WHY?

GBarrington

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Apr 4, 2014
Messages
922
Location
Springfield, Illinois
Canon FL 100mm f/4.0 for the ancient Canon FT-QL. This is definitely that era's consumer grade lens and is about the same size as native m43s lenses. It adds an interesting 'filmic' quality to the photos while using only the sharpest center portion of the projected image. It is also a complete and total PITA to use, but sometimes, it's worth it. Other times, not so much. It has it's moments.

PA310047crop.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


PA310038fixed.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 

ralf-11

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jan 16, 2017
Messages
1,716
I am experiencing an episodic onset of the disease known as "Leica Lust" right now, and then I started thinking about seeing if an old Mandler design like the pre-ASPH Summilux 35 1.4 could be adapted to a G9.

But to the OP's point - the appealing distortion of certain old lenses ("rendering") is about the only reason to adapt a lens onto a modern body.
 

ektar

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
1,499
Location
Western NC
Real Name
Don
Still working my way through. I had some other quotes I was going to insert but managed to delete half of them.

The FOV vs focal length discussion gave me a headache, just like that link to the guy with the lens discussion diagrams/charts. This one:

(110 had exactly the same image area as m4/3)

Since I always felt 110 was dreck, this hurt my feelings.

So, let's say that 110 film got correctly exposed at 1/125s with a certain lens.

Now the same amount of light is gathered for 1/125s but projected on four times larger 35mm area or same film stock instead. It will be underexposed because the intensity will drop to 1/4th of required level. You need higher ISO film for correct exposure.

I may not have gotten to further discussion of this, but the error I think you're making is referring to "same amount of light." It isn't "amount" of light. It's intensity of light per unit of surface area. Correct exposure is getting the correct intensity, which is a function of aperture and shutter speed. Reaching that intensity is independent of film or sensor surface area. But as others have said, this appears to be a circular argument.

I'll pontificate in a sec.

Got some strangeness going on in this thread: @macro became @Danny. PavelM disappeared or got banned. Hmmm.
 
Last edited:

ektar

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
1,499
Location
Western NC
Real Name
Don
I think making older equipment sing can be very creative, and chasing the latest equipment in an effort to improve one's photography can be very un-creative.
Not dissimilar from buying new golf clubs to "improve your game," but not practicing, maybe?
I know I have a problem with 200+ lenses. Where do I keep any new arrivals?
When I addressed my "on the floor in the guest bedroom" storage issue, I studiously did not count.
As to the mention of putting new boxes on top of the old, I've run out of space in my boxes of boxes. It feels like looking into mirror through a mirror, things just go on and on...
 

ektar

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Jun 8, 2017
Messages
1,499
Location
Western NC
Real Name
Don
Okay, pontification/bloviation alert:

Well, in my mind, there’s rarely a good reason to use a vintage lens if the shot’s critical. Modern glass eliminates many of the flaws inherent in older designs and older manufacturing. Autofocus and “no think” exposure tightens up accuracy there.

I loosely agree that the results from modern lenses can feel and look …sterile, as others have said. In a small way, using them detaches you from the photographic process.

When I (semi-accidentally; a separate story) started shooting M4/3, I saw the adapted lens stuff, and thought, “why would somebody want to do that?” Then I remembered a Pentax K 300/4 that I have that hadn’t seen use in ages. I ordered up an adapter, which didn’t fit properly on the body I was using. The seller sent me (free) an OM adapter, so I could see whether it was the adapter, that particular body, or what. Well, I didn’t have any OM lenses, but for $30, my local shop took care of that. That was when I tumbled into Pandora’s photographic box.

So for me, why?
  • Because, as others have said, it slows me down. It makes me consider composition, it makes me aware of exposure, it allows me to focus exactly how and where I want to (focus mag and peaking are marvelous things). Focusing with so many of these old gems is a near religious experience. The click of the aperture is so precise.
  • Because I can almost always find bargains at the shop or online.
  • Because if there’s not a bargain to be had, I can wait and keep looking.
  • Because I’ve gotten some for free that let me learn how to take them apart and resurrect them.
  • Because while I’ve found many a bargain, I’ve also conjured up a few irrational and sometimes expensive quests. None that I regret.
  • Because these old photo warriors were designed with slide rules and paper drawings, and they got it right. Well, if not “right,” really bleeping close, God only knows how long ago.
  • Because the glass and coatings were formulated via calculations also with slide rule and paper.
  • Because those designs give you character and color rendition and bokeh that you can identify in an instant, and sometimes you can spot the differences: Olympus vs. Pentax vs. Leica…
  • Because they were made with such care that they are still perfectly functional 40, 50, 60, 70 years after they were packed by hand and shipped by hand to their new home somewhere around the world.
  • Because someone else made memories with them before, and I can feel that.
We don’t really need a reason. But, we have plenty.
 

PakkyT

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
4,437
Location
Massachusetts, USA
  • Because these old photo warriors were designed with slide rules and paper drawings, and they got it right. Well, if not “right,” really bleeping close, God only knows how long ago.
  • Because the glass and coatings were formulated via calculations also with slide rule and paper.
Reminds me of some meters at one of my first jobs after I graduated. We had a cabinet in our lab full of various electronic test equipment including some old classic Simpson analog meters. Of course no one used those as we all used modern digital meters. But my co-worker would always say, correctly, "we went to the moon using those!". And in fact we haven't been back to the moon since those were commonly used.
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
471
Location
Canada
I can understand someone who already has a large collection of lenses they have built up over the years wanting to continue using them. I think it makes sense to try to make the best of what you already have, at minimal cost. But for someone like me who only bought their first lens less than 18 months ago and still deciding on their second lens, maybe it doesn't make as much sense to look at old lenses.
 

jhawk1000

Mu-43 Top Veteran
Joined
Jun 30, 2013
Messages
793
Location
Kansas
Real Name
Mel
I sometimes smile when I see posts criticizing an M43 lens for being decentered, soft instead of razor-sharp, and having strange bokeh (whatever the hell that is) and the next post will be about the dreamy quality of an old adapted lens. I recall people complaining about the venerable MeyerGorlitz Primoplan 58mm 1.9 lens because it was too soft, not well coated, or not at all on the older ones, that it was not a lens of quality. Now it sells for many dollars and is sought after now. We, as photographers can't seem to make up our mind
I can understand someone who already has a large collection of lenses they have built up over the years wanting to continue using them. I think it makes sense to try to make the best of what you already have, at minimal cost. But for someone like me who only bought their first lens less than 18 months ago and still deciding on their second lens, maybe it doesn't make as much sense to look at old lenses.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2017
Messages
1,980
Location
Salt Spring Island, British Columbia, Canada
Real Name
Jan Steinman
if there’s not a bargain to be had, I can wait and keep looking.
I think this is a really key point.

I don't acquire just any vintage lens; I go for those that were recognized as "world class" in their day.

Some of these have achieved "collectable" status. I put a watch on page changes on the major used selling sites (not evilBay!), and then I wait. And wait. And wait. And then one day, I manage (for example) to snag the magnificent OM Zuiko 100mm ƒ/2 for $400 — half of the lowest evilBay price.

That also keeps speculative impulse buys down. When something comes up that I haven't been looking for that looks interesting, I follow my process, no matter how good the price seems to be.
 
Joined
Jan 22, 2012
Messages
659
Location
New Zealand
Real Name
Danny
I am experiencing an episodic onset of the disease known as "Leica Lust" right now, and then I started thinking about seeing if an old Mandler design like the pre-ASPH Summilux 35 1.4 could be adapted to a G9.

But to the OP's point - the appealing distortion of certain old lenses ("rendering") is about the only reason to adapt a lens onto a modern body.

I don't see any different rendering with my tele lenses, that's the point. I don't want different rendering. ;-)

It's the cost difference, m4/3 don't make the focal lengths I want, the lenses are darn sharp and they feel right. If you don't know any difference between MF and AF, then all is fine.

The biggest advantage is I work with m4/3, APS-C and FF bodies and I mount exactly the same Canon tele lenses on all of them. I've been taken Swallow bifs for years on all of them with MF and if I can nail those, then to me, there is no issue. Rendition doesn't come into it, but then I buy my lenses because I certainly can't see a difference to what I see posted. If I could, then maybe I might go native (cough cough)

All the best and there are other reasons for sure. They feel right :)

Danny.
 

ex machina

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
2,789
Location
Baltimore, MD
I can understand someone who already has a large collection of lenses they have built up over the years wanting to continue using them. I think it makes sense to try to make the best of what you already have, at minimal cost. But for someone like me who only bought their first lens less than 18 months ago and still deciding on their second lens, maybe it doesn't make as much sense to look at old lenses.
Maybe, depends on why you have yet to buy a second lens. Is it due to cost? You can buy old manual lenses for next to nothing -- I just picked up a clean Nikon Nikkor 50mm ƒ1.4 for $15 at a thrift store. Add $10 for an adaptor and it's a cheap way to see if you like a given focal length or even if you enjoy the manual lens experience.
 

Petrochemist

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Mar 21, 2013
Messages
1,379
Location
N Essex, UK
Real Name
Mike
I can understand someone who already has a large collection of lenses they have built up over the years wanting to continue using them. I think it makes sense to try to make the best of what you already have, at minimal cost. But for someone like me who only bought their first lens less than 18 months ago and still deciding on their second lens, maybe it doesn't make as much sense to look at old lenses.
When I started adapting I only had a small collection of legacy lenses all designed to be used on my DSLR mount. My existing lenses had little to do with me adapting a 1930's Kodak 12cm astigmat to the system (I had the focal length covered at similar f numbers).
When I first got a mirrorless camera availability of a tilting adapter for my DSLR lenses was the reason I got the camera. But it's the joy of adapting lenses thats caused me to diversify & but lenses in something like 20 other mounts.
Several of the lenses I've adapted give features that simply are not available in native lenses.

If the lens you have fills your requirement for lenses, then there's not much sense in you getting another lens old or new. If on the other hand you want to try new things without spending a fortune old lenses make a huge amount of sense. You can pick up a reasonable manual focus 500mm lens for under £50, yet any native lens of that sort of focal length is likely to be over £1000. The native lens will be easier to use & probably better optically but I've managed nice shots with both types (& messed up both as well).
 

doady

Mu-43 Veteran
Joined
May 18, 2020
Messages
471
Location
Canada
Maybe, depends on why you have yet to buy a second lens. Is it due to cost? You can buy old manual lenses for next to nothing -- I just picked up a clean Nikon Nikkor 50mm ƒ1.4 for $15 at a thrift store. Add $10 for an adaptor and it's a cheap way to see if you like a given focal length or even if you enjoy the manual lens experience.
I need ultra-wide, so most likely I will get the upcoming 8-25mm F4. Expensive, but I'm not sure I will need anything else. With just two lenses, I will have 8-100mm, with F4 max aperture (that is actually usable) and weather-sealing (and, of course, autofocus and electronic aperture control) throughout the whole range. Both lenses will have the MF clutch so I won't miss out on the "manual lens experience" either.

I am only starting out, and after much deliberation I chose E-M1 II and Micro Four Thirds, a modern camera and a modern system with features like smaller sensor and mirrorless. I think it makes more sense for me to get a second lens that takes advantage of such features. As I said, I can understand someone who already has full frame SLR lenses wanting to continue using them, but I see no reason to seek them out for myself.
 

ex machina

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jan 3, 2014
Messages
2,789
Location
Baltimore, MD
I need ultra-wide, so most likely I will get the upcoming 8-25mm F4. Expensive, but I'm not sure I will need anything else. With just two lenses, I will have 8-100mm, with F4 max aperture (that is actually usable) and weather-sealing (and, of course, autofocus and electronic aperture control) throughout the whole range. Both lenses will have the MF clutch so I won't miss out on the "manual lens experience" either.

I am only starting out, and after much deliberation I chose E-M1 II and Micro Four Thirds, a modern camera and a modern system with features like smaller sensor and mirrorless. I think it makes more sense for me to get a second lens that takes advantage of such features. As I said, I can understand someone who already has full frame SLR lenses wanting to continue using them, but I see no reason to seek them out for myself.
Yup, for wide and ultra wide native lenses are your only option. I also wouldn't bother with adapting zooms, though, as you've said, if you already have them, might as well give it a try.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,968
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim

Mike Wingate

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
3,625
Location
Altrincham
Real Name
Mike Wingate
I have been looking at some of my Pentax 110 photos. Not great. I am really pleased that digital technology has arrived in such a form that good quality phots can be taken with m43 as the sensor is almost the same size as the old 110 format. Yes even with the Pentax 18 and 70mm lenses, manual focusing on cheap adapters. But….if I had a P20mm and an O75mm, I would use the modern lenses. For convenience and consistent quality.
 

L0n3Gr3yW0lf

Dad Pun Joke Master Over Nine Thousand Meme Lord
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
1,275
Location
UK
Real Name
Ovidiu
I have been looking at some of my Pentax 110 photos. Not great. I am really pleased that digital technology has arrived in such a form that good quality phots can be taken with m43 as the sensor is almost the same size as the old 110 format. Yes even with the Pentax 18 and 70mm lenses, manual focusing on cheap adapters. But….if I had a P20mm and an O75mm, I would use the modern lenses. For convenience and consistent quality.
Pentax 110 was made as a significant compromise to lower the cost of film but I a different way then Olympus Pen did. Even the luckiest lenses in terms of IQ would not reach even the kit lenses. But there is still hope\a place for Pentax 110 as fun lenses: their focus is very smooth and easy, a lot better then any native lens including the Pro lenses (I know it's a big statement but I feel that way because the smoothness of 110 lenses is like floating to magnets above each other while the Pro lenses I still feel the motor being asked to move when I turn the ring instead of moving a piece of glass).
And the second is the rendition, with very simplified optics (to fit into such small package and IQ being lower on the priority list) design the lenses do produce some interesting rendition to both colour and to bokeh ... And let's be honest, everyone has a weird\goofy\fun T-Shirt in their closet even if we don't wear it every day there's a reason why we have it and keep it.
 

Brownie

Thread Killer Extraordinaire
Joined
Sep 3, 2018
Messages
3,968
Location
SE Michigan
Real Name
Tim
I have been looking at some of my Pentax 110 photos. Not great. I am really pleased that digital technology has arrived in such a form that good quality phots can be taken with m43 as the sensor is almost the same size as the old 110 format. Yes even with the Pentax 18 and 70mm lenses, manual focusing on cheap adapters. But….if I had a P20mm and an O75mm, I would use the modern lenses. For convenience and consistent quality.
The one I posted is not just a Pentax 110 lens, it's Color Tiger film from Lomography. On top of that, it's a low-quality scan. Now, given the vintage of those little cameras and they way 110 looked out of the pocket cameras, this is pretty stellar IQ. Does it hold up to a digital PL or MZ? Of course not.
 
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
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom