1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Show us what your adapted lens looks like on your camera

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Amin Sabet, Jan 16, 2010.

  1. sinophilia

    sinophilia Mu-43 Regular

    135
    Jan 22, 2010
    Verona, Italy
    wow so many cool lenses! here's the best one I have

    <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/sinophilia/4245509180/" title="GF1 + Zuiko 50mm f1.4 by sinophilia, on Flickr">
    4245509180_ec5f92f86a_o.jpg
    Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
    "1000" alt="GF1 + Zuiko 50mm f1.4" /></a>
     
    • Like Like x 4
  2. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    Elmar 5cm f2.8 Collapsible from 1958

    Like the man said

    DON'T collapse the lens

    [​IMG]
     
    • Like Like x 3
  3. chalkdust

    chalkdust Mu-43 Regular

    97
    Dec 29, 2009
    McKinney, Texas
    BillNUK, I am so glad you posted this. I was looking for a picture of this very lens yesterday. Thanks!
     
  4. slau

    slau Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    79
    Jan 26, 2010
    Alberta, Canada
    It is too dangerous to use that collapsible lens. In case you forget, you can damage the sensor big time by mounting a collapsed lens :sad010:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. BillN

    BillN Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    SW France
    As I said DON'T collapse the lens

    - just wrap some tape, rubber bands or a piece of card around it - so that you physically CANNOT collapse the lens
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. andyw

    andyw Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Jan 27, 2010
    Surrey. UK
    Here's my set so far:

    Super Takumar 28mm f3.5
    [​IMG]
    Super Takumar 55mm f1.8
    [​IMG]
    Super Takumar 135mm f3.5
    [​IMG]
    Helios 44/2 - early version
    [​IMG]
    Olympus Zuiko 35mm f2.8 I also have a 28mm f2.8 but no pic yet [to follow]
    [​IMG]
    Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.4
    [​IMG]
    Kenlock 80-200mm f4.5
    [​IMG]
    Voigtlander Ultron 35mm f1.7 - Not received adapter yet!
    [​IMG]
     
  7. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    Pentax SMC glass

    Finally received my m4/3 to K adapter today, bought off ebay from tonyzhang888 (the Travor adapter). The adapter is well finished, and I am happy with it so far. Havent tested infinity focus yet, but most of my manual lenses are suited for portrait length on m4/3 so won't be disapointed if it isn't perfect (especially for $36 shipped). Anyway, without further adue!

    GF1 with the Pentax SMC F 50mm F1.7:

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/GNlAE3nC-FJ9F5liBMGyVA?feat=embedwebsite">http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2ShTH2MqbI/AAAAAAAABdQ/PlrDDNHxNzM/s800/IMGP0331.jpg" /></a>

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Ux3LZvwFEXqcbkC5OdZX1g?feat=embedwebsite">[img]http://lh3.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2ShU_RjiNI/AAAAAAAABdU/IcTcflO2OeU/s800/IMGP0332.jpg" /></a>

    With the Pentax SMC-M 40mm F2.8 pancake (not quite a pancake with the adapter!):

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/hAyQpzc-rIe5N3TCj_Ab0w?feat=embedwebsite">[img]http://lh4.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2ShXDWH9bI/AAAAAAAABdY/3VZu6A4THZ4/s800/IMGP0334.jpg" /></a>

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/_hm2lM0-UW8s8cReALgwBQ?feat=embedwebsite">[img]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2ShZP4xyGI/AAAAAAAABdc/AeiL_bJZSh8/s800/IMGP0337.jpg" /></a>

    The Pentax SMC-A 50mm F1.4 (by the way, this photo was natural light at ISO 4000 with Pentax K-x, the rest are with off camera flash):

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/aWyVkV9NEH3OnSWtrdlbyw?feat=embedwebsite">[img]http://lh5.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2ShcH8QC8I/AAAAAAAABdg/d20qkcjdMjM/s800/IMGP0342.jpg" /></a>

    and finally the beast, Pentax DA* 50-135mm F2.8 (pardon the dust):

    <a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/-HwirTbinGh2BVO9CBQs4g?feat=embedwebsite">[img]http://lh6.ggpht.com/_HmFO4R4ztlk/S2Shk436T0I/AAAAAAAABdk/bcCqwmgS4Wk/s800/IMGP0353.jpg" /></a>

    Fun awaits!
     
  8. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    I've become a bit of a manual lens fiend since getting the pen 1 and moreso with the Pen 2 because of its great EVF. This is a shot of my travelling kit:

    Clockwise from rear: Nikon 300mm f4, Leica Tele-Elmar 135mm f4, Minolta CL/CLE 90mm f4, Voigtlander 25mm f2, Voigtlander 15mm f4.5, Voigtlander 50mm f1.1.

    [​IMG]

    My latest lens is the Leica 135mm and it is clearly the best of the bunch for sharpness and colour rendition (I now know why Leica lenses are so revered). While the Voigtlander lenses are very good, they seem to have a coldness (or neutrality) about the images and you need to be careful with regard to lens flare.

    The Nikon is very good and a surpisingly well-balanced combination with the Pen. I've had this lens for a while and always loved the results. Handholding this lens is a doddle, when using the Pen 2 EVF and IS set to 300mm.

    The Minolta is a bit of a conundrum for me at the moment. It's a lovely, small, lens that can give great results, but it seems erratic in its performance, both in sharpness and colour. I need to use it more to find out why I can't get consistent results.

    All of these lenses have their own character and you need to consider the situation in which you're working to get the best out of them. But the thing about all of these lenses is their build quality; it's just a joy to once again be able to have a fully metal lens and feel the fluid motion of the focus ring and positiive feel of the aperture ring. All of these lenses sit just right with the Pen, both in balance and overall handling.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    This what they look like attached to the camera:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Cheers

    Ray
     
    • Like Like x 4
  10. hohoho

    hohoho Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jan 24, 2010
    Tokyo
    It's not easy to do much about the 15mm lens as it lacks a filter thread. But I'm puzzled by your use with the 50mm lens of what looks like a lens hood designed for a 50mm lens. While I don't know the details of the 50/1.1, I presume it has a regular filter thread for something like 55mm; why not screw in a hood designed for an 85mm-to-100mm lens?

    Back to the 15mm lens. You don't seem to use the kit zoom. But if you did use it, would you ever want to use the 15mm? (I ask because I have a kit zoom and also the 15mm but no immediate plans to get an adapter for it and its narrower brothers.)
     
  11. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    The 15mm has a filter thread, I have a B&W MRC filter on it. I think the older LTM 15mm didn't have a filter thread. However, even the 28mm can flare quite easily and I think it has much to do with the lens coatings. Olympus lenses don't flare in this way, for example, with the 7-14mm lens, flare is very well controlled.

    The hood is what came with the 50mm and it's still a 50mm lens, even though on the Pen it has an effective FL of 100mm. I really don't care for the kit zoom, even though it's quite good optically; I just hate the design/operation of the lens and its tacky feel. I may have been more comfortable with a conventional design, albeit, a slightly larger lens.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  12. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    Some say the E-P2 EVF is too big, but it looks tiny to me :biggrin:.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    It always appears to look over-sized in photos, but in real life it's no where near as obtrusive as it seems. Olympus could, however, do a really smart move and make the EVF into a horizontal arrangement, where the two halves are moved next to each other. That would put the eyepoint above the dial and allow for a useable hot shoe above the connector. This way the profile of the EVF would halve in height.

    This is a shot that I took a little while ago with the 135mm @ f4, using the Leica extension ring, handheld (the red cactus flower is about 10mm across). Nothing special, just a test:

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Cheers

    Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. hohoho

    hohoho Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jan 24, 2010
    Tokyo
    It definitely doesn't. And there's an awful lot of rather expensive glass bulging out and waiting to be touched by greasy fingers and so forth. So I always baby mine. Which is probably a good thing, because it means I use it less. With its intended angle of view, it's enormous fun to use; however, the results are usually embarrassingly bad. (Dead space, exaggerated foreshortening, both. None of it the lens's fault; instead, entirely my own fault.)

    I don't think I'll bother mounting it. But I might well get an LTM adapter all the same; I've got other lenses that could use it.

    But when the latter is at 7mm (though not at 14mm), it perhaps has the optimum lens hood on it. By contrast, if the 28mm is fitted with its original hood, this will be unnecessarily wide.

    For experimentation, if nothing else, consider this attractively priced option. (Yes, I know it's for 1.5x and 1.6x crop factors.)
     
  15. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Not quite. The 28mm is still a 28mm, despite the fact that on 4/3s it acts like a 56mm, so the original lens hood is appropriate.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  16. hohoho

    hohoho Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jan 24, 2010
    Tokyo
    The 28mm lens is still capable of providing the angle of field that we normally associate with a "28mm lens" for a 36x24mm image. And the lens hood that Cosina provides mustn't impinge on that, because after all that's the purpose that the lens is primarily marketed for.

    But this is irrelevant here because the image you need for the little M43 sensor is so much smaller. After all, there's no point ensuring that the lens hood is sufficiently wide not to impinge on an image circle that's far bigger than the one you're using.

    Not that there's anything wrong with using such a hood. (It's better than nothing.)

    Alternatively, I have gone totally nuts and what I've written above is mistaken in some way that I cannot start to comprehend. (A third denizen of this website may care to provide a reality/sanity check.)

    Unless I've indeed gone nuts, the difference between 36x24 and M43 is analogous to, though greater than, the difference between what's provided for by lenshoods.co.uk and lenshoods.net, and indeed a difference that prompted the creation of the latter.

    (Incidentally, I am not Paul Mutton, the creator of those sites, and I've no relationship to him whatever.)
     
  17. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Just think of it this way, the manufacturer's lens hood is designed to optimally minimise flare for the focal length (or angle of view) of the lens; it protrudes out as far as is practicable. You may be able to put on a slightly longer, narrower, hood and not induce vignetting on the sensor, but you will be cutting off part of the entry light. What effect that would have, I don't know. While those print-your-own-hoods may be useful, I prefer to use the solid, metal, hoods that come with the lenses.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  18. sebastel

    sebastel Mu-43 Regular

    85
    Jan 18, 2010
    not your business
    ah, i see.
    :-D

    you may try out by extending the exixting hood with paper. the longest extension that does not yet produce vignetting on the sensor will be the most effective one to protect from flare.
     
  19. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Well, a quick and dirty test with a sheet of paper shows that I can have a lens hood about as long as the lens itself before visible vignetting sets in. So, I can put a 60mm long lens hood on my 28mm lens and a 130mm long lens hood on my 135mm lens, and similarly for my other lenses. Kind of stupid really. Also, lens hoods are available only in certain sizes for given filter sizes, unless one wants to make the do-it-yourself type.

    The lens flare I was talking about seems to occur in specific circumstances and I just need to better understand when and why its happening. Once you understand that, you have better control over what you're trying to achieve. That's what photography is all about. You often have to make compromises, but as long as you understand what those compromises are, you're much better placed to get good results.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  20. pxpaulx

    pxpaulx Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 19, 2010
    Midwest
    Paul
    I think I would put myself in OzRay's corner on this discussion. Although it is feasible to use a longer hood since the effective lens focal length is doubled, the hoods that have been designed for the lens were made to best cover the lenses full front element. It is possible a longer hood could affect the characteristics of the light entering the lens without vignetting occurring, since the purpose of a hood is to eliminate stray light from entering through the front element. If you eliminate the light entering from the lens edges (which would still travel through the center of the lens), it could affect the characteristics of the final image produced - you may not see obvious signs such as vignetting, but the color characteristics (admittedly a subjective, more intangible part of an image!) could also be affected.
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.