24/28/30mm lens options

Bad luck has it that I am left with only one lens for my GX-7, an old M42 50mm lens and 2 M42 adapters. And now I need to get something wider then 100 equiv. So I am looking for a 24/28/30mm range old legacy lens, till I get enough money to get a proper replacement.

And I need help in choosing something that is not complete ****, I know that old lenses and cheap prices dont give you much, but its better then nothing I guess.

This is what I found thus far:

Revuenon Macro MC 24mm f 4 (M42) - 33 Euros / 36 $

Tokina RMC 28mm f 2.8 (Konica AR) - 21 Euros / 23 $

Minolta MC W.Rokkor 28mm f 3.5 (Minolta MC) - 22 Euros / 24 $

Konica Hexar AR 28mm f 3.5 (Konica AR) - 22 Euros / 24 $

Sigma Mini Wide MC Macro 28mm f 2.8 (Pentax K) - 27 Euros / 29 $

Vivitar Auto 28mm f 2.8 (Olympus OM) - 28 Euros / 30 $

Makinon Auto MC 28mm f 2.8 (Canon FD) - 28 Euros / 30 $

Presenta Auto MC 28mm f 2.8 (Pentax K) - 29 Euros / 32 $

Canon 28mm f 2.8 (Canon FD) - 29 Euros / 32 $

Alfo Supercolor MC 28mm f 2.8 (Minolta MD) - 31 Euro / 34 $

Sigma Mini Wide II MC Macro 28mm f 2.8 (Canon FD) - 31 Euro / 34 $

Revuenon Macro 28mm f 3.5 (M42) - 33 Euros / 37 $

Sigma Mini Wide MC Macro 28mm f 2.8 (Minolta MD) - 33 Euro - 37 $

Pentacon Auto MC 29mm f 2.8 (M42) - 40 Euro / 44 $

Hanimex Auto MC 24mm f 2.8 (M42) - 40 Euro / 44 $

Expert Auto MC 28mm f 2.8 (M42) - 40 Euros / 44 $

Canon FL 28mm f 3.5 (Canon FL/FD) - 40 Euro / 44 $

Soligor 28mm f 2.8 (M42) - 40 Euro / 44 $

Albinar Auto 28mm f 2.8 (M42) - 45 Euro / 49 $

Minolta MD 28mm f 2.8 (Minolta MD) - 45 Euro / 49 $

Yashica Yashinon-DS 28mm f 2.8 (M42) - 45 Euro / 49 $

Yashica DSB 28mm f 2.8 (Yashica/Contax), comes with a free Y/C to Micro Four Thirds Adaptor - 45 Euro / 49 $

Pentacon 30mm f 3.5 (M42) - 33 Euros / 36 $

Revuenon 28mm f 2.8 & Revuenon 35mm f 2.8 (M42) + RevueFlex AC 1 for - 45 Euro / 49 $

What lens would you recommend to get, for decent images. I will get an adapter for other mounts if it's worth the price (for the lens and adaptor) if I can get better IQ.

You are in a bind when it comes to the older lenses.  A 24 is really a 48 (in 35mm terms), a 28 is a 56, etc.  It would make more sense to decide what focal length you want in M4/3 terms and the save the cash to purchase one of the excellent current lenses.  The new coatings and manufacturing methods really are substantially better and it becomes very clear in the images produced.

Unfortunately I've had none of the above lenses. But I've had experience with others. I would suggest looking into:
- carl zeiss jena lenses - generally good lenses while not the sharpest they have great color and contrast transmission with the later coatings.
- olympus zuiko OM lenses - great lenses in general especially if you can get later serial number copies. The OM 28 2.8 is particularly sharp and good for what you want.
- pentax legacy lenses - wide assortment and reasonable prices, definately some gems there. Also going to the lens database on pentaxforums will give a mountain of information in a comprehensive way on virtually any pentax lens ever made. I currently use a pentax A 28 2.8 and am ok with it.
- yashica ML lenses - also great and nearly or as good as zeiss lenses for less money.

As you have found yourself, there is a vast sea of legacy glass most of which is ok, some is crap, and some is gorgeous but comes at a cost even today.

My advice is (if don't plan to use legacy lenses in the long term) is to save up for a native m43 lens and not waste resources on legacy lenses and adapters, however if you do plan to use legacy lenses in the long term you should research well and pay the necessary premium for quality glass.

Have you considered the Sigma 30mm f2.8?

It's a great little lens and very good value for money at $200.

Most of the third party lenses of that era are rubbish, get the Canon, Konica, Minolta or Yashica option. Stay away from the Tokina, Sigma, Vivita, Soligor lenses of that era, Sears or etc are even worse.Yes literately Sears and Robucks if you remember the brand, generic, mail order department store lenses.

Try to get an F/2 lens rather than F/2.8 lens. All of those F/2.8 were made dime a dozen and the build quality varies dime a dozen. Get a Hexanon or a Canon FD with SSC (super spectra coating) coating rather than SC (Spectra coating) it really means double coated vs single coat. The Canon SSC and Konica Hexanon lenses are double coated on the front element to give you better clarity and contrast. You can also get a Minolta Rokkor that has better lens coating on the elements also.

A lot of these lenses will be low contrast so will require significant post processing, occasionally you will need to raise the contrast by +100 to get decent results. It's the vintage of the lens, we simply put up with less back then.

Most people did not have money for lenses back then so the kinds of lenses you find cheap are mostly junk, although there is some exceptions. We are spoiled these days with low cost lenses and some of us like myself have 6 or 8 lenses. For no good reason of course other than we can afford better lenses for cheaper prices these days.

If you literally have $100 just buy something like the Olympus 14-42 F/4-F/5.6 its a good performer for the money.

28s and 24s are less common, people didn't have much money for wide angle lenses back then 50mm lenses are dime a dozen and cheap, I tend to think 28mm isn't bad, it's not quite 50 and its not 75 either, I get caught standing to close or too far back using a standard lens so I like something slightly shorter or something slightly longer, that's just my habit though. My preference for a normal lens is 35mm, while my preference for a short telephoto is 75mm or 100...

You can get a 17 or so, but in a legacy lens they're super expensive and wasted on your camera unless you're shooting with a Sony A7. You don't want a 17mm lens on Micro Four Thirds.

I've been looking for cheap WA legacy lenses some time ago too, and my findings were that there are no good affordable options. Search http://www.mu-43.com/forums/ and check the sample images forum there, I'm sure you'll find samples for some of the lenses from your list.

My advice will be to save for a used f2.8 Sigma, either 19 or 30 (in Germany you can buy new for 150€), or get a native kit lens like Lumix 14-42II. For its used price <100€, with the kit lens you'll get decent printable results at ISO up to 3200 with GX7. I lived with this kit for several months and was just fine, even indoors and in low light.

That is, of course, unless your goal is not to obtain best IQ for the buck, but to play with legacy glass, which is totally fine as well. But then I'd stick with longer FLs as I find using (U)WA legacy lenses with M43's 2x crop factor a waste. I have a 25€ 135/4 Carl Zeiss Jena and it provides amazing results for the money.

There are plenty of options, just not for Olympus cameras, if you had a Panasonic, or Black Magic camera that supported sensor cropping you could use C mount lenses and then there's lots of very cheap options. Unfortunately Panasonic has stopped doing this with the GH3 and GH4 though.

L0n3Gr3yW0lf wrote:

Bad luck has it that I am left with only one lens for my GX-7, an old M42 50mm lens and 2 M42 adapters. And now I need to get something wider then 100 equiv. So I am looking for a 24/28/30mm range old legacy lens, till I get enough money to get a proper replacement.

And I need help in choosing something that is not complete ****, I know that old lenses and cheap prices dont give you much, but its better then nothing I guess.

This is what I found thus far:

That's a heckuva list!

What lens would you recommend to get, for decent images. I will get an adapter for other mounts if it's worth the price (for the lens and adaptor) if I can get better IQ.

Check out Pentax SMC Takumar (M42 screwmount). I have a couple, 50mm f1.4 and 105mm f2.8, and they're excellent. There color and rendering is quite beautiful.

They're probably not the cheapest lenses out there, but for me, if I'm making the commitment to choose, adapt and use a non-native manual lens, then spending a few extra bucks to get better image quality, along with a better experience using them, is worth it.

Hithertoo wrote:

There are plenty of options, just not for Olympus cameras, if you had a Panasonic, or Black Magic camera that supported sensor cropping you could use C mount lenses and then there's lots of very cheap options.

Do you mean the Fujian 35/1.7 and the newer 25mm lens (the latter presumably designed for APS-C sensor)? These are "special" (or "toy" as some say) lenses which provide interesting results, but from the samples I saw I wouldn't use them for general photography. Would be interesting to know if there are other C-mount lenses that I'm not aware about.

No what I mean is old TV/Cinema lenses, not the Fujian CCTV lenses. People write off C mount because its not PL mount, but up until the early 2000s C mount was quite popular in film and television shows.

16mm film cameras use C mount and there are a lot of old lenses that are quite good, not just the CCTV junk such as the Fujian lenses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_mount

Most of the older series of Stargate, things like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dawsons Creek, and etc were shot on C mount cameras. They're less expensive and you could get huge rolls of film at inexpensive prices back in the day. Other films include notable entries such as Requiem for a Dream, Scarface and Endless Summer.

Considering Micro Four Thirds is basically the digital equivalent to Super 16 it makes sense that there are plenty of people who use it for this purpose today. There are people who love it because it basically gives you the same frame size as Super 16.

If you want more information have a look at the list of films out there that have been shot on Bolex cameras, you'll be surprised.

Interesting, thanks for the information. Apparently these lenses are not that widely known to mirrorless enthusiasts on as I don't remember spotting any of these, although I used to spend quite some time monitoring ebay deals. I imagine it can be different in other parts of the world though.

C Mount is not very widely known, although there is a range of different lenses out there. The good news is that most of them are relatively cheap. You can get lenses from the likes of Cooke, Angenieux, Kodak, Schneider or etc... which are all big name cinema lens producers. Unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be, 16mm got tarred with the low budget brush.

Although you can tell that to the producers of Requiem for a Dream all you like. One of the all time greatest movies, shot on 16mm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nU7dC9bIDg

As a side note, even Pulp Fiction was going to be shot on 16mm until Holywood picked it up.

To the OP:  Of your LISTED lenses, I owned and would recommend the 28mm f2.8 Rokkor.

Otherwise, stick with Nikon, Canon, Minolta, and Olympus lenses preferentially if you

want another FL.

I like the idea of trying to save to buy a Used modern Sigma 19 or 40 for native m43.

You seem to have had the $700 American for a GX-7 body.  Why did you leave yourself with so little money for a lens?

LMNCT wrote:

You are in a bind when it comes to the older lenses. A 24 is really a 48 (in 35mm terms), a 28 is a 56, etc. It would make more sense to decide what focal length you want in M4/3 terms and the save the cash to purchase one of the excellent current lenses. The new coatings and manufacturing methods really are substantially better and it becomes very clear in the images produced.

Highly agree with LMNCT.  If you can, look for a Panasonic 20 mm f1.7  You should be able to get one used for under $300, perhaps even closer to $200.  You will not be disappointed, especially on the GX7.  In fact, with a lens like that, you will be able to see what the cam is fully capable of, especially when using the e-shutter.

Be aware that you will need am adapter to use legacy lenses. I suggest one of the bigger brands, Konica, Minolta, M42 or Canon so that you can use the adapter with other lenses. Get a cheap adapter from eBay, or Amazon, and go from there. Choose a common lens and it will be cheaper. It's probably easier to find a 24mm lens than a 28mm. You won't get auto focus, but you can use focus peaking as a sort of "focus confirm" to make sure that everything is nicely focused. In time I'd still recommend a native lens.

The M42 and Contax lenses you're looking at will be the smallest by a significant margin the Yashica Yashinon-DS 28mm f 2.8 (M42) - 45 Euro / 49 $ is a little more expensive but its a good lens if you want something small. The biggest problem with the Contax lenses isn't the quality its just that there isn't many of them and they're all generally expensive.

An example of an M42 lens on A GX7 shows you why they make a good fit for each other you can achieve a much shorter lens length even when adapted.