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

What's your favorite adapted lens on m43?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Apr 11, 2016.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I am starting to realize that I like my E-M10 way better with adapted lenses on it than with native (and I admit I was convinced that would not be the case). I was ready to throw in the towel with the E-M10 until I got these...

    25397361771_32f19c6ec2_b.
    in orbit
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    25089639459_4533602bef_b.
    and so it begins
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    I like the small size of the native lenses and my P20 is super sharp and contrasty but for the most part I find the images I get using adapted lenses are more pleasing to me. I don't know if its the rendering or what but the look of images I have been getting from my MF lenses more than makes up for them lacking some sharpness and contrast vs native (although my Nikon 28/2 AiS is pretty darned close to the P20 in that respect). So far the Konica 40, Vivtar 28/2 are working really well. Part of the issue I am running into is that adapted lenses I have used on my Sony and Fuji are just a bit too big and don't balance all that well on the small Olympus body so the handling is a bit wonky (like the very heavy Canon FD 50/1.4 SSC).

    What are folks favorites and why?
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  2. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    • Like Like x 4
  3. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Probably the Takumar 50/1.4 is my most consistent favourite (though the hard-ringed bokeh wide-open is not always that nice!), though I really like my Vivitar 55/2.8 Macro, it has a very nice rendering to it when used at portrait distance. They're the only two adapted lenses that still get reasonably heavy rotation in my kit. The 50-135/3.5 comes out for special occasions, but it really is big and heavy at ~650g + 100g focal reducer adapter. I have a Tokina 28-70 2.8-4.3 (also used with the focal reducer) that's better than it has any right to be and is compact by FF zoom standards, and the focal reduced 20-50 FL is surprisingly usable, but if I'm using a zoom I usually want the increase in flexibility.
     
  4. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Those are lovely. I have a later version of the Super Takumar (Pentax SMC 50/1.4...same optical formula but K mount). It's also smaller so that helps the handling. BTW, those are lovely BW's. Do you do BW in PP or shoot in BW? I have ben trying to get my OMD to produce BW that I like and so far its proving rather elusive.
     
  5. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I like the rendering on my Pentax SMC 50/1.4 quite a lot so I completely understand the Super Takumar 50/1.4 being a a favorite. Here's one from it...

    24621658449_6ea02f350f_b.
    watery grave
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 6
  6. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Those three were all shot with in-camera BW. They were probably with Contrast +2, Sharpness +1. They also had some PP added to bring up the blacks slightly and sharpen slightly.

    Edit: Also the jar was done with Live Composite.

    I have just recently started playing with RAW files. To tell the truth, though, 9 times out of 10 I like the Olympus rendered jpegs better than what I PP in Lightroom.
     
  7. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I have been a RAW shooter for a while now (on Sony and Fuji) and I am still not convinced that it's necessary on the Olympus.
     
  8. I don't think I've discovered it yet..but I'm getting closer. Any of the good 50-55 macros should be desired, especially with the fact that manual focus just works better for macro. As far as a brand goes, the Olympus OM series fits so well that one might think that they designed them for m4/3. Oly must have had some guy into time travel back in the early 70's. But most of the OM's just look right and play well with an M10..at least the ones I've tried.
     
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I have thought about that. I have had some good OM lenses and some bad ones. The good ones have been really good and the bad ones, well...
    It strikes me that OM lenses must have a great deal of sample variation. I can see how they would fit with the OMD though. Maybe its time to pick another one up and I think the OM 28/3.5 would be my choice. That is one terrific lens (especially for BW), sharp, tiny and close focuses pretty well.
     
  10. I've had really nice results from the 50 f3.5 macro, even without the extra 1:1 extension. Had a 50 1.4 MC that I should have had the sense to keep...didn't appreciate it at the time. But then again, I probably would have been satisfied with that and not been in the market for the Canon FL 55 1.2 I just received. And so it goes. When the student is ready, the lens will appear.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. Some of the variation in IQ would probably be due to the evolution of the Olympus lenses from the late 60's to the early 80's. Lens designs and coatings changed quite a bit and it's not always easy to pick this apart these days. You've gotta do your research to see what's what...and of course, it sometimes leads to some interesting history. And maybe finding a gem that may be overlooked. This is true for pretty much all of the old school brands.
     
  12. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    True enough. I feel like I have a pretty good handle on their history and which lenses are supposed to be better and I have had good luck with some focal lengths of OM lenses. For instance all of the various OM 28's I've had were very good and yet all of the 24/2.8's I've had (3 in all) have been mediocre despite it being a very well regarded lens. My various OM 50's have been a bit of a crap shoot and the two OM 100's have been pretty nice. My comment on their sample variation was simply based on my own experience with using adapted lenses over the years as I have found getting a good copy of an OM lens a bit more difficult than getting a good copy of some of the other brands (Konica, Pentax, Minolta, Nikon etc.). Maybe it has to do with their popularity or numbers manufactured...either way they are nice lenses.
     
  13. PakkyT

    PakkyT Mu-43 Top Veteran

    764
    Jun 20, 2015
    New England
    Unlike a lot of people here, I never warmed to the nifty-50s. Not that I have many but an OM 50/1.8 and also a Konica 50/1.7. It could be bad copies but I found them a bit harder to work with and the results kind of meh.

    However I have always loved using my OM 135/2.8. Great separation between subject and background so was always easy to focus even on my old E-3 (no magnified help available). I also picked up an OM 100/2.8 last year but haven't worked with it as much yet, but it performs the same ways as the 135/2.8 just a slightly shorter focal length. I also find these lenses at f/2.8 tend to be much better (wide open is on par with what they produce stopped down a bit) than the nifty-50s at their widest aperture, which tend to be kind of mushy compared to stopping them down even one click.

    So I guess with manual lenses I tend to go for the longer focal length. Ironically, with my regular digital shooting, I tend to shoot more wide angle (12mm to about the high teens being the majority of my shots).
     
  14. MoonMind

    MoonMind Mu-43 Top Veteran

    627
    Oct 25, 2014
    Switzerland
    Matt
    I don't think I have a favourite adapted lens (yet), but on the generic focal reducer I own (it goes by the brand name of "Quenox"), the old Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF (the non-D version) and the 180mm f/2.8D both are quite fun to shoot; the results are interesting enough to make me want to use the lenses again. More recently, I have tried both the Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2.0 and the Elmar-C 90mm f/4.0, both with a Novoflex adapter (not with the focal reducer). With that setup, I haven't been able to make either lens shine on my E-M10, but I guess that's partly my lack of familiarity with the way these should be used ...

    M.
     
  15. acnomad

    acnomad Mu-43 Veteran

    284
    Jan 5, 2016
    Andy
    I've tried one Leica M-mount lens and numerous Nikkors. So far, the 55mm Micro and the 105mm f/2.5 seem to be very promising.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. me_john85

    me_john85 New to Mu-43

    2
    Dec 19, 2015
    I only have a couple but the Vivitar 70-210mm I have alot of fun with.

    Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
     
  17. rmcnelly

    rmcnelly Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 21, 2015
    Portsmouth, VA
    • Like Like x 3
  18. rmcnelly

    rmcnelly Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 21, 2015
    Portsmouth, VA
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2016
    • Like Like x 3
  19. rmcnelly

    rmcnelly Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 21, 2015
    Portsmouth, VA
    • Like Like x 2
  20. nuclearboy

    nuclearboy Mu-43 Top Veteran

    850
    Jan 28, 2011
    USA

    I have owned about 7 of the OM 50's (mostly f1.4s, a two 1.8s.. Sample variation is all over the place. Some have been really bad, two were real gems. I kept the best one.

    I have owned about 10 Canon FD 50s. These were much more consistent. Especially the NewFD lenses. These were no better than the best OM 50 but much better on average.

    Point is, I agree with the sample variation issue with the OM 50's.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1