Is this good enough as portrait lens?

[Mister Roboto]

I just got my Fotga Konica AR to m43 adapter.

First impression, solid build but I think focus peaking is not working with this one. I am using Konica Hexanon AR 50mm f/1.7 lens as my portraiture lens.

These are two samples, what do you think?

P.S There was a UV filter attached on.

I attached my Olympus C-180 TC to it

 

[berni29]

Hi

The bokeh looks a bit jarring, but that could just be the background.

I tried a few different legacy lenses at the 50mm mark including the well regarded Hexanon 40mm f1.8, and I found them all significantly inferior to the m4/3 Oly 45mm F1.8.

If you stop down then they are great, but wide open not so.

That is my experience.

--

Berni29
EM1, EM-10mkII, GM1 + Pana 12-32mm, 35-100mm f2.8, 20mm f1.7, Voight 17.5mm f0.95, Oly 12-40mm, 45mm, 50mm F2 macro, (prev EM10, EM5, GH1, E30, E510, E1, E300, LX3)

 

[Tom Axford]

Hi

The bokeh looks a bit jarring, but that could just be the background.

I tried a few different legacy lenses at the 50mm mark including the well regarded Hexanon 40mm f1.8, and I found them all significantly inferior to the m4/3 Oly 45mm F1.8.

If you stop down then they are great, but wide open not so.

That is my experience.

My experience of lenses designed for 35mm SLR cameras of twenty or thirty years ago agrees with yours.

Lenses designed for rangefinder cameras or medium format were much better wide open, but they were usually less fast lenses anyway. My Zeiss 50mm f/2 for Contax G was ahead of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 at most apertures and the Canon was distinctly soft at f/1.4.

Modern lenses have improved quite a lot.

 

[Henry Richardson]

My experience of lenses designed for 35mm SLR cameras of twenty or thirty years ago agrees with yours.

Lenses designed for rangefinder cameras or medium format were much better wide open, but they were usually less fast lenses anyway. My Zeiss 50mm f/2 for Contax G was ahead of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 at most apertures and the Canon was distinctly soft at f/1.4.

From what you say then in general SLR lenses, particularly fast ones (f1.2, f1.4, f1.7), if stopped down to make them about the speed of the RF lenses are pretty good? I haven't paid a lot of attention, but my impression is that generally used RF lenses are usually more expensive than used SLR lenses, sometimes a whole lot more expensive. Partly because there probably aren't nearly as many of them floating around. Also, not as many brands and mounts. The Leica lenses are, of course, a special kind of expensive. Another thing that makes SLR lenses attractive is that RF lenses tend to be in a rather limited set of focal lengths whereas SLR lenses can be just about anything.

The only old manual focus SLR prime lenses I have are:

• Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f1.4
• Yashica ML 55mm f2.8 macro
• Tokina RMC 28mm f2.8

Although I have m4/3 adapters I haven't made much use of them. Maybe on a FF Sony A7 or APS-C Sony NEX 7 they would be more fun to use though.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Mister Roboto]

Hi

The bokeh looks a bit jarring, but that could just be the background.

And maybe because of the UV filter? I will take this gear out today and see if I can shoot something or someone with a nice background.

I tried a few different legacy lenses at the 50mm mark including the well regarded Hexanon 40mm f1.8, and I found them all significantly inferior to the m4/3 Oly 45mm F1.8.

I agree,legacy lenses need to be stopped down a bit to get the ultimate sharpness. I think f/2.8 is the sweet spot of Hexanon.

If you stop down then they are great, but wide open not so.

If sharpness is desired more than bokeh, I agree!

That is my experience.

Thanks for sharing your experience, I appreciate it!

--

Berni29
EM1, EM-10mkII, GM1 + Pana 12-32mm, 35-100mm f2.8, 20mm f1.7, Voight 17.5mm f0.95, Oly 12-40mm, 45mm, 50mm F2 macro, (prev EM10, EM5, GH1, E30, E510, E1, E300, LX3)

 

[Dave Lively]

A lot of people prefer the "soft and dreamy" look for portraits. In the film days I remember some people smearing a thin layer of Vaseline over a cheap UV filter to get it. Not everyone wants to see every pore on their face or the details of any wrinkle they have. You might try taking a few pictures of people and see what they think. Some of them might like the results better than the very sharp, clear results you would get with the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

I don't use UV filters but good ones have very little or no measurable impact on image quality, I really doubt that is the problem. Old 50mm lenses were the kit lenses of their day and the emphasis was on low cost. Soft and low contrast is normal wide open.

 

[Mister Roboto]

Hi

The bokeh looks a bit jarring, but that could just be the background.

I tried a few different legacy lenses at the 50mm mark including the well regarded Hexanon 40mm f1.8, and I found them all significantly inferior to the m4/3 Oly 45mm F1.8.

If you stop down then they are great, but wide open not so.

That is my experience.

My experience of lenses designed for 35mm SLR cameras of twenty or thirty years ago agrees with yours.

Lenses designed for rangefinder cameras or medium format were much better wide open, but they were usually less fast lenses anyway. My Zeiss 50mm f/2 for Contax G was ahead of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 at most apertures and the Canon was distinctly soft at f/1.4.

Modern lenses have improved quite a lot.

Will they yield the same sharpness if let's say full body shot? I though sharpness is always a compromise with these ultrafast lenses? You gotta stop it down anyway to get more DOF.

 

[Gone for Good]

Portraits of old men with leathery skin and babies should be sharp. The rest are better slightly soft. When I used to shoot portraits with my Hasselblad, I had to use Zeiss Softer filters to bring the sharpness down otherwise 90% of my clients complained ( and there was no Photoshop to tone down the sharpness ).

 

[Tom Axford]

Hi

The bokeh looks a bit jarring, but that could just be the background.

I tried a few different legacy lenses at the 50mm mark including the well regarded Hexanon 40mm f1.8, and I found them all significantly inferior to the m4/3 Oly 45mm F1.8.

If you stop down then they are great, but wide open not so.

That is my experience.

My experience of lenses designed for 35mm SLR cameras of twenty or thirty years ago agrees with yours.

Lenses designed for rangefinder cameras or medium format were much better wide open, but they were usually less fast lenses anyway. My Zeiss 50mm f/2 for Contax G was ahead of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 at most apertures and the Canon was distinctly soft at f/1.4.

Modern lenses have improved quite a lot.

Will they yield the same sharpness if let's say full body shot? I though sharpness is always a compromise with these ultrafast lenses? You gotta stop it down anyway to get more DOF.

Every camera lens is a compromise and there are so many different lenses made for so many different purposes and at different prices that it is almost impossible to generalise.

However, if you are using legacy lenses designed for 35mm film cameras (whether SLR or RF), there are some points to bear in mind.

First, the MFT image is only half the diameter of the image on a 35mm camera. So, if you want to get the same amount of sharpness on an MFT image as a FF image (when enlarged to the same size), then the MFT lens needs twice the resolution of the FF lens (because the image on the sensor is half the size for MFT).

Thus, by using any FF lens on an MFT camera, you are demanding much more from the lens than was the case when it was used on the camera it was designed for. A lens that was averagely sharp on a 35mm camera will look well below average when put on an MFT camera.

On the other hand, the MFT camera only uses the central portion of the image formed by the lens. This is normally the sharpest part of the image. Most lens designers design their lenses so that the resolution falls off quite substantially in the corners (because by allowing this they can improve the lens in other respects). By putting a FF lens on an MFT camera, you are not using the outer part of the image and so the resolution is likely to fall off much less as you move towards the corners of the smaller MFT frame.

 

[Robert Evagelista]

Do consider the Olympus 45mm 1.8.
Dont miss out on this lens.
Best Bang for the Back lens, Every body should have one.

45mm 1.8

 

[Mister Roboto]

A lot of people prefer the "soft and dreamy" look for portraits. In the film days I remember some people smearing a thin layer of Vaseline over a cheap UV filter to get it.

That's interesting to know. Makes me think that we are happy to have the option to do it automagically using software nowadays.

Not everyone wants to see every pore on their face or the details of any wrinkle they have. You might try taking a few pictures of people and see what they think. Some of them might like the results better than the very sharp, clear results you would get with the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

I agree, different folks, different strokes.

I don't use UV filters but good ones have very little or no measurable impact on image quality, I really doubt that is the problem. Old 50mm lenses were the kit lenses of their day and the emphasis was on low cost. Soft and low contrast is normal wide open.

Points taken, I will take off the UV filter and see what comes up. Maybe contrast will improve a little.

 

[Mister Roboto]

Portraits of old men with leathery skin and babies should be sharp. The rest are better slightly soft. When I used to shoot portraits with my Hasselblad, I had to use Zeiss Softer filters to bring the sharpness down otherwise 90% of my clients complained ( and there was no Photoshop to tone down the sharpness ).

Another beauty of living in the modern era. Thanks for sharing your experience!

 

[Mister Roboto]

Do consider the Olympus 45mm 1.8.
Dont miss out on this lens.
Best Bang for the Back lens, Every body should have one.

45mm 1.8

I still need to eat a lot of noodles but yeah that lens is not so expensive though. I bought my Konica Hexanon lens for about 10% of the Oly 45mm price. =D

 

[Mister Roboto]

My experience of lenses designed for 35mm SLR cameras of twenty or thirty years ago agrees with yours.

Lenses designed for rangefinder cameras or medium format were much better wide open, but they were usually less fast lenses anyway. My Zeiss 50mm f/2 for Contax G was ahead of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 at most apertures and the Canon was distinctly soft at f/1.4.

From what you say then in general SLR lenses, particularly fast ones (f1.2, f1.4, f1.7), if stopped down to make them about the speed of the RF lenses are pretty good? I haven't paid a lot of attention, but my impression is that generally used RF lenses are usually more expensive than used SLR lenses, sometimes a whole lot more expensive. Partly because there probably aren't nearly as many of them floating around. Also, not as many brands and mounts. The Leica lenses are, of course, a special kind of expensive. Another thing that makes SLR lenses attractive is that RF lenses tend to be in a rather limited set of focal lengths whereas SLR lenses can be just about anything.

True.

The only old manual focus SLR prime lenses I have are:

• Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f1.4
• Yashica ML 55mm f2.8 macro
• Tokina RMC 28mm f2.8

Those are really wonderful lenses.

Although I have m4/3 adapters I haven't made much use of them. Maybe on a FF Sony A7 or APS-C Sony NEX 7 they would be more fun to use though.

I sold my NEX-6 which I had used with this very same lens. Results are fantastic but I prefer the better feel and look of O-MD though.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.bakubo.com

 

[Mister Roboto]

Hi

The bokeh looks a bit jarring, but that could just be the background.

I tried a few different legacy lenses at the 50mm mark including the well regarded Hexanon 40mm f1.8, and I found them all significantly inferior to the m4/3 Oly 45mm F1.8.

If you stop down then they are great, but wide open not so.

That is my experience.

My experience of lenses designed for 35mm SLR cameras of twenty or thirty years ago agrees with yours.

Lenses designed for rangefinder cameras or medium format were much better wide open, but they were usually less fast lenses anyway. My Zeiss 50mm f/2 for Contax G was ahead of my Canon 50mm f/1.4 at most apertures and the Canon was distinctly soft at f/1.4.

Modern lenses have improved quite a lot.

Will they yield the same sharpness if let's say full body shot? I though sharpness is always a compromise with these ultrafast lenses? You gotta stop it down anyway to get more DOF.

Every camera lens is a compromise and there are so many different lenses made for so many different purposes and at different prices that it is almost impossible to generalise.

However, if you are using legacy lenses designed for 35mm film cameras (whether SLR or RF), there are some points to bear in mind.

First, the MFT image is only half the diameter of the image on a 35mm camera. So, if you want to get the same amount of sharpness on an MFT image as a FF image (when enlarged to the same size), then the MFT lens needs twice the resolution of the FF lens (because the image on the sensor is half the size for MFT).

Thus, by using any FF lens on an MFT camera, you are demanding much more from the lens than was the case when it was used on the camera it was designed for. A lens that was averagely sharp on a 35mm camera will look well below average when put on an MFT camera.

On the other hand, the MFT camera only uses the central portion of the image formed by the lens. This is normally the sharpest part of the image. Most lens designers design their lenses so that the resolution falls off quite substantially in the corners (because by allowing this they can improve the lens in other respects). By putting a FF lens on an MFT camera, you are not using the outer part of the image and so the resolution is likely to fall off much less as you move towards the corners of the smaller MFT frame.

Since center of the lens is where usually sharpness exists, I guess using it on m43 sensor is just about right? Yes, you will lose half of the resolution but that can only be seen if you view the image at more than 50%. I don't usually print a size of more than 16x20 so I think I am fine with the result that I will get here. Thanks for sharing your detailed information, they are appreciated!

 

[Pete_CSCS]

... and I still have all of the lenses to use on my E-M1.

I have used my E-M1 with a Fotasy adapter and the Hexanon AR 50mm F/1.7 lens for portraits. The lens has less contrast and sharpness than my 12-40/2.8 and of course it is more difficult to nail focus on a live subject. My percentage of dead-on razor sharp images is less with this manual focus lens so I find myself reaching for the 12-40 @ 40mm for portraits. I am still considering getting either the 45/1.8 or the Panny 42.5/1.7 for this purpose.

The AR 50/1.7 was considered one of the very sharpest normal lenses made by any manufacturer back in the day. The split image focus ring on my Konicas made precise focusing easier with these MF lenses. This focus screen isn't available on the E-M1 as you know which adds to the difficulty of focusing quickly on any subject that isn't perfectly still. The models are use to setting a relatively quick shot-to-shot pace with AF lenses.

Here is an image of the same model taken with each lens. The comparison isn't totally fair however. The model is posing for me with the 12-40 image and is lit by a beauty dish with 3 reflectors under her. I'm standing off to the side with the 50/1.7 image and she is lit with a ring light. The catch lights in her eyes shows both lighting arrangements.

Both images got a WB tweek, blemish removal, capture and output sharpening (12-40 sharpening was less aggressive) and a crop in post. The 50/1.7 image also got NR, skin smoothing, scratch removal, clarity and a saturation boost in addition. The 12-40 image had a smidgen of contrast added.

So different lighting and different processing. I don't remember what aperture I used with the Hexanon but it doesn't look like I stopped down as much.

The bottomline is the lens can work for you but I think you'll eventually be happier with a native AF portrait lens when you can get one.

Here's the images downsized to 1024 on the long end:

E-M! + Hexanon AR 50mm F1.7

E-M1 + 12-40mm F/2.8

--
'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at
his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
and I know it was not that blow that did it,
but all that had gone before.'
-- Jacob Riis (1849 - 1914)

Stay Well,
Pete K.

 

[_vlad]

Since center of the lens is where usually sharpness exists, I guess using it on m43 sensor is just about right? Yes, you will lose half of the resolution but that can only be seen if you view the image at more than 50%. I don't usually print a size of more than 16x20 so I think I am fine with the result that I will get here. Thanks for sharing your detailed information, they are appreciated!

Using Takumar 1,4/50mm I discovered few things quite interesting

1. The sharpness (detail) was quite OK even wide opened but microcontrast was poor. Kind of hazing glowing or fogging - to describe it. For portraits OK though.

2. Bokeh was really poor - busy and really distracting - surprisingly it was better at AV 2 then 1.4

3. It was a FF lens - so I expected no problems with soft corners on M43 sensor but opposite was true. Not even close to some good M43 dedicated primes/zooms.

4. Excellent macro with tubes - I loved it!

My 0,02$

 

[Gone for Good]

is bothersome in the eyes. Do you add a white spot to make it more natural?

 

[Pete_CSCS]

is bothersome in the eyes. Do you add a white spot to make it more natural?

... do anything to alter it. I kind of liked the look of it for a change. Here's a few others with the light.

Here's one using 2 softboxes. You can see them in the eyes also.

--
'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at
his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
and I know it was not that blow that did it,
but all that had gone before.'
-- Jacob Riis (1849 - 1914)


Stay Well,
Pete K.

 

[LMNCT]

Lens design and coatings have advanced and left the older lenses behind. The older lenses are fun to play with, but they will not deliver the best results (in most cases...there are some exceptions).