Reading mode: Light Dark

Zuiko 40-150 or adapted Micro nikkor 2.8/105mm?

Go to last post
T

Tomx72

Senior Member
Messages
1,673
Solutions
1
Reaction score
426
Location
US
I am planning to buy an e-pl5, and wondering about short Tele options. From my previous nikon gear, I still hold my venerable (but optically perfect) AF-D micro 2.8/105. The question is, would the old nikkor outresolve the native telezooms e.g. a good copy of 40-150?

My concern is resolution and microcontrast, the only tests of the 105 micro I know were done on a prehistoric 10MP APS-c sensor...

I am less worried about CA, on D200 it was about 0.5pixel, which translates about 3microns or ~1 pixel on the E-PL5 - this is less than most m43 lenses I saw. Besides, vignetting is not existing on m34.

I know its heavy and bulky but I really want to keep this beautiful glass...
 
Last edited:
Solution
C
I know it is not the same, but I use an adapted Nikkor 105 f2.5 when I need low light tele. This classic lens works really well, but since it is a 2x crop, I find the depth of field to be very thin, and particularly hard to use in sports work. It is better stopped down, but when you need the light, you just compromise with the f 2.5

This lens is bigger and heavier than almost any piece of MFT glass I have. With the adapter on, it rivals the size of the 45-200 and it is definitely more massive, being of all metal construction and seemingly all glass.

So if size and weight, and focus speed are not issues, your micro should be a fabulous lens to use. But frankly, I compromise for auto focus/exposure and light weight and smaller size...
Tomx72 said:
Tomx72 wrote:

I am planning to buy an e-pl5, and wondering about short Tele options. From my previous nikon gear, I still hold my venerable (but optically perfect) AF-D micro 2.8/105. The question is, would the old nikkor outresolve the native telezooms e.g. a good copy of 40-150?

My concern is resolution and microcontrast, the only tests of the 105 micro I know were done on a prehistoric 10MP APS-c sensor...

I am less worried about CA, on D200 it was about 0.5pixel, which translates about 3microns or ~1 pixel on the E-PL5 - this is less than most m43 lenses I saw. Besides, vignetting is not existing on m34.

I know its heavy and bulky but I really want to keep this beautiful glass...
Click to expand...

should work fine.



TEdolph
 
To the OP: First, always listen to Tedolph. He is always right, no kidding

Second, as you say, the lens is bulky and heavy and you can't bear to part with it. I'd suggest searching and watching for new reviews of the various native m4/3 macro options, which are in a period of expansion. If you go with the highly versatile and surprisingly good 40-150 Oly option, consider an add-on Canon screw-on closeup lens or one of the Raynox supplements, I think the 150.

A third option is to buy an Olympus 35mm f3.5 true Macro for the FOUR-thirds system and buy an MMF-2 or MMF-3 AF adaptor OR a $25 manual adaptor (Rainbow Imaging). It's clearly closer to the size of a DSLR lens but smaller than the 105 and does a great job, despite its larger FOV cf. your 105.

Have fun with the m4/3 system. You won't pick up a DSLR.SLR again!
 
I still use an APS-c body (D5100) for astro work, thats one of the reasons why I want to keep the 105. OTOH I want to use it as a medium-tele lens - here the 35, even the 60mm m43 macro comes short. (I took a look on the 2.8/180ED, but its even heavier, produces much more CA - and I already have the 105) If I get a decent offer on the 40-150 (e.g. in a dolbule kit), I might take it and make a head-to-head comarison myself.
PSCL1 said:
>PSCL1 wrote:
... I'd suggest searching and watching for new reviews of the various native m4/3 macro options, which are in a period of expansion. If you go with the highly versatile and surprisingly good 40-150 Oly option, consider an add-on Canon screw-on closeup lens or one of the Raynox supplements, I think the 150. ...
Click to expand...
Thanks! For daylight/underwater photograhy for sure not! for Astro time will tell, the OMD sensor makes miracles:))
PSCL1 said:
Have fun with the m4/3 system. You won't pick up a DSLR.SLR again!
Click to expand...
 
I know it is not the same, but I use an adapted Nikkor 105 f2.5 when I need low light tele. This classic lens works really well, but since it is a 2x crop, I find the depth of field to be very thin, and particularly hard to use in sports work. It is better stopped down, but when you need the light, you just compromise with the f 2.5

This lens is bigger and heavier than almost any piece of MFT glass I have. With the adapter on, it rivals the size of the 45-200 and it is definitely more massive, being of all metal construction and seemingly all glass.

So if size and weight, and focus speed are not issues, your micro should be a fabulous lens to use. But frankly, I compromise for auto focus/exposure and light weight and smaller size, unless I need the max aperture.
 
Solution
I adapted a Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 Sonnar lens to my E-M5. It easily beats my Panasonic 45-200 when compared full-size.... I provide a few full-size comparison images here.

My guess is that the higher quality 135s – be it Nikkors or OM Zuikos or whatever – will roughly perform similar, and most legacy 105 macro lenses will probably be even better. But then, of course, nothing beats an AF zoom lens for convenience.


Thomas
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top