Optically yes, they are same.
I suspect the Exakta mount lenses are a bit more affordable than the M42 mount counterparts, mainly do to the slightly shorter flange distance of the Exakta mount. The M42 mount lenses can be adapted to more camera bodies, including the popular Canon DSLRs.
You have been getting good advice from others - I really like that lens and I have one in M42 mount that I will never part with
The Exakta mount has an external aperture stop-down button that can end-up in an unfortunate position when adapted. I don't know if it mechanically interferes on the G85, but I doubt it.
Yeah, the MIR-20 pricing has gone nuts lately, with M42 versions running $300-$400. The Kiev 10/15 mount version, which is smaller than most, used to be easy to find for less than $50, but even that's over $130 now, and often $250 or more. BTW, the Kiev 10/15 mount is quite problematic to adapt because the aperture control is completely internal, but I've designed 3D-printable adapters such as Kiev 10/15 Lens To Canon FL/FD/FDn Body Adapter that work.
Exakta mount isn't particularly "fiddly," it's a pretty straightforward bayonet design. The odd thing is the stop-down button sticking out from this lens (not all Exakta mount lenses have that; for example, RE Topcors don't). Some see it as awkward while others say it's a feature... and they're both right. ;-)
The CZJ 20mm f/4 is a famous lens and, as long as you're going in with reasonable expectations, it's a good purchase despite being pricey. On MFT, it is basically a large, slow, close-focusing, shortish-normal lens (40mm equiv. is NOT wide) with good colors. If you should decide that's not what you want and are not moving up to a larger sensor or use of a focal reducer, you probably wouldn't lose money reselling it, so the risk is fairly low...
Now that is interesting. It certainly provides another option to think about, as long as this adapter doesn't mess with the lens' distance from sensor, and alter infinity focus, etc. It doesn't look like it would, but one never knows. Thanks for this.
Well, there is a slight flange distance difference, infinity and MFD might be affected, but it very much depends on the lens (most have some infinity tolerance for temperature compensation) and adapter M42 to your camera mount. I am using similar (brass made) ring for Domiron EXA when I want to put it on the macro helicoid, and I can achieve infinity around its mark on the barrel.
Kevin,
I have FF and M4/3 sensor camera body kits and apart from the physical and technical side of the the sensors I don't regard myself as moving up to a larger sensor size. ...
Myself also ....In sum, enjoy shooting with it and let us know how it went.
Yes I agree but there is 'oh so many' choices with M42 and once it was a sort of inter-brand common mount not suffering from brand-mount restrictions.
Never said it wasn't... but it's a bad choice if you want high-resolution or wide-angle views from old glass. It's less of a problem with a focal reducer, but you're still throwing away lots of resolution and view angle.I have FF and M4/3 sensor camera body kits and apart from the physical and technical side of the the sensors I don't regard myself as moving up to a larger sensor size. ...
M4/3 is actually a quite useful sensor size.
Of course, lenses designed explicitly for a smaller sensor can do better -- which is why the Sony RX100 series gets praise while the comparably good 1" sensor in the Nikon 1 cameras was never taken seriously for using adapted lenses. This is also why the DPReview test scene looks pretty good for the smaller-sensor cameras: the test scene is shot with the best-resolving lens DPReview could find.
I think we all know you enjoy MFT.Myself also ....In sum, enjoy shooting with it and let us know how it went.
This is why my NEX-7 still sees some use (and my NEX-5 would if it had an EVF). Actually, the NEX-7 is still surprisingly competitive in having a sensor delivering what DxO calls 13.4 stops of "Landscape" DR (e.g., the Lumix DC-S1R only delivers 14.1), and 24MP is still good for APS-C. The NEX-7 + Pergear 35mm f/1.4 is an interesting pocketable...
Actually, for its resolution, the 5Ds did get to insanely low prices. Yeah, the sensor DR is poor, but it's still as good as any MFT, and they are selling used for under $900, so no further explanation is needed. If I had a pile of EF glass, I'd probably have grabbed a 5Ds too.But I have larger M4/3 bodies - G9 and GX9. Also the S1 in L-Mount and a remaindered off Canon 5Ds simply because it was cheap, I have a stack of EF mount lenses and (best of all) Canon has no intention of superseding it on me
I know that you have your 5Ds reservations but it has to be batter than the original 5D that I eventually retired and it was 1/3 of the price of its launch RRP and was new in the box. I intend to keep it for a long time if only to remind myself how tractor-like dslr bodies were to use. The ML bodies that I use in parallel are sweetness and light by comparison.
Say that with pride, Tom. ;-)
This.. it makes little sense to use FF old wides on M43. They can be used like I can use my 8x10 covering dagor 8” but it makes little sense.Never said it wasn't... but it's a bad choice if you want high-resolution or wide-angle views from old glass. It's less of a problem with a focal reducer, but you're still throwing away lots of resolution and view angle.I have FF and M4/3 sensor camera body kits and apart from the physical and technical side of the the sensors I don't regard myself as moving up to a larger sensor size. ...
M4/3 is actually a quite useful sensor size.
Suppose you have a lens that delivers about 24MP resolution to its designed 36x24 film plane, which is a reasonable number for good old lenses. Here's what you can expect from cropping:
- FF: 24MP
- APS-C + focal reducer: 20MP
- APS-C: 10MP
- Canon "APS-C": 9MP
- MFT + focal reducer: 12MP
- MFT: 6MP
Hopefully it will happen before made great granddads.You'll often hear people talk about the "center sweet spot" and lenses do in fact resolve better on axis than off axis, but this typically doesn't change the math very much because most good lenses have fairly even fields until you get to the corners. There is also some degradation from sensor stack thickness, and MFT unfortunately went with a 4mm cover glass -- more than twice as thick as is typical for APS-C or FF. Fortunately, a well-designed focal reducer can correct that. That means MFT + focal reducer could out-resolve bare APS-C. It also means that APS-C + focal reducer is even more competitive with FF than it sounds because the resulting 10% crop is pretty much taking out only the often vignetted and soft corners.
- 1": 3MP
Note that having sensors with higher resolution doesn't increase the delivered resolution, but does decrease artifacts. 20MP MFT images tend to be very clean in that sense...
Of course, lenses designed explicitly for a smaller sensor can do better -- which is why the Sony RX100 series gets praise while the comparably good 1" sensor in the Nikon 1 cameras was never taken seriously for using adapted lenses. This is also why the DPReview test scene looks pretty good for the smaller-sensor cameras: the test scene is shot with the best-resolving lens DPReview could find.
At this point, I also need to remind any reader that 135 film typically delivered the approximate equivalent of a clean digital image resolving between 1.5MP and 6MP -- so MFT with a good old lens is capable of producing images of competitive quality to film prints in museums. In other words, MFT is probably good enough for most things.
I think we all know you enjoy MFT.Myself also ....In sum, enjoy shooting with it and let us know how it went.
Likewise, I guess by now we all know I will not be truly happy* until I have a sensor that is at least 4x5". ;-)
