Thoughts about manual lenses.

[OzRay]

I've got what I think is a pretty nice collection of lenses for m4/3s, notably in the Leica M mount. One thing came to mind about this, when I was unpacking the CV 75mm, was that if CV started to make dedicated m4/3s mount manual lenses, I wouldn't buy any of them. I actually don't see the point.

The only caveat would be if the lenses were a scale smaller than existing M mount lenses, which are pretty small already, but I gather that the rumoured lenses are mainly going to be existing lenses in a m4/3s mount. What do you gain by this? Not much I would think. Ease of use doesn't really factor into this, as the M mount adapter can just stay on the camera as if it were the mounting flange.

The other thing is, that by having a dedicated mount, you're now fully locked in to m4/3s format only. With an M mount lens, you can choose from just about any of the small form factor DSLRs coming onto the market, as well as Leicas. So with a dedicated mount you've actually lost a great deal of flexibility. I'd rather have the flexibility, than a camera dedicated lens. I wonder if CV has given this any thought?

Cheers

Ray

 

[deirdre]

I think you're very wise and I was planning to do the same thing, though I will pick up some :43: specific lenses.

 

[JoeFriday]

very good point, Ray. I have a collection of M-mount lenses as well, and I see no point in trading them for dedicated m43rds mount. It wouldn't surprise me that CV thinks the same way. I believe that was why they sold their 21mm with the old Leica screwmount. All you needed was an adapter and it could be mounted on Leicas or Voigtlanders with ease.

 

[Rusted Chrome]

CV has already announced a dedicated m4/3 lens that should be shipping soon. It is not just a converted M lens, it's a 25mm f/.95 lens. The shots I've seen from it so far are impressive.

I also have an assortment of CV and Leica lenses and an adapter, so I wouldn't buy something like a 50/1.4 in m4/3 mount but this 25mm looks interesting.

 

[photoSmart42]

The only advantage I see for a manufacturer to build a manual lens specifically for m4/3 is if they actually re-design it for the smaller sensor. Otherwise I agree that it's a detriment because of the loss of flexibility. Doesn't make sense to me either. If the mount were electronic to at least enable the transfer of EXIF data even if it's just MF only it would be a different story.

 

[grebeman]

Like you Ray I've built up a collection of Voigtlander lenses, in my case screw mount, and the only advantage of having manual lenses based on these but dedicated to m4/3 would be a depth of field scale that did not need a little mental arithmetic in order to use it, not really a reason to trade in old for new.

Barrie

 

[OzRay]

My thoughts are also driven by the overall cost/benefit analysis. I've got a substantial collection of 4/3s lenses (which fortunately have paid for themselves), but I don't really know what the future has in store for them. I'm not overly enthused about continued use of my E3s when an EPL-1 produces better images (ignoring the other benefits of the E3 over the EPL-1). So buying lenses that are multi-purpose makes a lot more sense to me and also gives me flexibility in this 'micro' DSLR space, as things develop.

Also, I'm not that driven by the fastest possible line of lenses. I have the CV 50mm f1.1, which I bought for reasons unknown (possibly driven by this fast lens euphoria in a moment of weakness), and it's a bugger at times to get sharp focus because of the extremely shallow depth of field and I'm nearly always wanting to stop it down to get get a little more of the subject in focus. I'm more than happy with an f2 lens, as that gives me more than enough separation between subjects and backgrounds, is fast enough in low light conditions and provides me with quite small lens packages. In fact, I've got several f4 lenses which I'm more than happy to use in relatively low light conditions. If I could justify some of the Leica f2 lenses, I'd have them in a heart beat.

Addendum.

I just checked the dimensions of the 25mm f0.95 and it's only fractionally smaller and lighter than the 50mm f1.1. That's one stonking big and heavy lens, but that's what you have when you want fast.

25mm f0.95
φ58.4 × 70.0mm
Weight: 410g

50mm f1.1
φ69.6mm x 57.2mm
Weight: 428 g



Cheers

Ray

 

[Narnian]

Well, even if the dedicated lenses were manual, they still could have a chip that tells the camera the lens information and settings. THAT would be worth a lot to me if it would record the EXIF information.

 

[Streetshooter]

I don't get why CV would make dedicated lenses and Not have AF.
They should have just made a series of lenses with an adapter that could be used on other formats. At the price index, AF and Exif data should be included.
To make them with MF only allows users the option of using any other MF lenses.

 

[xyzzy]

@streetshooter: I agree in part: Cosina has joined micro-ft only a short while ago, I presume to get access to the specs for interfaces etc. So I expect lenses with interfaces for at least focus-confirm / loupe functions for MF and transmission of exif-data. AFAIK the do not currently manufacture AF lenses, I expect these would take a while to develop, seeing that they currently do not have the experience. Also, fast AF means compromises on the complexity of the movement of the optical elements - meaning probably an optical redesign of the lens.
For me at least, and there I do agree 100%, focus-confirm and loupe function as well as exif data transmission (like they have done for the MF lenses for Nikon and Pentax) would be a must before I spend money on a MF-lens ...

 

[Narnian]

For me at least, and there I do agree 100%, focus-confirm and loupe function as well as exif data transmission (like they have done for the MF lenses for Nikon and Pentax) would be a must before I spend money on a MF-lens ...

Could you clarify the last part regarding Pentax and Nikon lenses and exif data? Are you talking about Pentax/Nikon cameras and their lenses or is there a way to get Pentax/Nikon lens exif data into micro 4/3 cameras?

Thank you!

 

[xyzzy]

@narnian: see for instance this link - the lens communicates with the Pentax/Nikon body, although it is a mf lens. So, unfortunately, this does not mean they can communicate with mFT bodies, sorry for the confusion. (edit: or someone needs to create an adapter which translates from for instance Nikon electronic interface to mFT - I do not see that happen...)

 

[Narnian]

Just wanted to double-check since I know someone makes a chip you can add to your adapter to program in some of the exif information. I am hoping some entrepreneur makes a programmable adapter for adapted lenses that can relay that information and thought maybe you had found one. :sad010:

 

[xyzzy]

... one can dream ... Sorry to disappoint you ... I might try the AF-confirm chip (you do mean the one offered by tagotech, or are there others?), it does not seem to be expensive and if it doesn't work, I can still throw it away. They write that it can be programmed to give some lens information which you need to program yourself, but of course no current aperture data is transmitted.

 

[robertro]

Hmmm - I would agree that it would be worthwhile to have a manual focus 4/3-mount lens only if it provided some other benefit: smaller size; focus confirmation; or manual focus zoom support would be most important to me; EXIF data is not so exciting for my uses (maybe it should be).

This reminds me of how, prior to the introduction of micro 4/3 and NEX, I converted Canon 58/1.2 and 85/1.8 manual focus lenses to 4/3 mount - I was fortunate in that they be used on m4/3 with an adapter, but not on NEX.

 

[OzRay]

I bought the Tagotech focus confirm chip, but it wouldn't work , so I sent it back. The return word was that it was defective for some reason and they were sending me another one. Still waiting for it to arrive, so can't yet say whether it works or not.

If the CV lenses m4/3s did provide focus confirmation at the very least, then I could see a reason for dedicated m4/3s manual focus lenses. In fact I'd be quite happy with that, but if the Tagotech chip does work, then it's back to my original argument, I'd stay with the M mount lenses.

Cheers

Ray

 

[jgestar]

Hi, I'm new here. Hopefully I haven't missed some common knowledge that makes this a silly question.

Wouldn't an automatic diaphragm and fully coupled metering be a huge benefit to :43: specific lenses? To me they would outweigh EXIF data and focus confirmation.

I love that my manual focus Nikkors and Rokkors work with a simple adapter. But the stop down metering makes focusing a little slower and less precise. A wide open aperture makes it far easier to focus. Fully coupled metering would make flash exposures easier too.


Tom

 

[PeterB666]

I just checked the dimensions of the 25mm f0.95 and it's only fractionally smaller and lighter than the 50mm f1.1. That's one stonking big and heavy lens, but that's what you have when you want fast.

25mm f0.95
φ58.4 × 70.0mm
Weight: 410g

50mm f1.1
φ69.6mm x 57.2mm
Weight: 428 g



Cheers

Ray

It is a lot wider and somewhat faster (around 1-stop). The 50mm CV would be close to useless for me as I already have an Olympus OM 50mm f/1.4 and OM 50mm f/3.5 macro lenses and a Schnider 40mm f/1.9. For general use on MFT, these lenses are too long so the 25mm lens makes a lot of sense.

The widest MF lens I have is a 28mm lens and it is f/2.8 and doesn't quite focus to infinity so I am looking forward to the 25mm f/0.95.

 

[jonima]

Thoughts about adapted manual lenses.

What about the fact that manufacturers and some shops claim that lenses built especially for Digtial (sensor) cameras are more sharp. Also because the are better coated at the rear end of the lens against reflections from the digital sensor??

I am using some Leica R lenses, but have not encountered problems of that kind. Off course the R mount adapter is quite a big one taking the end of the lens further away from the sensor.

Any thoughts and experience about that?? Is it true or more a commercial story?

Thanks,

Johan

 

[grebeman]

What about the fact that manufacturers and some shops claim that lenses built especially for Digtial (sensor) cameras are more sharp. Also because the are better coated at the rear end of the lens against reflections from the digital sensor??

Thanks,

Johan

There might be some truth to the manufacturers claims, but how are they measuring and confirming these claims? I am assuming that they use laboratory tests, hopefully the majority of us are judging our lenses by using them to take photographs. For me the end result is, am I satisfied with the photographs my lenses help me take, if my answer is yes then I'm not going to lie awake at night worrying about it (I might still lie awake, but my worries are not about the quality of my camera lenses :smile

Barrie