Legacy lenses for m4/3: which is worth the money and effort?

[woodmancy]

To the entire Micro four thirds DSLR camera users in Olympus & Lumix, This is a broadband reply to all threads in the m4/3 rds. Most all the info I have read seems to be tunnel vision to comparing 1980's SLR lenses with modern kit lenses on these cameras new DSLR m4/3 rd cameras. That’s totally missing the point of why M4/3 rds adapting is such a raging fade worldwide. Photography is about the image, with soul, spirit and alluring timelessness. A modern computer designed zoom lens long ago sacrificed, flare, chromatic aberration, edge to edge sharpness, distortion and especially resolution to the annuals of mediocrity. Taking a sharp perfect image is not being a good photographer. Any fool can use a modern digital camera in auto mode and get a product. Where is the art in that?
Enter now into the realm of the bizarre, search for Cmt. and old rangefinder lenses that take you back to the twilight zone! Photo’s with Tons of flare, ghost images, wild bohken, and with unbelievable sharpness in the center. Uncoated lenses are so impressionistic, they rule the modern world of lens, and you have to experiment, buy adapters for your m4/3 rds camera and get great grandfathers lenses. Attempt bizarre couplings like a Old Delft Rayxar 50mm F: 0.75 on a m4/3 rd's camera and see the results.
I have tested over 75 different lenses now, many lenses of the early 1930's~1965 have 5x the resolution of today’s lenses and that’s why they are such hot sellers on eBay. True they have 16 aperture blades, create wild bohken and have distortion and flare; so what, the images are creative, unusual, interesting and very saleable. That’s the point of photography to those that understand it well, to shoot a photo in the surreal,,,,,,,, Don

Amen :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

And visit the bokeh thread regularly :deadhorse:

Keith

 

[Leica 77]

Amen :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:
And visit the bokeh thread regularly :deadhorse:
Keith

+200.

 

[Michiel Schierbeek]

+200.

:talk028: :clap: :lecture:

Michiel

 

[Charles2]

...For some reason, I have never in my life tried a Zeiss lens, so that is still on my to do list (any recommendations in the affordable 50-60mm or shorter range?).

The Planar 50mm f/1.7 for Contax/Yashica bayonet mount is wonderful. As for most legacy lenses, one way to look into the lens is to search Flickr. The key is to judge from the best images you find, even if most of them have weaknesses.

The current ZM mount lenses are not cheap, except in comparison with Leica glass, but their sharpness, depth, rich color, and strong but robust contrast are a pinnacle achievement.

 

[Charles2]

Taking a sharp perfect image is not being a good photographer. ... many lenses of the early 1930's~1965 have 5x the resolution of today’s lenses

This novice here probably agrees with the post, except that I do not understand it. The general aesthetic declarations are clear and admirable, but what is the difference between a sharp image and one with terrific resolution?

 

[Godfrey]

I've been using the G1 since Dec 2008 and have played with a number of different lenses on it. In my experience, the best performing lenses on the G1 are my FourThirds SLR lenses along with the Micro-FourThirds lenses themselves.

That's not to say I don't use it with adapted lenses too. My G1 dedicated lens kit is as follows:

- Cosmicar 12.5mm f/1.4 TV (C-mount, covers central square of the focmat)
- Lumix G 20mm f/1.7
- Konica Hexanon AR 40mm f/1.8 (virtually identical in imaging quality to the Oly Pen 40/1.4 which I also had for a time)
- Olympus Pen 70mm f/2
- Pentax SMC Takumar 135mm f/3.5 (add Olympus EC14 for 190mm f/4.9)

All of these have their unique and interesting rendering qualities, produce great results. In terms of absolute performance, however, none of them (except for the Lumix G 20mm) are the equal of what I can get by using one of my FourThirds SLR lenses.