how many $$$ have legacy lenses saved for you? and aren't they fun?

Started Jan 27, 2013 | Discussions thread
tedolf Forum Pro • Posts: 23,566
Sometimes, the only way you can get the shot.....

mgibbs wrote:

tt321 wrote:

If I'm disingenuous, I'd say 1000 pounds, a 1:1 macro lens, a short fast tele, and a 100-300 zoom. However, this 1k pounds will eventually be spent as working with MF legacy lenses is anything but fun.

if i were "working" with MF lenses i would agree. but i am only playing around, and i chiefly use them once i have used my native lenses (often with flash, as they are slower (14mm 2.5, 14-140mm 4.0-5.8) to get the shots i "need", and then i break out the legacy glass to have some fun with a MF challenge. and then, there are events, such as dance recitals and plays, where the slowness of my 14-140 won't do, in which case the legacy glass is a lifesaver, as again, for my uses, i can't justify spending thousands to shoot 2 recitals and 2 school plays a year.

so far, i'm the only legacy glass fan! any of my fellow travellers out there?

is to use legacy glass:

Circa 1962 Canon 135mm f/3.5 LTM rangefinder lens on E-pl1, ISO 3200.

There is still no u 4/3 lens that will give you 135mm at f/3.5.


 tedolf's gear list:tedolf's gear list
Olympus PEN E-P5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 40-150mm 1:4-5.6 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R +8 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow