Legacy / fast prime lenses -- Why?!

I am bemused by the number of posts on this forum about use of the exotic glass options. One buys a M4/3 camera, presumably in part because of portability and convenience, then festoons it with interesting lenses that are (1) large by M4.3 standards, and (2) have various focus and exposure issues.

I admit, it's nice to be able to wow your knowledgeable friends about this Leica lens or that Voigtlander lens or whatever. But as tempting at that may be, it seems to me that going down that road negates the very thing that made M4/3 interesting in the first place.

Since there are so many who seem attracted by that, I'm sure there must be something about lens maina that' I'm missing.

I have a G1 with pancake, 14-45, and 45-200. I wait for something wider and for a portrait/macro lens that are affordable, require no adapter, and offer all the AF and other conveniences of the Panasonic lenses.

Maybe I'd like to learn to see the virtue in these other less convenient options. Don't know.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

A typical MF 50mm f1.4 lens can be easily found for $60-70 and an adapter costs around $50. Together they cost about $100 as compared to the 45/2.8 native lens that costs $900. That is why!

And don't forget that it's just plain fun!

Rob
--
Be bold and great forces will come to your aid.

I bought the G1 for the sole reason of being able to use MF lenses on it, not for its size advantages.

I was struggling to achieve good focus with my normal SLR so the magnified MF assist is the raison d'etre for my purchase. I have only used the kit lens on it once. The rest of the time it is in use with some old lens or another.

In answer to your question, it is the only way currently for me to achieve some sort of shallow DOF without buying into another SLR system. Older lenses also often render photos in a way that is difficult or impossible with newer designs. This is usually due to what would be classed as flaws, but I find they can add an extra dimension into taking photos.

Plus as another poster said, it is fun

Nick

I agree wholeheartedly, and the result has been some of the most enjoyable photography I've ever experienced. m4/3 is great in that it happens to be very flexible and often makes interesting bedfellows among its users, from beginners to seasoned artists to everyone in between. It's understandable that some people have no practical desire to use it manually, and that's fine. But its just as obvious to me why m4/3 is changing the game for those who do.

I will say that I definitely appreciate it's small size, and that I find high quality evf's particularly important to me. These days if size weren't a factor, many SLR's would be able to provide mf focus assist on the back screen as well. But being able to hold it to my eye and see a relatively giant, bright (even stopped down a bit) viewfinder with histogram, movable grid lines, etc all right there... its amazing. Just seeing the scene bigger and brighter has helped my photography dramatically.

Happy snapping!

Chris

nick_webster said:

I bought the G1 for the sole reason of being able to use MF lenses on it, not for its size advantages.

I was struggling to achieve good focus with my normal SLR so the magnified MF assist is the raison d'etre for my purchase. I have only used the kit lens on it once. The rest of the time it is in use with some old lens or another.

In answer to your question, it is the only way currently for me to achieve some sort of shallow DOF without buying into another SLR system. Older lenses also often render photos in a way that is difficult or impossible with newer designs. This is usually due to what would be classed as flaws, but I find they can add an extra dimension into taking photos.

Plus as another poster said, it is fun

Nick

Click to expand...

I hear you all. I suppose my bias is that I bought into M4/3 for compactness, other people did for other purposes. Truly, the aspect of using MF only lenses that frosts me is the idea of having to open up the aperture (if you aren't planning to shoot pretty wide open) to focus, then stopping down to shoot seems way too fiddly to me.

Well, all I can say is that I bought M4/3 for one reason, and those of you who responded bought for a different reason. Truly, I read the threads about fast primes and start to think, yeh, that's what I need to do. And then ... no, I'm not interested in doing photography that way.

I thought I might get some responses from others who think like I do, hence reinforcing my wrong-headed ideas. But none so far. Maybe I can find a photo-psychiatrist who'll set me straight.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

nick_webster said:

I bought the G1 for the sole reason of being able to use MF lenses on it, not for its size advantages.

I was struggling to achieve good focus with my normal SLR so the magnified MF assist is the raison d'etre for my purchase. I have only used the kit lens on it once. The rest of the time it is in use with some old lens or another.

In answer to your question, it is the only way currently for me to achieve some sort of shallow DOF without buying into another SLR system. Older lenses also often render photos in a way that is difficult or impossible with newer designs. This is usually due to what would be classed as flaws, but I find they can add an extra dimension into taking photos.

Plus as another poster said, it is fun

Nick

Click to expand...

Can we see some pictures? Pictures where you show how the shallow DOF is making the picture, which is not achievable with the existing 2 kit lenses.

morepix said:

I am bemused by the number of posts on this forum about use of the exotic glass options. One buys a M4/3 camera, presumably in part because of portability and convenience, then festoons it with interesting lenses that are (1) large by M4.3 standards, and (2) have various focus and exposure issues.

Since there are so many who seem attracted by that, I'm sure there must be something about lens maina that' I'm missing.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with your position, so you are not alone. I wrote about this a few days ago. Out of curiosity I bought an adapter and the first results were not good. But I've been told here on the forum that I need to practice, and in time focusing then closing the aperture will become second nature. After all this is the way many great photos were taken in the past.

I think there are many many reasons for using these cameras one way or anoter ...

For me - with my manual lenses I am forced to stop and think about every shot. And a lot of the time I decide to recompose (or even skip the shot completely) as I am getting that focus right. Thus I improve my eye, and get a lot more keepers in the process. Better photographers obviously wont have this need.

And focus-by-wire simply cannot compete with a mechanical link.

And then there is something to be said for "feel" of the camera - this is personal and completely without any technical base ... but if a camera feels good (and the GF1 with a 50mm 1.4 Hexanon really does) I seem to simply take better pictures.

So far I have twice ran into situations where I wish I would have had the kit zoom instead of the manual lense I was using - both times when something interesting happened elsewhere as I was framing a completely different subject.

Im absolutely sure that the m43 cameras can be great used in many different ways. I enjoy using mine like this (and let me tell you - with a 300mm prime it is not all that compact a package).

morepix said:

Truly, the aspect of using MF only lenses that frosts me is the idea of having to open up the aperture (if you aren't planning to shoot pretty wide open) to focus, then stopping down to shoot seems way too fiddly to me.

Click to expand...

Because the display (screen or evf) automatically gains up when stopped down, it usually isn't necessary for me to focus wide open and then stop down. Much of the time I might work at 2.8 or 4, which is no less dim than the zooms. However, when focus is extra critical, having the OPTION to open all the way (eg 1.4) for maximum brightness and thinnest depth of field (to properly place it) is a welcome advantage.

Cheers,

Chris

morepix said:

I hear you all.

Click to expand...

maybe you are no longer bemused ?

morepix said:

I suppose my bias is that I bought into M4/3 for compactness, other people did for other purposes.

Click to expand...

Try attaching an original PEN FD 40/1,4 lens, that thing is very compact.

morepix said:

Truly, the aspect of using MF only lenses that frosts me is the idea of having to open up the aperture (if you aren't planning to shoot pretty wide open) to focus, then stopping down to shoot seems way too fiddly to me.

Click to expand...

If there is not enough light, and you want the shot, it is worth the fiddly to me.

morepix said:

I thought I might get some responses from others who think like I do, hence reinforcing my wrong-headed ideas. But none so far. Maybe I can find a photo-psychiatrist who'll set me straight.

Click to expand...

No need, to me, for anyone to be set straight, or otherwise. You were bemused, which means bewildered, you did not know why now you do.

You may be waiting a long time for fast lenses...
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=34039479

morepix said:

--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

Click to expand...

--
'Photos are what remain when the memories are forgotten' - Angular Mo.

One other thing to note is that the Leica M mount lenses ARE tiny lenses. The Voigtlander 40/1.4 is SMALL. And a pretty good lens. I also have a Minolta MD adapter to use some old Rokkors, which are very good glass for cheap. I don't use them much, but being able to use the truly excellent Rokkor 50/1.4 (which is among the very best 50mm lenses I've owned, and I've had about 12), makes my E-P1 truly a competent backup camera to my 1Ds II for studio portrait work.

But, my E-P1 is generally a 2 lens kit...the 20/1.7 and the Voigtlander 40/1.4. I like fast glass, and I like not using flash. Here's a pic of the E-P1 with the Voigtlander. It's smaller than the 45/2.8 and a full two stops faster. (and $500 cheaper).



--
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.jordansteele.com

I wonder what the marketing departments at Olympus and Panasonic think of this response. There seems to be an overwhelming number of users who bought into m4/3 just to use old manual focus lenses!

I hope the correct message is being sent to Oly/Panny - we want more quality fast primes (f2 or better) for low light photography. Especially the shorter focal lengths that legacy glass can't provide - from 9mm to 40mm.

Trevor

I have the exact setup as you. G1 with the three lenses you mentioned. Before buying my 45-200mm lens, I got myself an older 90mm manual focus lens with relatively fast aperture (f2.8). It was also very compact and lighter than the 45-200mm lens. After using it for a while, manual focusing was not very difficult (I used manual focus film cameras for many years) but fiddly. You would rotate the focusing ring to get the subject coarsely in focus first. Then you would hit the left key on the d pad to get a magnified view. After getting an accurate focus, you would be ready to take the photo. If the subject moved during this time, then you would have to start over. Of course, the fact that I was shooting with an 180mm equivalent focal length made the problem worse. The magnified view in the EVF for that focal length is probably close to 700mm equivalent (since you only see the central portion of the frame). Over all, this focusing experience is better than most other dslrs but not as good as older manual focus cameras with split prism focus screens or rangefinders.

I found that while I really liked the nice shallow depth of field and a warm rendering of the colors from the manual focus lens, I was reluctant to use it often and certainly not for moving objects. I have since settled for the 45-200mm lens and couldn't be happier. It is lot more versatile and the OIS is quite helpful.

It seems to me that focal lenghts upto 50mm (100mm equivalent) may be good to use on m43 cameras but longer than that is difficult to use for moving subjects. If you already have legacy lenses then getting an adapter is worth a try. If starting afresh, you're probably better off with the native lenses.

... and while compact and light are part of mine, they're not the primary priority.

I bought the G1 for

• the full time Live View viewing/focusing system.
• the 12Mpixel sensor with its excellent DR and acutance
• its compatibility with my other FourThirds system lenses
• its compatibility with many other interesting lenses in adaptation
• the excellent quality EVF and articulated LCD
• its compact size and light weight

in about that order.

Automation, image stabilization, tiny lenses, et al are either very low in priority or not important to me.

The G1 has met my priorities well and proved itself in use.
--
Godfrey
http://godfreydigiorgi.posterous.com

G1Houston said:

A typical MF 50mm f1.4 lens can be easily found for $60-70 and an adapter costs around $50. Together they cost about $100 as compared to the 45/2.8 native lens that costs $900. That is why!

Click to expand...

--Now that m4/3 has the excellent 20/1.7 which hopefully will come down in price, all the format needs is a small fast wide angle and short tele or portrait lens with AF at a reasonable price.

People like the small manual legacy lenses because with their high quality metal frame construction they are like jewels on the GF1 and EP compact metal cased bodies. Many long for the smooth manual focus lenses of the SLR era.

I would like to see a compact fast 100mm lens specifically designed for m4/3 to go along with the 20/1.7 on a m4/3 compact.

shutter2533 said:

I wonder what the marketing departments at Olympus and Panasonic think of this response. There seems to be an overwhelming number of users who bought into m4/3 just to use old manual focus lenses

Click to expand...

I like the 20mm, too. I don't really mind focus-by-wire. Other similar options just aren't yet available. I think that's a big part of the push for legacy glass. I expect the adoption of popular legacy lenses to plummet (along with prices) as soon as a suitable modern replacements come on the market for a given focal length. I hope they stick near the $400 price point for small, fast primes, though. The 45mm macro seems ridiculous (or at least dreadfully unappealing) to me.

shutter2533 said:

I hope the correct message is being sent to Oly/Panny - we want more quality fast primes (f2 or better) for low light photography. Especially the shorter focal lengths that legacy glass can't provide - from 9mm to 40mm.

Trevor

Click to expand...

Absolutely!

I think for many people, it is simply about experimenting and having a bit of fun.

I have a GF1, as well as a Canon 50D with numerous lenses for it, and a 1982 Nikon FM2 with a bunch of older lenses as well. For about 70 bucks I picked up a canon and nikon adapter just to mess around with.

Honestly, using the manual focus on the GF1 is something of a PITA...I can't think of too many times I'm going to choose one of my non Panasonic lenses over the 20mm and 14-140 panny's I have.

On the other hand, I never say never. And for the most part, the 20mm stays on the GF1, because the primary reason I bought it was for something a little more quick than my LX3 but smaller than my 50D.

I completely understand your viewpoint, because for what I do, mf is not the best option. But I also understand those that really enjoy using Legacy lenses and the like.
--
http://www.davedziemian.com

From an image quality perspective, legacy lenses are a disaster on a m4/3 camera. Using legacy glass on a m4/3rds camera is pretty much an exercise in gimmickry -- we do it because we can and not for really much else.

That's the bad. Now the good which is that legacy lenses can impart an image quality to m4/3rds cameras that is quite evocative. Yes, they have less definition. Yes, there's all kinds of ghosting. Yes, the images are quite soft (compared to contemporary 4/3rds lenses).

But for the same reasons that we sometimes smear vaseline on our lens (filters), legacy glass has its place. I find that my minolta and pentax lenses give an image quality, a softness, a warmth, that isn't available in my native 4/3rds lenses. I'm sure I could duplicate it with a photoshop filter or two, but that's work and I'm allergic to work.

The m4/3rds platform is unique in its ability to accommodate 35mm lenses (because the distance to the film plane in a m4/3rds camera is so short) and that's a great thing because it means we can use all kinds of lenses with nothing more than a cheap machined adaptor sans any optics at all. Does that give us access to better optics? No, not in my experience. But it gives us access to more fun.

Gavril Margittai said:

Can we see some pictures? Pictures where you show how the shallow DOF is making the picture, which is not achievable with the existing 2 kit lenses.

Click to expand...

When I first started using legacy lenses with m4/3 I was aware that the kit lenses are easier to use, and very much sharper. I've been meaning to get around to setting up and comparing the range of lenses I have to see just how things stand.

However, I've now got to the stage where I don't care about how the sharp a lens is - if it performs adequately, I just get on and take photos. it is too easy to get obsessed with the details, rather than what you are trying to achieve. Legacy lenses just give you more tools to use, more options.

Shallow DOF is useful in some situations, and when it is needed, it can separate subjects from, and improve, backgrounds in ways that cannot be easily replicated post-capture.