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

so tempting

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by kevwilfoto, Jun 21, 2012.

  1. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    I'm tempted to sell a number of my native :43: lenses and get the new Lumix 12-35/2.8, but that's not my reason for posting here. I'm equally tempted to find an Olympus OM-4T and get a set of f/2 primes for it (24,35/85). Somebody talk me out of it before it's too late!

    You may suggest the 24/2.8 and 35/2.8 instead of the faster f/2.0 versions - but if I got the Lumix 12-35/2.8 it would be rather pointless, wouldn't it?

    I've tried a few adapted lenses, and I'm hooked. But I think I'm having a G.A.S. attack on both the native digital side and the adapted lens side at the same time!!. Oh, the humanity!
     
  2. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    I can understand the GAS-attack, but it might help to try to explain what you find missing in your current lens stable and how you see yourself using the new lenses you are considering. What is it about the film camera that interests you?

    The OM f/2 primes are certainly nice lenses, but they are priced accordingly. If I were using it on :43: I would have a very hard time justifying the 24 f/2, which is similarly priced to the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7. The native lenses are generally the way to go on the wide end.

    If you can find a 35mm f/2 in good shape for around US$200 that would represent a very intriguing value proposition to me as an adapted lens. That would be a nice focal length for portraits and there is no native lens that I would consider a direct competitor.
     
  3. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    ("Why" is never easy to answer - sorry for the long reply.)

    What I find missing in most of my current lens stable is high image quality at low cost with a wider range of useable apertures*, and lower ISOs in low light. It's not about missing focal lengths. Even if I did sell off a bunch of native lenses and get the Lumix 12-35/2.8 I would have redundant focal lengths, but the adapted primes would be at least a full stop faster than the native lenses.

    The fact that I can use adapted lenses on film cameras is a bonus - the perspective of the full 135 image circle is very different from :43:, and I don't want film to go away. As long as film and processing are still available, I plan on getting a 'blad and/or a 4x5 someday (soon?). I love the :43: format, especially for back country hikes, but I also love the look of larger formats** and couldn't afford digital medium or large format gear in a dozen lifetimes, so I'm not giving up on film yet. (Recent inspiration here. Also, any Karsch portrait.)

    Long story short, adapting 35mm lenses to my OM-D is a bridge between formats that really excites me. Small and light lenses are all the better, but the Leica gear, even used, is out of my league.



    :eek:fftopic:
    * most lenses are sharper if you stop down a bit, and most :43: lenses have diffraction starting to degrade image quality by about f/7.1 or so. When a :43: lens is f/5.6 or f/6.3 wide open, the working aperture range is close to zero.:crying:


    :eek:fftopic:
    ** The angle of light hitting the sensor/film, which I call the angle of perspective, can be very different than the angle of view. To capture a scene with a given angle of view, the angle of perspective becomes steeper, more drastic, more strained as the sensor/film gets smaller. For the same angle of view, I like the way a smaller angle of perspective (larger sensor/film) renders the scene. A wide angle of view and short angle of perspective can be achieved in one image with small cameras by stitching many images together using a longer focal length lens, which obviously won't work in many situations.
     
  4. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Thanks for the very detailed and technical answer. I realize that it's not always easy to uncover or communicate why we desire some particular thing, but I find that trying to answer that question can sometimes work as an anti-GAS measure.

    So we've established that "full frame"/135 is something you value. So what about the Olympus OM-4 in particular intrigues you? Why not find a Minolta X-700 since you already have some Rokkors? Do you currently have another film camera?

    My next question is: why did you purchase (presumably) the Sigma 19mm and 30mm lenses if you value low-light capability so highly? I understand they are inexpensive, but I think I'd rather have the P20 f/1.7 (or for a bit more $ the PL25 f/1.4) than that pair. Is there something that you enjoy about the Sigma lenses that is eluding me (aside from price)?

    I realize I'm not helping you much here, but I'm just trying to act as that angel on your shoulder to try to keep you from making a purchase you'll later regret. Hopefully someone with more experience with the OM system can weigh in and steer you right.
     
  5. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    I can use the OM lenses with it, and a 4 or 4T is more likely to be in better working order than a 1n or 2n and probably have a better exposure meter. The OM lenses intrigued me first, and having a film body to use them with just seems obvious.

    The XD11 and the 28/2.8 Celtic ($80 for both) are in the mail as we speak. I can't say I *needed* that camera, but I really like my Rokkor 50 and $80 seemed like a steal. I'd be tempted to sell the 28 and get Minolta MD lenses in 35 & 85, but the 35/1.8 is rare and expensive and the 35/2.8 (and 24/2.8) would be redundant with the Lumix 12-35/2.8 when using them on the :43: body.

    I have a Nikon F100. And a Holga, but I can't stand that thing.

    I actually don't value low-light shooting that much, but I'm not a fan of high ISO and digital noise. So, the pair was about the same price as the 20/1.7 and cheaper than the 25/1.4, and they're faster than my kit lens. I had a 20/1.7 once, but it flared horribly and was soft in the corners. Since the Sigmas are designed for APS-C, the corners are sharp. I've thought about getting the PL25/1.4 many, many times. My wallet is thankful that it's always out of stock.

    And I appreciate it! That's why I posted this.
     
  6. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    If you're going to get an OM, then the OM-4 is the cream of the crop (the OM-4T or Ti even more so, though I don't love that sort of "champagne" tinge to the non-black 4T). If I were looking to add a film camera, the OM-4 would probably be at the top of my list.

    Think I might play with the XD11 a bit before I go buying an OM (but that's just me).

    I guess to me low-light capability (i.e. bright lenses) and low ISO sort of go hand in hand. I'm surprised you had trouble with flare with the P20, as that is not something I have noticed at all with that lens. Do you think it could have been a problem with the particular example you had? I understand your point about the sharp corners with the Sigmas, but I've found that if that is really vital to me for a particular shot (which it rarely is) then I can use an adapted 135 lens.

    So which lenses do you think you would sell to finance the 12-35 purchase?
     
  7. Sammyboy

    Sammyboy m43 Pro

    Oct 26, 2010
    Steeler Country
    The OM-4 and the OM-4T (OM4Ti) are two different cameras having different electric circuits and flash capabilities. The OM-4T (OM4Ti) being the better.
     
  8. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    Yes, you're right. Shallow DoF is part of that as well. It's a difference of motivation. I'm thinking of indoors and astrophotography, and I'm wanting to reduce noise. I'm not thinking of candlelight portraits or filming the next Reverie, and I'm not chasing shallow DoF portraits, especially with a 24mm or 35mm. The bonus feature of the faster adapted primes is the brighter viewfinder on the film body.

    Yes, the 20/1.7 I had seemed to have many issues and I returned it for a refund. It was used, and might have had some abuse or something. Still, first impressions ...

    I'm already selling:
    • Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 in FD mount
    • Canon FD 28mm f/2.0 S.S.C.
    • Olympus E-P2
    • Olympus VF-2 with eyecup
    • Olympus MMF-3
    • Nikon 24mm f/2.8D
    and I would probably sell these as well to get the 12-35/2.8:
    • Sigma 19mm f/2.8
    • Sigma 30mm f/2.8
    • Panasonic 14-45

    That would leave me with 12-35, 12-50, 45-175, 100-300, 12, 45/1.8, and the adapted lenses. I plan on getting the Olympus 60 macro when it comes out, and I'd really like the PL25/1.4.

    I could see limiting the native kit to the 12-35, 35-100 (?), 100-300, 25/1.4 and 60 macro - three weather-sealed primary lenses, a fast prime and a wildlife lens. A nice minimal kit for a back-country landscape shooter with a flower garden and two kids. That would mean trading off the 12-50, 45-175, 12/2.0 and 45/1.8 for the 35-100, which I might be fine with (insane prices not withstanding). The Oly 12 & 45 would be hard to give up, though. The problem is that the main lenses in that minimal list - 12-35, 35-100, 60 macro - aren't available yet. Heck, the PL25/1.4 is tough to find and the price is going up, making 80% of my ideal kit pure unobtainium, at least for this summer. Maybe fall ...

    I'm gonna take your advice and shoot with the XD11 for a while, then I'll have a clearer idea of whether I think an OM kit would be valuable to me or just a waste of time & money. Maybe I'll skip it and get a cheap 4x5 while I can still find film? :biggrin:
     
  9. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    Yeah, I wouldn't want the chanpagne color of normal titanium, I'd hunt out the black OM-4T and try to get a good deal on it.
     
  10. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    So why do you want to have both the P12-35 and O12-50?

    It seems like with the P12-35 and the O45 you'd have the focal lengths pretty well covered and with faster lenses. The only other advantage of the O12-50 is the macro function, but if you get the O60 Macro, that would be superfluous as well.
     
  11. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    Why would that matter? Why not ask about the 45-175, if focal length coverage matters? I have no problem if someone wants a 50/1.8 and a 50/1.2 - same focal length, very different rendering and purposes. Not enough coverage, too much coverage - who cares.

    Since you asked .... There's lots of advantages to the 12-50. It's not sharp, or fast, or rugged, but it is many good things all in one lens. Changing lenses when snow or sand are whipping around at 40mph makes a person wonder why they brought 5 prime lenses, let me tell ya.

    If I didn't already have it, would I got out and pay $499 for one? Probably not. Do I feel the need to throw away / sell my kit lens just because one aspect of it is 'superfluous'? Nope.

    Wait, is this reverse psychology? Are you a 12-50 fan? You sly devil!
     
  12. mr_botak

    mr_botak Mu-43 Veteran

    222
    Dec 4, 2011
    Reading, UK
    David
    Interesting thread. I've got a couple of the f2 OM primes. Very nice lenses, but the wider they go the less useable they are wide open adapted. Wide open the 85 is ok, the 35 marginal and the 28 when I had it was useless. Stopped down one notch all become OK, but it is really only from f5.6-8 that they shine.

    The 2.8s are OK - the 28 is actually very good and contrasty from wide open, the 35 was pretty poor to be honest. The 100 is very nice.

    I'm seriously considering an OM1 or 2 to get absolutely back to basics. Prices on all OM gear seem out of control at the moment. Will wait to see if it cools down.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. KS11

    KS11 Mu-43 Veteran

    411
    Jan 31, 2011
    Busan/Hong Kong
    maybe just to clarify why they the om4t and ti is better than the om4, the om4ti and om4t had better electronics because the om4 gobbled up batteries like a fat boy eating chocolate cake. one press of the battery check on the om4 and your batteries were toast.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. kevwilfoto

    kevwilfoto Mu-43 Veteran

    294
    Sep 23, 2011
    Colorado
    Thanks for the OM info, mr_botak & KS11!

    Yes, the prices do seem a bit high.
     
  15. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    Wow, looks like I touched a nerve there by mentioning the 12-50 might be superfluous in your ideal lens line-up. I'm certainly not one to suggest that it never makes sense to have multiple lenses covering similar focal lengths. Heck, when I look at my collection, I have 5 or 6 legacy primes between 50mm & 58mm.

    I was merely trying to suggest that you might want to consider how much you would use that lens if you also had the P12-35mm f/2.8 and the O45 f/1.8. I personally can't conjure a bunch of situations in which I would rather carry the 12-50 over the faster zoom or the very fast prime, but that's just me.

    I never suggested that the 12-50 should be thrown away, but if the rest of my kit consisted of the P12-35/2.8, P45-175, P100-300, O12/2, O45/1.8, and the O60 macro, then I'd happily sell my O12-50 to finance a PL25/1.4.