I am curious

I came to M 4/3 from the Canon G10 and still have a 450D. I chose a G1 as an alternative to the G10 ( too slow, noisy, no usable optical VF and electronic zoom ). The attraction was the smaller camera ( compared to the DSLR ) and the much smaller and lighter lenses. I was frustrated by the P and S types.

In view of this I am somewhat amused and confused with the fascination of these so called legacy lenses. They are bigger, heavier and I believe do not allow AF.

Just curious. NOT TRYING TO UPSET ANYONE or criticize, just wondering why the M 4/3 vs just 4/3.
--
Guillermo

peddr said:

... They are bigger, heavier and I believe do not allow AF...

Click to expand...

Actually they are smaller and lighter and sharper...and in many cases cost under $50.

I bought a 50mm f1.4 lens that is as sharp as any $500+ lens for about $40.

You do have to manually focus, but when you are working with a very thin Depth of Field, it is actually better. Also, when using macro, you really have to manually focus.

peddr said:

I came to M 4/3 from the Canon G10 and still have a 450D. I chose a G1 as an alternative to the G10 ( too slow, noisy, no usable optical VF and electronic zoom ). The attraction was the smaller camera ( compared to the DSLR ) and the much smaller and lighter lenses. I was frustrated by the P and S types.

In view of this I am somewhat amused and confused with the fascination of these so called legacy lenses. They are bigger, heavier and I believe do not allow AF.

Just curious. NOT TRYING TO UPSET ANYONE or criticize, just wondering why the M 4/3 vs just 4/3.
--
Guillermo

Click to expand...

Many legacy lenses (OM, Nikkor, etc) are actually very compact, even more so than some of the m4/3 lenses themselves. Not having AF and aperture motors helps.

Legacy lenses offer access to focal lengts and fast apertures that are not available (yet) with official m4/3 lenses.

Many legacy lenses are very cheap; OM 50mm f/1.8 makes a great portrait lens on m4/3 and only costs around € 25 + the same for an adapter. Compare that to the 45mm f/2.8 Leica lens at €725 which is currently the only thing in m4/3 that comes close to a portrait prime lens.

But most importantly, people are fascinated by the legacy lenses because it's possible to use them. It's also a fun way to make photos.

Damien
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bilgy_no1

peddr said:

I came to M 4/3 from the Canon G10 and still have a 450D. I chose a G1 as an alternative to the G10 ( too slow, noisy, no usable optical VF and electronic zoom ). The attraction was the smaller camera ( compared to the DSLR ) and the much smaller and lighter lenses. I was frustrated by the P and S types.

In view of this I am somewhat amused and confused with the fascination of these so called legacy lenses. They are bigger, heavier and I believe do not allow AF.

Just curious. NOT TRYING TO UPSET ANYONE or criticize, just wondering why the M 4/3 vs just 4/3.

Click to expand...

. . . My Canon FD 50/1.4 is about the same size and weight as my m4/3 14-45 from Panny. Manual focus is remarkably easy with m4/3 cameras and an f/1.4 lens is valuable in bad light situations as well as when a narrow DOF is wanted. And these old lenses are affordable, well, the FD's are but some others are too pricey for me.

As many others have said some of these lenses are smaller and lighter or give better quality results. Look at the Lecia or Voightlander lens offerings. There is also the nostalgia aspect to be able to use your old glass. I started with rangefinders in the 60's and love the feel, look and results with my old lenses.

Tom

Well maybe I stand corrected. I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8....would that be a worthy lens and if so which adapters are available ?
--
Guillermo

peddr said:

In view of this I am somewhat amused and confused with the fascination of these so called legacy lenses. They are bigger, heavier and I believe do not allow AF.

Click to expand...

I can understand the fascination of it because they are faster than the micro-designed lenses. The reason why I won't buy them is, once you've accumulated 4-6 of them to cover focal lengths you want access to, the combined weight and bulk, not to mention necessary number of lens changes is a PITA, especially if one of those lenses turns out to be something like a 180mm f2.8.

I've been there and done that. No desire to go back. Using the 70-300 Digital Zuiko on my E-PL1 is as far as I am willing to go in using an oversized lens in the short-term until I get myself a couple of micro lenses to cover all the focal lengths I need.

I'm with you on this. I can see the attraction if you already have a collection of older lenses. But, i don't think it's the best investment to buy the adapters and older lenses at this point. Although some of these older lenses may be smaller than a mFT kit lens, I don't think any can compare to the mFT pancake lenses in terms of size - so it's a bit misleading when folks say they are smaller.

riveredger said:

I'm with you on this. I can see the attraction if you already have a collection of older lenses. But, i don't think it's the best investment to buy the adapters and older lenses at this point. Although some of these older lenses may be smaller than a mFT kit lens, I don't think any can compare to the mFT pancake lenses in terms of size - so it's a bit misleading when folks say they are smaller.

Click to expand...

I think you have to consider the crop factor, the OM 50mm 1.8 is the equivalent of a 100mm 1.8 in 135 terms on an m4/3'scamera. That's a decent focal length and speed for a nice and compact lens. There isn't anything close to that in m4/3's at present so it fills a niche, as do other similar lenses. If you can't afford the 20mm 1.7 it's a great alternative, albeit a different focal length.
--
Tony
http://the-random-photographer.blogspot.com/

riveredger said:

I don't think any can compare to the mFT pancake lenses in terms of size - so it's a bit misleading when folks say they are smaller.

Click to expand...

The Panasonic 20mm is 1" long. The Pentax 40mm is a little over half the size at 0.6" long. The 21 and 70mm are both 1" and the 50, 35, and 28mm lenses aren't far off either.

Obviously once you add the adapter it's a different story, but lenses without an AF motor in them have their advantages. It would be good to see a true pancake (which would have to be MF) for the MFT mount...

--
http://flickr.com/photos/stewartpratt/

peddr said:

Well maybe I stand corrected. I have a Canon 50mm f/1.8....would that be a worthy lens and if so which adapters are available ?

Click to expand...

. . . If it's an auto-focus EOS lens, you won't have any control of aperture. There is an EOS ---> m4/3 adapter that I've bought on eBay but haven't tried using it yet. If you have the older manual focus only FD version of this lens, you'll get full manual control of aperture and of course focus. The FD ---> m4/3 adapters are widely available, mine is by RJ Camera which can be found with a search on eBay.

Ah your partially right on this one.

My original 1960's Pen 40mm f1.4 lens is smaller than either the m4/3's Olympus 17mm or Panny 20mm.

I sort of understand. There are people who want to experiment with alternate lenses, and m4/3 has a lot of possibilities.

That said, most of my legacy lenses are larger than my G1 kit lens, once you add the adapter. For me no autofocus and no auto diaphragm makes them specialty items, not something I would use every day. Personally, I might use a good legacy macro in the studio or might use a manual focus lens for landscape or architecture from a tripod, but that's about it for me.

Others have different needs and opinions. The great thing is having the choice.

Gato

--
Street Fashion and Alternative Portraits:
http://www.silvermirage.com

peddr

When i bought into 4/3 a couple of years ago after 5 years with a Canon 10D, I chose olympus because of the good reviews the lenses got, plus the small body size, and the ability to use legacy lenses.

Last year I bought a lot of lenses, and liked the look that these lenses gave me - it was a different look to the digital lenses I have Sure you have to focus manually - but that is how I took photos for years before the advent of digital.

I also bought a E-p1 last year to compliment the E-510 - also it allowed me to try out my partners leica lenses.

I now have too many legacy lenses - but i still enjoy the challenge of using them on both my 4/3 and micro 4/3 as well as my FF Canon.

Legacy isn't for every occasion - but there is a satisfaction in being in control and there is a nice feeling of keeping some of the heritage of photography going. In my youth , many of the lenses I now own would have been beyond my wildest dreams financially - now I can at least pretend I am like my photographer heroes by at least shooting with the same lenses they used

check out my flickr set of legacy lens shots to see why i persist with them

http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/sets/72157622730407793/

--
if you really must see my photos then try
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kevinparis2007/

I bought a G1 as it was the only way I could find to accurately focus - using the big EVF that I can magnify.

Some reasons for using legacy lenses are that they offer lenses that are missing from the current lineup. They give a different "look" to images in the way they render subjects and backgrounds. They feel much nicer to use, metal construction with well damped controls. They are fun

All these are my reasons and other people will have different wants/needs. There is no right or wrong answer to using legacy lenses

Nick

Royal1 said:

As many others have said some of these lenses are smaller and lighter or give better quality results. Look at the Lecia or Voightlander lens offerings. There is also the nostalgia aspect to be able to use your old glass. I started with rangefinders in the 60's and love the feel, look and results with my old lenses.

Click to expand...

Well, I don't know for the Voigtlander glass, but second hand Leica M lenses are not cheap, even on the second hand market; may be that Leica R lenses are now cheaper, but I'm not really sure, plus you have to factor in the cost of the adapter.

The main interest for legacy lenses is if you have them sleeping in your cupboard.

--
rrr_hhh

I'm having a blast with my Pentax Super takumar... 50mm f1.4.

It's my favorite lens( disclaimer... I'm a newb and only have the 20mm f1.7, 40-150mm)