Worth buying a body with AF problem as body for manual lenses?

[Bushboy]

How about buying a standard one and buying it a pair of trousers. My E-M5 and E-M10 wear the same clothes

View attachment 690110 Emperor's New Clothes by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

That is a beautiful thing Kevin!

 

[Christop82]

Interestingly, the seller has cancelled and made a new listing, and reduced the price to $95. The thumb rest is missing, I noticed. If the controls only work some of the time it has to be a no-go, and I wonder how it works without a battery?

View attachment 690170

Definitely avoid this one.

 

[RnR]

How about buying a standard one and buying it a pair of trousers. My E-M5 and E-M10 wear the same clothes

View attachment 690110 Emperor's New Clothes by Kevin Dickinson, on Flickr

<drool> does anyone make a 17mm f2.8 m43 manual focus lens. Maybe in silver?

 

[gnarlydog australia]

<drool> does anyone make a 17mm f2.8 m43 manual focus lens. Maybe in silver?

Yes: the M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8, where there is a "clutch" and the focus ring on the barrel can be used for mechanical (instead of "by wire") focusing
Not a f2.8 and the focusing is not very smooth but acceptable. It does come in silver too
Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 17mm f/1.8 Lens Review

 

[RnR]

Yes: the M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8, where there is a "clutch" and the focus ring on the barrel can be used for mechanical (instead of "by wire") focusing

Yeah... shame about the focusing haptics. Once you have had Zeiss, you can never go... umm back

Some focal lengths for m43 native manual focus are covered by Chinese manufacturers, but not all. I do love the elegance and size of some of the m43 bodies as @Bidkev so aptly flaunted earlier in the thread

 

[Bushboy]

Yes, he was flaunting. And I fell for it!

 

[gnarlydog australia]

Yeah... shame about the focusing haptics. Once you have had Zeiss, you can never go... umm back

Some focal lengths for m43 native manual focus are covered by Chinese manufacturers, but not all. I do love the elegance and size of some of the m43 bodies as @Bidkev so aptly flaunted earlier in the thread

If you like Zeiss (or the "red dot" brand) for bling factor then indeed there is no going back.
But, if you are after other traits in a lens then there are alternatives.
I have a case full of Zeiss that I no longer use (admittedly for Hasselblad). If you are after smooth focusing mechanism (helicoid) than a very valid alternative can be SLR lenses from Japan. I find SMC Takumar (Pentax) rather exceptional. The downside is bulky (designed to have a much wider image circle than 4/3 sensor) if one is after feel instead of portability.

 

[gnarlydog australia]

If bulk/weight is not an issue than there is always the Voigtlander 17mm f0.95
I believe the helicoid is very smooth Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 Nokton Micro Four Thirds Lens Review

 

[RnR]

I have a case full of Zeiss that I no longer use (admittedly for Hasselblad). If you are after smooth focusing mechanism (helicoid) than a very valid alternative can be SLR lenses from Japan. I find SMC Takumar (Pentax) rather exceptional. The downside is bulky (designed to have a much wider image circle than 4/3 sensor) if one is after feel instead of portability.

I have somewhere close to 50 lenses - all of them SLR - and yeah its too many, but collected over the last 7 years or so. Konica's, Vivitar's, Tamron's, Yashica and some nice Contax Zeiss pieces. Its one of the reason why I moved to Fujifilm with a Metabones Speedbooster. The interesting 'colour science' of Fuji also helped the move

In regards to the Voigtlander, I would be more interested in a Contax Zeiss 35mm f1.4 on the Fuji+Speedbooster if I wanted speed in that focal length and not worry about bulk. My interest in an modern Olympus Pen F was more for the size and elegance. Hence the f2.8 speed.

 

[melanie.ylang]

I have somewhere close to 50 lenses - all of them SLR - and yeah its too many, but collected over the last 7 years or so. Konica's, Vivitar's, Tamron's, Yashica and some nice Contax Zeiss pieces. Its one of the reason why I moved to Fujifilm with a Metabones Speedbooster. The interesting 'colour science' of Fuji also helped the move

In regards to the Voigtlander, I would be more interested in a Contax Zeiss 35mm f1.4 on the Fuji+Speedbooster if I wanted speed in that focal length and not worry about bulk. My interest in an modern Olympus Pen F was more for the size and elegance. Hence the f2.8 speed.

I keep thinking about trying Fuji again for adapted lenses, but the lack of IBIS fills me with anxiety (I know, it's a 21st century problem!). I've only tried out the XE1 and XE2 and didn't like how they handled compared with my GX7, but maybe the new XT100 that intrigues me will please me more...but I really am loving my EM10ii with my Canon 50 FD. Soon I'll have a SMC Takumar 135/3.5 and I'm thinking about getting a SCM 35/3.5 for a nifty fifty with my focal reducer.

 

[Snowonuluru]

when getting another camera, I also consider battery and settings menus. best to have same battery and menu system across the board. one charger does all, and you get a "spare" battery to take with you when away from home or a long day of shooting. same menu means familiarity that leads to less fumbling and frustration.

Legacy lenses for 35mm film tend to be bulkier and heavier than m43 lenses. Add an adapter, the center of gravity shifts further out from the body. If you are likely to use telephoto lenses, then a good feature to have is a grip.

 

[melanie.ylang]

@Snowonuluru that was my thinking with trying the mkI EM10, which also had the ECG grip, but I couldn't get to, er, grips with switching between marks I and II - I think I've learned a lesson and I don't want to go backwards in tech. Incidentally, I didn't find the ECG grip as helpful when using the P100-300 as I expected, but I'm aware that legacy lenses are quite a lot heavier than I'm accustomed to, which was why I ordered the SMC Takumar instead of the nicer-looking S-M-C.

 

[PakkyT]

the M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8, where there is a "clutch" and the focus ring on the barrel can be used for mechanical (instead of "by wire") focusing

The focus clutch is MANUAL focusing, but it is not mechanical. It is still focus by wire.

Legacy lenses for 35mm film tend to be bulkier and heavier than m43 lenses.

I find that many of them are indeed heavier (since they are often all metal and glass) but at least with a lot of the Oly OM ones, not bulkier since the modern mostly plastic lenses need thicker walls to offer the same support as metal and they also have all the extras such as motors, circuit boards, & cables. I am think of such lenses as the Oly OM 100/2.8 & 135/2.8 which are pretty slim and the 135/2.8 even has a built in sliding hood, a feature I would love to see implemented in some modern lenses.

 

[tkbslc]

If you want a body just for manual focus, I would get a cheap APS-C camera instead. The crop factor is more favorable for adapting film lenses, IMO, and with a speed booster you can get just about all the way back to FF crop factor.

Personally, I really like Fuji for manual lenses. They have some of the best manual focus aids I've used and the external shutter speed controls (along with aperture ring on lens) makes for a great classic experience.

 

[RnR]

I keep thinking about trying Fuji again for adapted lenses, but the lack of IBIS fills me with anxiety (I know, it's a 21st century problem!).

Heh - it was a concern initially for me too, but I reasoned (correctly I think) that folks have been taking photo's fine for more than a 100 years without IBIS, surely I can do the same. Just keep the shutter speed up and hold down the shutter button to get a few at once. Seems to work so far. And with a focal reducer its easier to keep the shutter up there.

Anyways, just use whatever gets you the image and allows you to have fun at the same time

Have you seen the Fuji X-E3? Smaller than the GX7 - Compare camera dimensions side by side

 

[gnarlydog australia]

The focus clutch is MANUAL focusing, but it is not mechanical. It is still focus by wire.

ah, that's why the action feels so clunky. So there is just a ring that is somehow dampened by a friction device but does not move any glass?

 

[Reflector]

ah, that's why the action feels so clunky. So there is just a ring that is somehow dampened by a friction device but does not move any glass?

Correct. I think it might be the equivalent of some felt and hard stops on the ring. I don't mind it, it actually feels better than some modern AF lenses for the "focus feel" because it doesn't have much in the way of stiction and the throw isn't too heavy. I would rate the 12mm and 12-100mm somewhere around a "little bit" to "more than a bit" better than some of the nicer AF lenses with full time override.

I don't think it compares to any of the good examples of manual film era lenses. Those are an incredible mix of extremely smooth and very well damped motions. I've yet to really play with modern lenses that have that "feel" and I am sure that was something that was optimized for in the film era.

Also as an interesting note: You lose a little of your MFD (at least in my experience) if you use it. Pulling the clutch back and driving it lets you get that little amount that you miss out on.

 

[PakkyT]

ah, that's why the action feels so clunky. So there is just a ring that is somehow dampened by a friction device but does not move any glass?

Yes. I believe the implemented to focus differently for clutch MF vs. MF setting on the body where the clutch focus has hard stops and I believe a fixed speed where as in body MF there are no hard stops and the focus speed is variable? I might have some of those mixed up, but bottom line is they are both focus by wire but the clutch is meant to emulate a real mechanic focus ring. Some people have suggested that why not put both focus methods (as least the variable vs. fixed speeds) in the body version with the option to pick which one you prefer. I have no idea if the "clutch" lenses use different internals where maybe the "clutch" style focusing needs those specific internals and won't work on other lenses, but that could be one reason. Or Oly simply hasn't thought of giving us that option.

One advantage of the clutch to some shooters is that the position of the clutch is retained when your slide it back (turn it off). So next time you activate the clutch the lens will immediately focus to where ever the clutch was last set. So this could be handy in certain situations where you may want to prefocus as one position with the clutch, turn off the clutch so you can shoot normal autofocus but aimed somewhere else, but then when something happens at that position, activating the clutch puts in at the right focus. For example shooting baseball with a runner on 1st, you might prefocus at second base, then continue normal AF shooting the batter. As soon as the runner on first goes for the steal, flip the clutch and start shooting at 2nd. No waiting for the AF and hoping is doesn't mis-focus. This probably lends it self to many another situations (nature shooting a nest waiting for something to happen, etc.).

 

[gnarlydog australia]

Yes. I believe the implemented to focus differently for clutch MF vs. MF setting on the body where the clutch focus has hard stops and I believe a fixed speed where as in body MF there are no hard stops and the focus speed is variable? I might have some of those mixed up, but bottom line is they are both focus by wire but the clutch is meant to emulate a real mechanic focus ring. Some people have suggested that why not put both focus methods (as least the variable vs. fixed speeds) in the body version with the option to pick which one you prefer. I have no idea if the "clutch" lenses use different internals where maybe the "clutch" style focusing needs those specific internals and won't work on other lenses, but that could be one reason. Or Oly simply hasn't thought of giving us that option.

One advantage of the clutch to some shooters is that the position of the clutch is retained when your slide it back (turn it off). So next time you activate the clutch the lens will immediately focus to where ever the clutch was last set. So this could be handy in certain situations where you may want to prefocus as one position with the clutch, turn off the clutch so you can shoot normal autofocus but aimed somewhere else, but then when something happens at that position, activating the clutch puts in at the right focus. For example shooting baseball with a runner on 1st, you might prefocus at second base, then continue normal AF shooting the batter. As soon as the runner on first goes for the steal, flip the clutch and start shooting at 2nd. No waiting for the AF and hoping is doesn't mis-focus. This probably lends it self to many another situations (nature shooting a nest waiting for something to happen, etc.).

On my copy of M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 the hard stop for infinity is not correct and the clutch goes past the infinity marking on the lens, so does the focus. Not exactly a lens to be "shooting from the hip" for distant subjects.

I understand your take on the clutch system of focusing where one would just pull out when needed to go back to the exact focus spot that he/she/x has set before, but with a 17mm any distant subject would pretty much be set at infinity?
On a longer lens maybe such style could be applicable but I can't see it on a 17mm, not for baseball nor for birds

 

[PakkyT]

On my copy of M.Zuiko 17mm f1.8 the hard stop for infinity is not correct and the clutch goes past the infinity marking on the lens, so does the focus. Not exactly a lens to be "shooting from the hip" for distant subjects.

I understand your take on the clutch system of focusing where one would just pull out when needed to go back to the exact focus spot that he/she/x has set before, but with a 17mm any distant subject would pretty much be set at infinity?
On a longer lens maybe such style could be applicable but I can't see it on a 17mm, not for baseball nor for birds

Ok then you can use it to pre-set for a focus distance of much closer then, say 5 feet away on the 17mm specifically.

My point was the focus clutch can be used for presetting a distance that you can snap back to when needed. Perhaps my examples were not the best if you only look at the 17m but the concept still is valid for those who might need such a feature and is available on any of the lenses that use a focus clutch such as the 40-150, 12-100, 300, etc.