Use of Vintage Lenses Help .

zorbo

zorbo

Messages
283
Name
john
Edit My Images
Yes
I am looking for advice regarding the use of Vintage Lenses and adapters to fit my om1 MFT body.
I have been watching a few Yu tube videos on the subject and wish to try it out for myself.90% of the time i shoot in Monochrome/BW and as im not good at processing and i mainly shoot jpg.
I am totally clueless on what size lens or fitting ,but am leaning to the smaller fast vintage Primes. My photography is varied and ill shoot anything that interests me at all.So i am not limited to any particular subject.All i know is that special adapters are needed to take the old fittings.
As i only shoot in BW i am not looking for perfectly pin sharp images but lenese that would be better suited to my type of Photography.Hope this all makes sense. Thank You.
 
Well, the good news is that with an adapter the world is your oyster. If you want the widest range of lenses to play with I would recommend the M42 - M 4/3 adapter. But you must be aware that you're talking manual focus here.
 
Last edited:
You need an adapter which in its description goes from the lens to the camera. If you follow my meaning. For example Olympus Zuiko (lens) to Micro Four Thirds (camera.) There are loads of adapters for just about everything on ebay.

There are also some new modern manual focus lenses available in MFT mount, so you wont need an adapter. For example here...

www.pergear.com

Products

www.pergear.com www.pergear.com

I have quite a few manual film era lenses but keep in mind that the field of view is subject to the crop factor (x2 for MFT) so a 50mm lens looks like a 100mm lens when mounted on a MFT camera.
 
Last edited:
Almost any of the OM series of prime lenses would suit you although there was a question mark over the early 28mm/F3.5. The F2,8 versions were fine. Some of the lenses suffered from sticking diaphragm blades where they would be slow to open or close or both. A service was enough to sort this out.
Olympus sometimes made a similar focal length lenses with a smaller aperture, say 2.8 or 3.5 then one with an F2 aperture. Apart from the F3.5 28mm mentioned earlier.
I have at some time owned the 21mm, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm 135mm 200mm and 300mm and all were very good. They also made an 18mm F3.5 which I have not used.

There is another exception and that is a short zoom they made which was 35/70mm which came in 3 versions. A 3.5/4.5 and F4 constant but they were all out performed by a F3.6 constant which always attracted a premium price because they were so good. I have not seen one for sale for years!
 
You can probably use any vintage lend that you can find with the right adapter, just as long as it doesn't use electronics to control the aperture (like Nikon G lenses, though they aren't yet vintage). Amazon have a good range of dumb adapters, and because of the short mount-flange to sensor distance, getting something designed for SLRs to fit should be easy.

FWIW I've used successfully manual lenses with Nikon F, Contax, T2 and M42 thread mounts on my Sony A7. Pentax K, Canon FD and Olympus would certainly also work. If you're not sure what adapter to use then you can certainy ask for advice here.
 
Last edited:
Thank you any comments or tips are much apreciated ,Im just trying to get an idea of what to look for as a first lens before i make a purchase. Then an adapter to suit.
 
Woof Woof thanks for the Link ill have a closere look into that.
 
zorbo said:
Thank you any comments or tips are much apreciated ,Im just trying to get an idea of what to look for as a first lens before i make a purchase. Then an adapter to suit.
Click to expand...

What sort of focal length and aperture do you want, what kind of subjects? The disadvantage of the M43 format with vintage lenses is an effective doubling of focal length. Lenses wide enough to give a 'standard' field of view on M43 were relatively rare, 28mm being the usual wide angle and 24mm or less fairly exotic and often not very good unless from one of the big names.

If you wanted to dabble at low cost then I'd suggest something this this Sigma 24mm f2.8 for £40: https://www.harrisoncameras.co.uk/p...-wide-ii-lens---pentax-pk-a--fit_used-5142057

And an adapter like this £31 https://www.amazon.co.uk/Concept-Ad...s+adapter+pentax+k+to+m43,aps,84&sr=8-17&th=1

Or this £20 : https://www.amazon.co.uk/KECAY-Adap...s+adapter+pentax+k+to+m43,aps,84&sr=8-17&th=1
 
There's also a range of Voigtlander lenses in MFT mount. They tend to be expensive though, but beautifully made.

Years ago I had the Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 for MFT and the amount of detail it could record was beyond anything I'd previously seen from MFT.

MFT- Mount | Voigtländer

www.voigtlaender.de www.voigtlaender.de
 
I got myself an AstrHori 50mm Tilt/Shift in MFT mount to play with. Cheap (relatively), if interested in architecture type shots.
 
Hello John, I have a set of adapters for most lenses out there for my EM1 MkII and have tested a huge number of lenses.

My advice would be avoid zooms unless you just want to have fun with a cheap lens.

As for primes, the world is your oyster.

I love my Takumar 50mm F/1,4 (the radioactive one) and I have a lovely Helios 44 too. Otherwise, just grab a few lenses off eBay or at auction and see how you like them. I have a Jupiter 11 that is fun to use and I'm also playing around with a projector lens from Leitz.

Of all the lenses I have tried, my fave is the Takumar.

Most of my adapters have come form K&F, never had an issue.
 
I have just seen an Olympus Zuiko 21mm/F2 which is actually rare and priced at over £2500!
 
woof woof said:
I have quite a few manual film era lenses but keep in mind that the field of view is subject to the crop factor (x2 for MFT) so a 50mm lens looks like a 100mm lens when mounted on a MFT camera.
Click to expand...
As the OP already has an OM1, he'll be familiar with the 2x crop of MFT. An adapted lens will have exactly the same FoV as a native MFT lens of the same focal length. The use of crop factors is only relevant when talking to someone more familiar with FF bodies.

One limitation of adapting lenses is there aren't many in what would be wide angle focal lengths for MFT.
SLR and rangefinder lenses for FF typically started at 24 or 28mm which give a normal FoV due to the smaller sensor/crop factor.
About the only quality affordable adapted lens I've found that gives a wide FoV is the 18mm/2.8 from the Pentax Auto 110 series.

C-mount cine lenses can be used (and can often be brought bundled with an adapter for very little) but sadly the shorter focal lengths very rarely cover MFT. 25mm and longer usually do.

I find rangefinder lenses, in Leica thread mount (LTM) are often much more compact than SLR lenses and can be reasonably affordable - at least those made in Russia. Focal lengths however are limited & they don't go as fast as the more familiar SLR ranges, 50mm/3.5 would be fairly typical.

I've found adapting lenses to my various cameras to be an enjoyable challenge - most are relatively easy, working well with a purchased adapter as long as you focus them properly and remember to set the desired aperture on the lens (Av or M modes). Others such as projector lenses can need a little DIY. I suspect it would be sensible to try and restrict yourself to just a few mounts to adapt, but GAS gets the better of me & I have brought cheap lenses purely because I haven't used one in that mount yet...
 
Some really helpfull comments and thank you all .ATM my widest lens is oly 12-100 pro so i am thinking of a small fast lens maybee for close ups.
I have tried street photography and found it too intimidating for me (pensioner) i did have the laowa 7.5 lens but traded it in.Wish i had kept it now.
I will have a look round a cpl of charity shops that i know sometimes have old lenses in now i have a little more info. Than You all again.
 
Petrochemist said:
As the OP already has an OM1, he'll be familiar with the 2x crop of MFT. An adapted lens will have exactly the same FoV as a native MFT lens of the same focal length. The use of crop factors is only relevant when talking to someone more familiar with FF bodies.
Click to expand...

I think I disagree but in any case it's just a line of type to consider in case people get carried away with the thought of a 50mm f1.8 for £20, look at the number of times people on this forum recommend a "nifty fifty" to people with crop bodies.

As I tend to prefer lenses in the 28-50mm range I find that most reasonably priced film era lenses are too long on MFT with 24mm and wider lenses being the only ones that really hit my preferred range although I suppose a 28mm might just scrape in. These wider lenses tend to be f2.8 or slower and perhaps even then still push the budget with wider aperture options being much more likely to push the budget.

50mm f1.8's are arguably more reasonably priced but they give a tighter view unless of course you like a "FF" 100mm FoV and in that case a 50mm f1.8 on MFT is a nice thing....

zorbo said:
Some really helpfull comments and thank you all .ATM my widest lens is oly 12-100 pro so i am thinking of a small fast lens maybee for close ups.
I have tried street photography and found it too intimidating for me (pensioner) i did have the laowa 7.5 lens but traded it in.Wish i had kept it now.
I will have a look round a cpl of charity shops that i know sometimes have old lenses in now i have a little more info. Than You all again.
Click to expand...

A 50mm f1.8 might be the way to go then and I'd also recommend close up filters. I often use a No.4 close up filter. These allow closer focus without the need to take the lens off to fit an extension tube.
 
One other thing to bear in mind is that as well as your effective focal length doubling, so does your depth of field.

It may (or may not) matter to you, but when looking for lenses, if you're looking for the lovely, shallow depth of field you get from faster lenses, you won't achieve the same look by using a FF 50mm f/1.8 on MFT as you would by using the same lens on a full-frame body.

For starters you'll get the same field of view as you would from a 100mm lens on FF, but you'd also effectively double the depth of field. This is different from it affecting the exposure capabilities as the depth of field is a by product of the focal length.

All of which is a complicated way to say that a FF f/1.8 lens on an MFT camera will behave like an f/3.6 lens in terms of bokeh, and DOF.

The best solution would be to use lenses designed for MFT or try to get your head around the restrictions that using vintage lenses on a smaller body bring.

You also mentioned macro - I've no idea how the macro capabilities of lenses are affected when you switch systems.
 
Last edited:
Kell said:
One thing to bear in mind (and it may or may not matter to you) is that when looking for lenses, if you're looking for the lovely, shallow depth of field you get from faster lenses, you won't achieve the same look by using a 50mm f/1.8 on MFT as you would by using the same lens on a full-frame body.

You'd effectively double the depth of field. This is different from light-gathering capabilities as the depth of filed is a by product of the focal length.

All of which is a complicated way to say that a FF f/1.8 lens on an MFT camera will behave like an f/3.6 lens in terms of bokeh, and DOF.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I disagree.
 
StephenM said:
I'm afraid I disagree.
Click to expand...
Care to explain why?

ETA - PS, I was editing my post while you quoted it. I don't think it makes any difference, but just FYI.

TBH - I struggle with it myself so I'd love it explained properly.

I used to have a Canon FF and APS-C and the same lens (a nifty-fifty 1.8) definitely didn't just produce a cropped version of the same image on both cameras.

I've seen it explained like that before. That nothing changes except the size of the image, i.e. the result is the same as if you'd taken the image from a FF camera into any editing software and cropped into the central portion of it. I didn't find that.

But I've just looked at a DOF calculator online which suggested that using a 50mm f/1.8 on a 5D and an OM-D would result in the depth of field being twice as big on the Canon. Which is at odds with what I thought.

1711550725065.png

1711550755875.png

It also goes completely against what I found with my 5D v 80D (which I no longer have), but also when comparing the 5D against an RX10 at the same focal length and F/stop.

5D3 v RX10M4 by Kell, on Flickr

So now I'm more confused than ever and wish I'd kept my mouth shut.

Anyway, back to the OP - good luck with it. It's definitely cheaper to get (some) vintage lenses than a modern counterpart and makes for a much more compact package.

Compare my 70-200 Canon v the 70-210 Miranda. Albeit the Miranda isn't an f/2.8...

img_5255-jpeg.412810
 
Last edited:
Just a quick story from me: I just received my first two vintage lenses to use on my Full Frame dslr . . . One vintage lens has an 'auto - manual' slider and the other has an aperture pre-set consisting of two aperture rings; The first ring opens the aperture wide open then I need to set the aperture with the second ring, then close the first ring until it is physically stopped on reaching the aperture just set on the second ring - this allows focusing wide open with the first ring (for the light) and then guarantees the correct aperture on turning as that has already been 'pre-set' with the second ring. One lens had 15 aperture blades for round bokeh highlights at any aperture and the other is radioactive ! . . . I spent hours and hours (and hours) looking it all up on the internet too, good fun albeit a bit frustrating at times. Good luck and keep us posted !
 
Kell said:
The best solution would be to use lenses designed for MFT or try to get your head around the restrictions that using vintage lenses on a smaller body bring.
Click to expand...
Or from what I have been reading recently(no first hand experience) look into a speed booster which would keep the native focal length/ FOV of the lens and give around a stop more light. A bit pricey but they sound really good.
 
Kell said:
Care to explain why?
Click to expand...


I'm afraid not - I've found that if my conclusion is isn't accepted, no amount of reasoning and explanation will change people's minds. I made the response simply to indicate that I have grounds for dissent, but I know that if an internet site with half reasonable respectibility (like the one you cite) say, or even appear to say, the opposite, my reasoning will be dismissed.

So it's my policy now to NEVER explain or justify, as not being worth the the trouble.

My apologies if this comes across as rude, possibly next time I disagree with a post I'll just pass it by.
 
No problem.

I've read several articles on it in the past (and some more today) and still can't make up my mind. I think it makes a difference, but I've not specifically set out to prove (or disprove) it. Any of the 'tests' I've done have been observations while comparing something else.

The 5D v the RX10 for example was me comparing iq, not specifically looking to see if DOF remained constant.

the 80D v 5D were never side-by-side comparisons, just a feeling I got when looking back on shots using the same lens on both bodies. I no longer have two different cameras that will accept the same lens to try it again.

What I do have now though is a whole range of vintage Minolta Manual lenses that will mount on a FF Sony. And the results are great.

Lens Line up by Kell, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
PM sent. Expansion given if you want figures. I admit to having sometimes thought about applying partial differentiation to the formula to quantify the exact effects of the various factors.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top