Which adapted lens for landscape and bokeh

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by achillesgr, Jul 18, 2013.

  1. achillesgr

    achillesgr Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 17, 2013
    First post and question ?:confused::rolleyes::smile: embarrassed ! Well guys the gallery of photos ordered by lens is such a great idea. I have looked the most of them. I have in mind some lenses but not going to mention them so i won't affect you. So what lenses (1-2) would be better, hm lets say significantly
    for landscapes than 14-42 of my lumix g3 ( i saw some great samples for this lens for landscapes) Im intrested in sharpness (and maybe wider view)

    Also, i havent figured out what mm of lens to look for a good bokeh ,not for a portrait exactly (head) but for whole body or eg a horse. Ive seen better performance for that from lenses that are about 80-90 mm than 40-50 mm, is that true or i was tricked from the particular shots?
  2. edmsnap

    edmsnap Mu-43 Veteran

    Dec 20, 2011
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Well, the 14-42mmm is what in testing you'd call a low-anchor :wink:

    Most people like to shoot landscape with wide angle, so things can get tough with adapted glass given µ4/3 2x crop factor. That said, there's no rule that you can't shoot landscapes with longer focal lengths; I think you just need to be more creative about what you're shooting (and sometimes further away!).

    Bokeh is entirely subjective. What I think is beautiful rendering you might think is garbage. You'd do well to look through the Adapted Lens Image Gallery section here and find what you like. The longer the focal length, the more easily pronounced the bokeh because the depth of field shrinks.

    For places to start, my entirely personal suggestions might be:

    Vivitar Series-1 90mm f/2.5 Macro: as sharp as any lens you'll ever find and widely regarded as one of the best macro lenses ever. If you're a smooth-bokeh person, this lens is the smoothest! It could be a lens that meets both of your needs. The design was duplicated for the Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 Macro which has better coatings, but is harder to find.

    Canon FD 50mm f/3.5 Macro: a short-tele lens on µ4/3. Very sharp and a good all-purpose macro. As a slower lens, the bokeh isn't all that special or unique, but by virtue of that, it's not distracting either.

    Helios 44-2 or 44-3: mmmmmmmmm... bokeh :smile:
  3. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    From what I read you are asking: When shooting landscapes or portraits, how much wider/tighter do you want? Most of it is personal preference. For longer focal lengths, you can simulate it by turning on the digital ex in settings. This will only use the center 50% of the picture, so there will be a drop in quality, but gives you up to an 85mm lens to play with and see what you like to use. For landscapes, (assuming you can safely), how many steps back to you take to get everything into the shot? Overall the kit lens is great for getting into it and finding out where you want to go. I would master it before adding another lens, so you know what weakness you are affected by before buying too many more. For me, the next one that fit in a gap was the MD 58mm f1.4, and it is used primarily for portaits, and a bit of everyday. I also found I was shooting at 42mm and then taking a slight step forward. My 45mm matched my imaginary shots perfectly, and is porbably my most used prime.

    Sent from my LG-P769 using Mu-43 mobile app
  4. Chris5107

    Chris5107 Mu-43 All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 28, 2011
    The longer FL like 80-90 provide much more bokeh or subject isolation compared to shorter FL 40-50mm. It is very tough to get bokeh on the really short wide angle lenses like 12 or 14mm, and much easier to get it on the longer FL.

    The problem is, the long FL, like 75 and above, require you to back up a significant distance to just get the subject (say a horse) to fit in the frame. In many cases, you might not have the room so you might need the wider FL's like 50mm vs the longer like 90mm.

    IMO, if you want to start using adapted lenses and looking for bokeh, the 50mm f1.4's are the place to start. They are relatively cheap and plentiful. These are no where near what I would use for landscape photography, however. For that, look for the smallest FL you can find. That will be a tougher problem in the adapted lens world. The cheapest and easiest starting point for that would be the native 14mm and there are other higher $$ options like the 12, 8-18, and 7-14.
  5. achillesgr

    achillesgr Mu-43 Regular

    Jul 17, 2013
    thanx for the answers guys.i picked up a canon fd 50mm 1,4 for a first try. Then after looking my old stuff i found that i have a helios 44 58mm f2 and a zenitar 50mm1,7 (!), i dont know what mount are they i,ll take a look maybe they are usable (?).Ill post images of cannon to the corresponding thread.also if you have in mind a testing image feel free to ask
  6. tjdean01

    tjdean01 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Feb 20, 2013
    From what you said THE lens for you is the Olympus 12mm f2. It's around $800. Panasonic makes the 7-14mm f4 zoom too, for like $1200. About twice the size and triple the weight.

    Or, you can buy the wide angle converter for your 14-45 which would make it 11mm at its widest (similarly, the wide angle converter by Pan fits on the 14mm f2.5 pancake).

    Also, for around $5-600 Olympus has a 9-18mm zoom.

    So, if you get something wide as I mentioned above, you'd be open to get the wonderful Olympus 45mm f1.8 for $350. A near perfect lens IMO.

    Or, if you only want one lens, get the Panasonic 20mm f1.7. This is THE m4/3s lens. Size, price, sharpness, speed...the lens has no negatives as far as I see it.

    ...I personally have 12 legacy lenses and I didn't recommend one of them. Well, to replace the 45 mentioned above, a Konica or Pentax 50/1.7 will work. The Konica's or so prevalent you can get one mint for $20 on ebay. If you get the Konica you might want to modify it, which I will show how to do here one of these days. In my limited experience, f1.4 lenses at around a normal 50mm length lose to their 1.7 or 1.8 cousins until you get up to f4 before they start to even out.
  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.