite lens though is a 28mm f2.8 close focus pentax mount lens, the size and fov works great on the m43, it doubles as a macro i can focus so close and its sharp as heck and with ibis i can hand hold any shot, cost less than 20 bucks, i also use a nikon 60mm f2.8 macro and its sharp as heck too, and has manual aperture which all lenses should have, only nikon seems to get this. even picked up a 300mm f5.6 prime and surprising its pretty good for moon shots, lots of bargains out there, i use most of these lenses on my sony a7 full frame also,
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
1,915
yes. These lenses aren't cheap. they work on regular Canon digital cameras. I can't rule out some outmoded or aftermarket EF lense being fairly reasonable.
 

Holoholo55

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,057
Location
Honolulu, HI
Real Name
Walter
I have tons of Minolta Rokkor MD/MC lens - they are usually cheap to buy and have a very nice character. You can usually pick a MD 50mm f=1.7 very cheaply and it is a very good lens.
One nice thing about Rokkor MD mount lenses. The aperture ring and actuator is external so you can close the aperture without any fancy linkages. A simple adaptor works fine. An advantage compared to a Canon FD lens, which requires an internal linkage to close the aperture. I found this out when I had a very nice Kiron 105 f2.8 macro in MD mount. (sold it because I found a Sigma 105 macro in 4/3rd mount)
 
Joined
Dec 13, 2016
Messages
100
Location
Perth, Australia
Real Name
Matthew
+1 on "browse the adapted lens showcase". There is a lot of good advice specific to individual lenses hiding in between those images as well.
Sorting by reply count helps to sort the popular and readily available ones from the exotic.

If you aren't sure and want to test the water before going all in then maybe the Fujian 35mm f1.7? They are cheap and provide a good bit of fun.
Showcase - Fujian 35mm f/1.7 CCTV
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,233
Location
N Essex, UK
Real Name
Mike
Just a theory... I have no proof, but this is what I'm going to do too.
I suspect fungus infestation is more due to the lenses sitting in a dark confined space for long periods of time frequently without any control on the humidity. Fungus typically likes dark & damp. In these sorts of situations a UV filter won't make any difference!
 

lenshoarder

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Nov 7, 2010
Messages
1,324
I try to avoid lenses with fungus :eek:. My theory is the old lenses develop fungus in part due to the almost always present UV filter. There are other reasons that fungus thrive, e.g. they've been around longer so more chance to get it. I've read that exposing them to sunlight helps to minimize.
Old lenses do tend to develop fungus. I haven't had any modern lens get fungus. I don't think it's the UV filter. Glass itself is a great UV filter. So there's a permanent one on the lens anyways.

I think it's the materials they used back then. Some were organic. Like the glue. Everything's got to eat. Modern glues and lubricants do not seem to have this problem.

I avoid lenses with fungus if they cost as much as one without. If they are sufficiently cheap though, I have no problems buying them. To be honest, it takes quite a lot of fungus to affect IQ. A lens with fungus works just fine. It will not spread to anything. Fungal spores are already everywhere. So everything is already infected. It's whether the conditions are right for them to grow. That mainly being water and food. Worse case, it's easy to take apart a lens and clean off the fungus.

Back to OP. I tested a bunch of lenses a while back. A good all around cheap yet good legacy lens is the Canon FD F1.4. Sharp even wide open. They are quite common and you can easily find them for $10-$20 in thrift stores.

Here's my test.

Test of the Canon 50mm F1.4 FD.
 
Last edited:

tkbslc

Super Moderator
Joined
Feb 6, 2015
Messages
7,554
Location
Salt Lake City, UT, USA
:D You very rarely lose money on old lenses, as you can usually turn them around for what you paid for them if they're not for you.
You can usually get about what you paid for the actual item, but shipping and seller fees add up quickly if you churn a lot of cheap lenses. Hardly anyone locally or on forums wants them (unless they are famous classics from Zeiss, etc) so you end up having to go ebay. They take 10% + 3% paypal + $10 shipping per item (which is paid directly or factored into price). Plus you have to factor in packing materials and gas to the post office. A "cheap" $40 lens may only net you $20 when it's all said and done.

Not a big deal for a few lenses a year, but buying dozens of random junkers (like a Hanimex! :)) can add up to a lot of lost fees in no time. So I would still recommend buying known good lens models as a general rule for most people.
 

onewheeltom

Mu-43 Regular
Joined
Nov 18, 2015
Messages
113
Location
Cary, NC
Real Name
Tom Karches
I really like my Minolta 50mm f1.7. I have picked them up as cheap as $5 (with the camera). Very sharp, nice bokeh.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,552
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
There are things that you simply cannot get in µ4/3rds, like highly-optimized macro lenses, optimized for specific reproduction ratios.

I'm rather fond of the Olympus OM Zuiko 38mm ƒ2.8 Macro, designed for about 4x life-size, and the OM Zuiko 90mm ƒ2 Macro, which simply does an outstanding job from infinity down to greater than life-size, and which focuses to life-size (on µ4/3rds) without extension. Or the OM Zuiko 135mm ƒ4.5 Macro, which has a large image circle that you can tilt and shift (on the appropriate bellows). Or the OM Zuiko 80mm ƒ4 Macro, optimized for life-size, and great for slide duplication if you don't have a slide scanner.

Oh, I forgot the incredible OM Zuiko 500mm ƒ8 Reflex, among the best mirror lenses ever made. Pricey, but with IBIS, you can hand-hold it! I have frame-filling whale's tails taken from the deck of a ferry that I never would have taken if I had to carry an equivalent refracting lens.

And that's just Olympus! Each brand has its own niche of specialty lenses, or lenses known for specific attributes.

Kiss your savings good bye… :)
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,552
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
I've never heard this assertion before. Please elaborate.
Perhaps it is different with other manufacturers, but with Olympus IBIS, you must tell the camera the focal length you are using, which is sorta hard to do if you keep changing it.

I see @callie uses the technique of entering the longest focal length of the zoom range. That makes sense, as shorter focal lengths are less subject to camera movement anyway, but I'm thinking you end up losing something by doing that. Otherwise, why not just keep it set to the longest focal length you are ever going to use? I can tell a difference when I've set a focal length too long for IBIS.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom