What's your favorite adapted lens on m43?

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
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...

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

in orbit by kevin dixey, on Flickr

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

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:

Turbofrog

Mu-43 Legend
Joined
Mar 21, 2014
Messages
5,362
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.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
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.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
Joined
Dec 2, 2014
Messages
5,925
Location
Knoxville, TN
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.
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.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
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.

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.
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.
 
W

WithOpenedEyes

Guest
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.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
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.
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.
 
W

WithOpenedEyes

Guest
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.
 
W

WithOpenedEyes

Guest
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.
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.
 

dixeyk

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
3,475
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.
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.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
2,952
Location
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).
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2014
Messages
1,012
Location
Switzerland
Real Name
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.
 

acnomad

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
Jan 5, 2016
Messages
482
Real Name
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.
 

rmcnelly

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
4,952
Location
Portsmouth, VA
Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm/1.4 = Dreamy

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160127-171701.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160205-174749.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Same shot another day using the Lens Turbo 2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160208-175920.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

w/Lens Turbo 2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160208-180229.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160208-183203.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160213-083800.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr
 

rmcnelly

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 21, 2015
Messages
4,952
Location
Portsmouth, VA
MC Rokkor 58mm/1.2 using a Minolta Extension Tube from their 50mm/3.5 Macro (another nice lens) and the Lens Turbo 2:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-161457-Edit.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-161552-Edit.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-162040.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-160218.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-160733-Edit.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-161441.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr

Stopped down:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
20160331-161126-Edit.jpg by Rick McNelly, on Flickr
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2011
Messages
1,205
Location
USA
Real Name
Chris
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.

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.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2009-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom