How good are 4/3 lenses on m4/3?

Reybabes

Senior Member
Messages
1,837
Solutions
1
Reaction score
416
Location
Boston, MA, US
It seems that 4/3 is a dying mount and so there are a lot of quality 4/3 lenses on the used market. Not so with the premium m4/3 lenses as the demand is much higher.

Recognizing that I'd be giving up some of the size/weight advantage of native m4/3 lenses, I've been contempating getting a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter and buying some 4/3 lenses as a way of expanding the range of lenses I own. I shoot with an E-M5 body and would probably get the grip if I end up with bigger lenses.

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience to share here. Most specifically, I'm wondering about AF speed and accuracy.

Thanks,

Rey
--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: http://www.2guysphoto.com
http://500px.com/reyspadoni
 
These are with the OMD-EM5.

12-60 - judders a bit while focussing, but not too bad. Around 1 second to focus IIRC. Not as fast as on a PDAF system, but quite usable for anything that's not fast action.

70-300 - CDAF compatible. Works quite well. Not fast, but that lens isn't fast on a PDAF system either.

I have a variety of photos, direct from camera, in my gallery with both lenses.
 
Rey

I do not agree with you - there is lots of life in 4/3 format. I tried to purchase a 7-14mm for quite awhile on the used market and then ultimately purchased it new. I have a number of quality lenses and looking at this 4/3 forum and other 4/3 forums, it appears as if there are many satisfied 4/3 users--both new and long term users. Sure the competition is keen, but that is to the advantage of all photographers of all formats available.

There seems to be new quality lenses being introduced by Panasonic and Olympus. What you may see in the used lens market is owners repositioning their lenses --selling one to purchase another.
--
Howard
http://www.photo.net/photos/howardfuhrman
 
This big old lens is spectacular. Corner-to-corner sharpness, good bokeh, can focus close and it has a somewhat super-zoom range. As you know though, size and auto-focus speed are drawbacks. But I do landscapes, and I actually prefer focusing this lens manually. I love it and the results I get from it. (AF takes a second or two, hunts quite a bit, and doesn't always nail the focus, so it's a bit unreliable.)

It does sort of defeat the point of Micro Four Thirds though... this lens on a GH2 is pretty close in size and weight to my Nikon rig. :)

--------------------------------------------
Joe Braun Photography
http://www.citrusmilo.com
 
50 macro...hard to beat, but slow focus...who cares.

I like the 14-54, been using it for 10 years. Slow focus but not so large as to be a camera carried around by the lens if you are using the grip and battery holder. If not, the 50 macro is the only one I would consider.
 
To be fair, you are right in that using four thirds wont stop you from taking good photos. However, many invested in the format feel slighted that there are a complete lack of new bodies, especially the more economical 400/500 series and diminutive 600 series.

70-300 is nice on my m43.
14-54mm is ok. It's a fast zoom, that can me quick to focus (

40-150 works wonderfully when used with the ex-25. I tend to use macro manually when focusing, but I like having aperture control to stop down on taking the shot.
Rey

I do not agree with you - there is lots of life in 4/3 format. I tried to purchase a 7-14mm for quite awhile on the used market and then ultimately purchased it new. I have a number of quality lenses and looking at this 4/3 forum and other 4/3 forums, it appears as if there are many satisfied 4/3 users--both new and long term users. Sure the competition is keen, but that is to the advantage of all photographers of all formats available.

There seems to be new quality lenses being introduced by Panasonic and Olympus. What you may see in the used lens market is owners repositioning their lenses --selling one to purchase another.
--
Howard
http://www.photo.net/photos/howardfuhrman
 
It seems that 4/3 is a dying mount and so there are a lot of quality 4/3 lenses on the used market. Not so with the premium m4/3 lenses as the demand is much higher.

Recognizing that I'd be giving up some of the size/weight advantage of native m4/3 lenses, I've been contempating getting a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter and buying some 4/3 lenses as a way of expanding the range of lenses I own. I shoot with an E-M5 body and would probably get the grip if I end up with bigger lenses.

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience to share here. Most specifically, I'm wondering about AF speed and accuracy.
I have a 14-54 I (among other 4/3 lenses).

AF is extremely slow and I don't even trust the accuracy, so I just use manual focus (which isn't so bad because the camera automatically zooms in to the focus point when you turn the focus ring).

The 14-54 has better image quality than the 14-42mm II, and give you more creative control over DOF, but you pay for it with four times the weight and manual or very slow focus.
 
Thanks everyone for the very helpful responses.

Howard - I love the 4/3 lenses and at one time shot with an E-30. My suggestion that the mount is dying refers to the absence of any new bodies and the fact that there's no consumer to pro-sumer to pro line-up anymore. Time marches on and if you look at the advances by Nikon, Canon, Sony and even Pentax when it comes to their DSLRs, 4/3 is being left in the dust. For Olympus and Panasonic, clearly m4/3 is where it's at. And thank goodness as I have found a home in the m4/3 world.

Glad to hear that the Oly 70-300 is a strong AF performer on m4/3 as that's what I'm really interested in. The 9-18 as well.

Again, thanks.

Rey
--
The best things in life aren't things...
Photo blog: http://www.2guysphoto.com
http://500px.com/reyspadoni
 
I use the 14-54 (mark 1) the 40-150 (Mark 1 and mark 2) The 70 300, and two Sigma 4/3 lenses on EPL1, and the G3, and they all work rather well, if slowly.

The Sigma lenses dont work at all on the G1, but all the Oly 4/3 lenses do.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Connecticut

I figured out why I cant lose weight! The only exercise Im good at is CHEWING

Don't take yourself so seriously. No one else does

In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane.
Oscar Wilde
 
I've used a few of my 4/3 lenses on an E-P2 and E-P3. My experience:

11-22 - Perhaps my favorite zoom of all times. Very contrasty and sharp. Focusing on m4/3 is quite fast and accurate.

12-60 - Nice and sharp, but too large. Jerky focus but quite fast in good light.

PL25 - A magnificent lens, perhaps even sharper than the m4/3 version (have not used the latter). Quite heavy, though. Focusing is smooth (it is CDAF optimized), but not as fast or quiet as most native m4/3 lenses.

50 macro - An astonishing optic, lightweight and small enough. Focusing is nothing to write about: slow, noisy and jerky. I use it in MF mode.

50-200 SWD - A much better lens than anything native in the equivalent range, but it's HUGE. Focusing is rather slow even in good light.

I hope you find this info helpful.

--
Gallery: http://weatherloony.fruitsens.com/snphoto.html
 
I think that 43 lenses are relatively undervalued right now, and have bought a couple to use on an OMD and MMF-3. Specifically I have bought a 50mm ($325) and a 150mm ($1400). Both are legendary pieces of glass and even if only able to be used via MF are good buys IMHO. Both do AF with the MMF3. I find AF speeds to be acceptable, even with some moving objects (not fast, but moving).

I've also been looking at the 12-60 and 50-200 for similar reasons.

Yes you lose the size/weight advantage, and some AF speed - at least for the moment (I suspect the MMF-3 will be improved on) - but for certain uses the tradeoffs are worth it.

150mm on OMD and MMF3. Tiger moving a bit. F2.2, ISO 640



Playing Lion yearlings. Focus on rightmost lion. F2.2, ISO 400



Cropped.



--
http://jcharding.zenfolio.com/
 
I received last friday my E-M5.

I tried for few minutes in my living room with artificial light every 4/3 lens I have just to check autofocus.

In 2009 I bought the E-P1 as soon as available: some lenses on E-M5 now focus faster and better, other are almost the same.
E-P1 was stolen two years ago, cannot compare directly now.

7-14 f4:
Speed around a second.
Accurate, for sure the large DOF helps here.
Never tried it on E-P1.

50 F2:

The worst one: being a macro lens it is very slow and sometimes tends to travel a couple of times all the excursion without getting the focus.
On E-P1 it was almost the same.

12-60 SWD:
Precise but slow, 1 second or more to get focus.
A bit faster than E-P1.

14-35 f2 SWD:
The slowest and less precise among my SWD lenses.
Sometimes it doesn't get the focus, as the 50-200 SWD did on E-P1.
I never tried it with old Pen.

50-200 SWD:
A little bit slower than 12-60, a little faster than E-P1.

It seems at least no more 'final jumps' when the system is almost on focus spot as it did with E-P1.
More test needed.

150 f2:
Speed similar to 7-14 or 12-60, accurate without hunting.
Never tried on E-P1.

Pana Leica Summilux 25 f1.4:
Accurate and much faster than E-P1.
E-P1 + m4/3 14-42 was slower that E-M5 + 4/3 Leica 25.

Beside 50 F2 and 14-35, all my 4/3 lenses are accurate on static subject and able to get the focus at first try even in low light.
They aren't fast for sure, but a second or a little more is acceptable for me.

After all, I still remember my Minolta SR-T 101 in the seventies when autofocus was wizardry...
CAF doesn't work.
14-35 SWD confirms its fame of 'focus hunter' also on m4/3.
The Pana Leica 25 f.14 is a sweet surprise.
With the HLD-6 grip is well balanced and for portraits autofocus is fast enough.

Manual focus through EVF is easier than expected, for sure easier with longer lenses than on my E-5 OVF thanks to the O-MD stabilizer and magnifying.

E-M5 dynamic range, 16 Mp and 3200/6400 ISO combined with Zuiko Top Pro lenses are fantastic.
I see more improvement from E-5 to E-M5 than from E-510 to E-3 or E-3 to E-5.

I took about 200 RAWs and I found just a couple of shot with burned high lights, even in conditions I consider challenging for E-5.

The shadows are much better, but I'm comparing E-5 in Lightroom 3 with E-M5 in Lighthroom 4.
Im' pretty sure software makes a huge difference here.

Oly, now you just have two choices...

Give me an Wifi E-5 with O-MD sensor and IBIS and a better CAF or a micro 4/3 Wifi camera in an E-5 body with EVF and sensor phase detect autofocus like Nikon 1 to get usable CAF with FourThirds Top Pro glasses.

Both solutions are acceptable for me: I promise I'll buy also 35-100 f2 and I'll be happy forever :)
 
It seems that 4/3 is a dying mount and so there are a lot of quality 4/3 lenses on the used market. Not so with the premium m4/3 lenses as the demand is much higher.

Recognizing that I'd be giving up some of the size/weight advantage of native m4/3 lenses, I've been contempating getting a 4/3 to m4/3 adapter and buying some 4/3 lenses as a way of expanding the range of lenses I own. I shoot with an E-M5 body and would probably get the grip if I end up with bigger lenses.

I'm wondering if anyone has any experience to share here. Most specifically, I'm wondering about AF speed and accuracy.
The image quality of the SHG lenses are pretty stellar, and of course, the apertures specifications are unmatched in the m4.3 lineup.

That being said, you do sacrifice focusing usability, so you're relegated to either a patient subject, or switching to fly-by-wire manual focus, which is pretty hit 'or miss in my experience, unless you have a patient subject...which negates the need for manual focus. ;)

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'
 
I read a rumor on 43rumors.com that Olympus is planning on E-7 for next year. We'll have to wait and see.

There is pretty much no choice with m43 mount at the moment if you want a fast telephoto zoom or prime lenses.

I wanted a fast standard zoom but I can't afford the Panasonic X 12-35mm. So I decided to look into 4/3 lenses.

I recommend watching some videos on YouTube to see how these 4/3 lenses auto focus to give you some ideas. Those videos that tried these lenses on Olympus E-P3 is just as relevant because there is no AF performance improvement when used on OM-D.

At the end I bought a used Olympus ZD 14-54mm II because it is optimized for CDAF. Here is my 2 cents regarding focusing:
  • Under good light and contrast scene, AF 1 sec.
  • Focus is accurate when locked
  • C-AF doesn't work. This might be the case for all current 4/3 lenses. I don't use C-AF much because even with OM-D's kit lens 14-45mm II R the C-AF hunts a lot during video.
  • Manual focus ring is by wire but really smooth and easy to use
  • Focusing is noisy which might be a problem for video with no external mic. Even with manual focusing can still hear the step motor in the video, although it is much quieter than AF.
  • OM-D's IBIS works fine for both stills and videos
  • Best way to use current generation of 4/3 lenses on m4/3 camera is to manual focus
 
Quick question in the subject line. The FOV produced by 4/3 lenses on m4/3 bodies is still a 2X crop, yes?
 
I haven't done done FOV comparison, but they seem about the same.
 
Yes, 4/3 is the size of the sensor, with both four thirds and micro four thirds cameras, and that is what determines the crop factor = 2x.

I have invested in a modest way in 4/3 lenses + adapter for my E-PL1, namely, the 40-150mm f/3.5-45 ED and the 25mm f/28 pancake. Both seem very good. I especially like the 25mm for its "normal" perspective and its optical performance.

Incidentally, the adapter I got was on eBay, type JY-43F made in China, sold by playdigital2011. It was only US$59.50 (new) and works perfectly.
--

The trouble with resisting temptation is, you never know when you'll get another chance
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top