Most compact options for adapted lenses.

[agoglanian]

Hey everyone!

I'm curious which lens mount adapters will be the "thinnest" option for Micro 4:3?

From what I can see, most of the 35mm SLR lenses that can be adapted typically require a rather large adapter to mount on a Micro 4:3 body, this sort of negates the compact advantage of something along the lines of a pancake lens.

Would rangefinder lenses really be the only small option? I was definitely interested in the Voigtlander 40mm nokton, but it's out of my "fun budget" right now.

Id like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

-Abram

 

[OzRay]

The Leica M mount is the smallest adapter generally available, though the C Mount ones are smaller. I'm not sure where the Pen F lenses sit in the scheme of things.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Luckypenguin]

I'm not sure where the Pen F lenses sit in the scheme of things.

Pen F lenses are very compact and suit m4/3 cameras perfectly but they are also highly collectable and not particularly affordable when compared to equivalent 35mm SLR lenses.

 

[Rudi]

The adapter has to be the right size so that your lens achieves focus on your camera. That is why the size advantage is minimal - it's basically limited to the size of the camera body. That is also why the Leica adapter will be thinner - Leica rangefinders have no mirrors, so no need for the space to put a mirror box - the lenses are closer to the film plane/sensor, and that is where much of the size advantage of the rangefinder comes in.

You cannot mount an SLR lens closer to the sensor just to save space - the lens does not magically bend the laws of physics just because it's mounted on a :43: camera. It will still focus at the distances for which it was designed, and your adapter has to be designed accordingly.

 

[agoglanian]

I was assuming as much, I was just curious which systems had the shortest lens to film distance. Or are they all roughly the same.

I plan on buying an EOS adapter just for fun so I can use all my Canon glass, but they will be huge on the camera haha!

Sounds like rangefinder lenses are my best bet then.

 

[tamrong]

I think Pentax 110 is of the thinnest lens family that can fit to m4/3

also some of slow c-mount such as taylor hobson 1" f3.5 also very small

 

[~tc~]

I was assuming as much, I was just curious which systems had the shortest lens to film distance. Or are they all roughly the same.

I plan on buying an EOS adapter just for fun so I can use all my Canon glass, but they will be huge on the camera haha!

Sounds like rangefinder lenses are my best bet then.

You know about the aperture setting problems, right?

 

[OzRay]

... I was just curious which systems had the shortest lens to film distance. Or are they all roughly the same.

The M Mount, or Leica Thread Mount (LTM), lenses are the most commonly available, with the shortest lens to sensor distance. M mount and LTM lenses come in numerous different brands and can be purchased quite cheaply, if you are prepared to play a hit or miss game with quality.

Cheers

Ray

 

[agoglanian]

You know about the aperture setting problems, right?

I certainly do. But shooting wide open would be fun on this little thing.

The pentax 110 lenses do sound interesting, but they are comically small! Haha not to mention there is no aperture control either. At least f/2.8 is a flexible aperture.

 

[agoglanian]

The M Mount, or Leica Thread Mount (LTM), lenses are the most commonly available, with the shortest lens to sensor distance. M mount and LTM lenses come in numerous different brands and can be purchased quite cheaply, if you are prepared to play a hit or miss game with quality.

Cheers

Ray

Ray, can you talk about some of the other brands that are available affordably? My only rangefinder lens experience has been with Leica, Voigtlander and Konica. Voigtlander probably being the cheapest.

 

[photoSmart42]

The Konica 40 and Zeiss Tessar 45 are pretty compact even with adapters. The Konica would be the cheaper of the two, so it should fit nicely in your play budget.

 

[agoglanian]

What about converting Konica lenses to 4:3 mount and then using the Panasonic 4:3 to m4:3 adapter? That would be a bit more compact yes?

 

[photoSmart42]

What about converting Konica lenses to 4:3 mount and then using the Panasonic 4:3 to m4:3 adapter? That would be a bit more compact yes?

It makes no difference if you go Konica-to-m4/3 vs. Konica-to-4/3-to-m4/3. It's the exact same overall adapter depth if the lens you use is a Konica mount.

 

[OzRay]

Ray, can you talk about some of the other brands that are available affordably? My only rangefinder lens experience has been with Leica, Voigtlander and Konica. Voigtlander probably being the cheapest.

They're the obvious ones, but there are also Minolta CL/CLE, Nikon (own mount), Canon (own mount), a whole bunch of Russian lenses (Zorki, Fed, Industar etc in M/LTM mount), Steinheil and others of the era (in LTM mount usually), and I'm sure that I've seen other brands as well. The Russian lenses appear to be the most prolific on eBay, generally the cheapest, and are the ones that can be 'hit or miss' regarding quality.

Cheers

Ray

 

[Rudi]

I plan on buying an EOS adapter just for fun so I can use all my Canon glass, but they will be huge on the camera haha!

They look spectacular on a :43: body!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

And shooting wide open can be fun. This is the Oly E-PL1 with Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro, wide open:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[agoglanian]

Thanks rudi, any particular EOS adapters that work better than others?

 

[agoglanian]

It makes no difference if you go Konica-to-m4/3 vs. Konica-to-4/3-to-m4/3. It's the exact same overall adapter depth if the lens you use is a Konica mount.

Actually my thought was CONVERTING the Konica lens to a native 4:3 mount. I've read about this being done. That would then allow the use of the 4:3 to micro 4:3 adapter from panasonic which I understand to be a good deal smaller?

Not sure if it's worth the hassle haha.

 

[Luckypenguin]

It can be done with film SLR lenses. I've seen perfectly good L series Canon FD lenses converted (i.e. hacked up) to a 4/3 lens mount, but the lens still has to sit the same distance from the digital sensor as it did from the film plane. The conversion allws the lens to be mounted without an adapter, but it won't make the lens/camera combination any more compact.

 

[Rudi]

Actually my thought was CONVERTING the Konica lens to a native 4:3 mount. I've read about this being done. That would then allow the use of the 4:3 to micro 4:3 adapter from panasonic which I understand to be a good deal smaller?

Not sure if it's worth the hassle haha.

What he said:

It can be done with film SLR lenses. I've seen perfectly good L series Canon FD lenses converted (i.e. hacked up) to a 4/3 lens mount, but the lens still has to sit the same distance from the digital sensor as it did from the film plane. The conversion allws the lens to be mounted without an adapter, but it won't make the lens/camera combination any more compact.

Thanks rudi, any particular EOS adapters that work better than others?

You know, I have no idea! I only have the one adapter. :smile: That said, I'm very happy with it, and I bought mine from Rainbow Imaging.

 

[ulugeyik]

C-mount lenses and the adaptors are quite compact indeed. You can buy cheap, Chinese lenses made for CCTV cameras and such. That is if you are not particularly stuck on sharpness all around the FOV etc.

And, of course, as everyone else said, rangefinder lenses and the 110 lenses.

This being said, even with the bulky adaptor, I do not mind EP2 plus a few Nikon lenses. There is still a size/weight benefit compared to carrying the DSLR + the lenses.