Great video! I hate those youtubers who jump into the audience and try to speak as fast as machine guns. I love well, paced, calmed and clear explanations and you've just done that! Thanks for sharing!
Since my 50s I have developed mobility issues and the purpose of me mentioning this is I find the MFT system very compact and light in weight for travel photography. If I'm honest, I never really got on with bulky cameras, which is why I chose Olympus SLRs. Thank goodness I did as I now have some nice vintage gear to attach to my E-M10 IIIs. I also have a Canon M50 so I find bokeh is much easier with APS-C but the reach MFT gives me with smaller, lighter long lenses is fabulous. Quite often we hear about the cons of format types when we should be paying more attention to their strengths. Thank you for including MFT in your channel as I feel it is much overlooked.
Very useful video. I recently bought an Olympus OMD EM10 mk1 body to use with my vintage Zuiko lenses (and Urth OM to M43 adapter). Such a great little camera and the usual high Olympus build quality. I also found that 1.4 lenses have trouble focusing so I sold mine - who needs that hassle?
Very informative indeed, this guy has done a lot of work end experimentation for all our benefit. I shudder to think of what he has spent on all his cameras and lenses.
Thank you for this informative video. I have recently made my way into the world of micro 4/3 and have been looking at the possibility of getting some vintage glass. You definitely provided value to me and I do appreciate it.
Absolutely enjoyed this video! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and the shots you made are wonderful! Was inspired to look it up since I just got a 4/3rds to M4/3rds adapter and two zuiko digital lenses, and I loved the results so much. Looking at vintage options is definitely an exciting next step in my thrifty camera kit journey ❤😊
Very interesting video which has whetted my appetite, thank You! But one hint: street photography is NOT merely shooting persons on streets, it is telling "street stories" and thus requires the presentation of the environment - and for that light wide angle lenses and small distances are important!
You're quite right, it's just that when I'm on the street the main thing I'm interested in is people, so I tend to emphasise street portraits. Thanks for watching!
Another great video. I am new to vintage lenses and I am really enjoying your videos. Quick question; are you sure only the central part of a full frame lens is used? Surely this isn't correct, I am pretty sure you can't map light to a certain part of a lens. A point of light within the field of view hits every part of the lens, and a M4/3 sensor captures the centre part of the projected circle. Not trying to be a know it all, I am honestly not convinced your right on that one.
Very interesting upload, I was aware of the x2 crop factor but not the ability to focus closer or the aperture alteration, I have used a Panasonic GX7 with my vintage glass with good results and the focus peaking seems to work well.
Vintage lenses do not focus closer depending on the camera in which they're mounted. That is simply not true. A lens doesn't care what it's mounted on, the physics involved will behave the same- you're just using a smaller part of the projected image, hence the crop factor.
The aperture bit is completely true though. Also to keep in mind, with physically smaller pixels, diffraction will set in at wider apertures than a FF cameras of the same resolution. Therefore, I would highly recommend you not stop your lenses down below 5.6 unless you absolutely need to for the effect you want. The sharpest theoretical aperture on a 20mp MFT sensor is about f/4.7 technically. A 20mp FF sensor will have the same theoretical sharpness around f/9 and effective DOF will be similar. If matching DOF/sharpness like this, the low light advantages of FF will be mostly mitigated. If wanting to research further, look into "circles of confusion".
I guess you like Olympus lenses. As a former Nikon owner before going M4/3, I have a soft spot for Nikkor lenses. I recently picked up a Micro Nikkor 55mm F3.5 lens for use with my G3. I've needed a good Macro lens, and this one works nicely. It should also be a nice portrait lens with an effective FL of 110mm. BTW the effective aperture of a lens for depth of field is double the actual setting, but for exposure the effective aperture remains the actual setting.
I have enjoyed using a vintage Helios lens on my Cannon m6.... I’ve used both the cannon eos adaptor and viltrox speed booster and both have good results. Thanks for this video...
I appreciate this explanation of focal length changes of vintage lenses > micro four thirds.Very helpful. Two questions: what if you need deep focus and sharp backgrounds to tell a visual story? what focal length do you start with? can you walk us through that?
Well, generally speaking, the wider the focal length, the deeper focus your lens will have, so a 28 has greater dof than a 50. Also, stopping down your lens will greatly increase dof - shoot at f5.8 or f8 for best results. Thirdly, the greater the subject to camera distance, the less background blur your lens will make. Perhaps a stopped down 35mm lens would be a good place to start?
You talked about minimum focus distane become shorter in some videos before. I have to say. They have magnificaton bigger because the photos have been cropped 2x. Not because minimum focus distance change. Sensor size make field of view change Thats all The lenses alaway perform the same , nomatter which sensor/camera they mounted in. (Sorry for bad english, i tried my best)
It's worth mentioning that although depth of field equivalence is multiplied on a M4/3 sensor, so is focal length. So the "converted aperture" (to use a misnomer as light gathering capability remains the same) is that of a longer lens. In other words a 50mm f2 lens isn't a slow standard lens, it's an average aperture telephoto on a micro four-thirds body. Which is why out of focus effects aren't an issue on M4/3. Vintage lenses on digital cameras show their age because of the resolving potential of high megapixel sensors, not through any deficiency in the format. What looked sharp in a 15 x 10" print from film will look equally so in digital - but it won't hold up at 200%!
M43 also looks worse with vintage glass because of physical pixel size. The more pixels you have closer together on any format, the harder it is for a lens (of the same image circle... But not going to get into that) to match that raw sensor resolution.
Thank God I have the little Zuiko 28 and the EF to M4/3 adapter on way from the east.. I already have selection of cheap EF adapters.. P.S. 300 mm ! I will get Tair 3 out... perhaps with Vivitar X 2 = Effective 1200mm.. : )
I picked up a used Panasonic GX1 to pair with adapters for my Contax\Yashica lenses and and now have an adapter for Olympus OM lenses on order. I tried a Nikon G-Type adapter for some DX F-mount lenses, and that was a horrible experience... lenses made for AF are not comfortable to manually focus easily and chunky for AF and VR as in the case of Nikon DX lenses. Wish the GX1 had a EVF built instead of the optional EVF attachment...make focusing easier.
I think the best focussing aid for mirrorless cameras with manual focus lenses is focus peaking - not sure if your camera has that? The magnification feature is also very useful and gives very accurate focus. It may be worth buying a viewfinder, to make the experience a little easier?
The version I have is by Fotodiox which is cheaper than the TechArt Pro version. The firmware updates appear to be compatible. Here's a review of the TechArt version: ruclips.net/video/w7SFi8j3dUE/видео.html
Another good video although it is worth mentioning that lenses designed for full frame cameras may not give as sharp results on crop bodies (apsc or M4/3) as the design of the lenses are quite different. It's less important with legacy glass but I just wanted to point it out, as it is more complex than saying that the sensor only 'sees' the centre of the projected image when used on a crop body. Nice work though
You're right, FF lenses aren't quite the same on M4/3, and not always at their best, however I find them to be perfectly useable, and fun too! Thanks for watching.
One of my favorite vintage lenses is the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS from 1980. On my film Nikons it produces gorgeous images, but on my Olympus MFT cameras, I cannot seem to get any image worth keeping. Its sharpness becomes too soft and the crisp colors seem to blend into blurred blobs. Precise focusing is also difficult even with peaking but it's doable. My older Zuikos don't act like that. Why would this happen with that beautiful Nikkor (which is in excellent shape)? I've tried 3 different adapters but all are disappointing. Why??
This is very odd. I've experienced a very slight loss of quality with all FF lenses on M4/3 bodies, but not noticeable unless you look very hard, and certainly not like what you describe. I would suggest an adaptor fault but as you've tried three... I suppose if they were all the same make it could be a bad batch?
That 105 is notoriously unsharp. (Usually flaunted as a benefit though as it's usually considered as a portrait only lens) As pixels get physically smaller and closer together (as on MFT or 61mp FF sensors), the demand on the lens is greater, hence the softness is more obvious on a smaller format. On a 20mp FF sensor, the lens would preform much better though it's still not the lens for biting sharpness. That all said, I love the Nikkor 105 2.5 P.
Hi I’ve been watching a few of your videos and purchased a couple old Zuiko lenses for my MFT cameras. Any thoughts on focal reducers? Have you tried any? I love my Zuiko 28mm but I find the 50mm a bit too long. It’s telephoto area. Great job. I’m looking forward to watching more.
Lens Zuiko 38/1.8 film olympus pen-F - best lens from micro 4/3 .
4 года назад
Very relevant information and wonderful job. I have an Olympus OM-D EM-10 Mark II (MFT) and I'm looking for a not so expensive lens with a focal less than 28mm. I have an Industar 61 and I know the Industar 69, but if I can find a 15, 17, or 20 mm, that would be great. Any ideas ?
These angles tend to be expensive and I can't immediately think of a budget one. However, I recently used a Miranda 24mm f2.8 that I found entirely satisfactory. It vignettes a bit on full frame but you wouldn't notice that on M4/3, and it would give you (effectively) a focal length of 48mm. Hope that helps!
I have, for both Nikon F and Olympus OM mount, a Metabones Speedbooster. I then multiply with X0,71 to get the focal length and I gain one stop. Those increase also the sharpness, but are expensive. Now I have several glasses, what give med F:/0,85. When it's dark, and you can't see, but still possible to take photos handheld with my Oly. What about the Mitakon 85/1.2. Sharp as ... wide open, and it gives 60/0.85 with speedbooster. Heavy, but creamy as a ... !
I also have a Nikkor 300/2.8 ED AIS. That lens give me equivalent 420/2.0 - 600/2.8 - 840/4.0 and 1200/5.6 with TC and without, and Metabones Speedbooster. A beast.
Most vintage lenses are a little imperfect towards the edges, so using them on M43 cameras means you look through the central, 'better' part of the lens. There's a trade off though, as there is always a slight loss in sharpness - unless you use a speedbooster that is, which allows you to look through the whole of the lens. Speedboosters are a bit pricey though...
Want some small m43 lenses? Look no further than the Pentax 110 series of lenses. They are absolutely tiny, can be easily adapted with tiny adapters, pretty high quality and cheap!
Excellent collection! About the 50mm flare/reflection. Were you shooting with the filter on? I had similar experience with my FD lenses and found out that the culprit is the old filter.
Hi, I've a Olympus OM-D E-M1 and from my very old Pentax MG I also have the following lens: - Pentax 1:1.7 50mm -Tokura 1:3.5-4.5 28-70mm and -Tokura 1:4.0-5.6 70-210mm So my answer is, is it possible to use these lens in my Olympus, if yes, how and is it worthy? Thanks
You can use all of these lenses on your em1. They sound like K mount lenses, so you'll need a K mount to micro four thirds adaptor to mount them on your camera. Enjoy!
Sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field. Depth of field is determined by Focal length, focal ratio and distance to subject. Longer focal length, wider f/ratio and closer distance to subject all contribute to a shallower depth of field. Sensor size gives different fields of view for a given focal length. To get the same field of view as a full frame sensor with a 50mm lens, a M43 lens should be 25mm focal length. But if you are happy with the field of view of a 50mm lens on your M43 sensor, it will have exactly the same depth of field and bokeh as if it were used on a full frame sensor, any other sensor of any size.
One mistake in your video: you need to double the aperture number, for equivalent depth of field. f/2 lens on mft body is f/4 equivalent, not “f/3.5”, etc. For exposure, ie “light gathering”, it’s still f/2.
On smaller sensor bodies you do lose the outer portion of the image circle, changing the character of the lens to some degree, but images can still be quite spectacular!
@@thomaslilly5834 pretty sure what the OP meant was for instance a Nikon to Canon EF adapter to then attach to the speed booster with the EF mount. I do this all the time. Most of my vintage lenses are Nikon or Olympus but my speed booster has an EF mount
About depth of field with micro four thirds.................I too have often heard it said that (to take the example used in this video) a lens set at f2 when used on an M4/3 camera will produce the approximate equivalent depth of field of the same lens set at f3.5 on a full frame camera. I am bound to ask this question. The same lens placed on a FF camera and then taken off that camera and placed on an M4/3 camera does not magically change its optics. DoF is amongst other things (such as its focal length, distance from the subject etc) a product of its optical design. What magical change takes place when a lens is removed from an FF camera and placed on an M4/3 camera which changes its optical design? Short answer - it does not, the optical design of that lens is the same no matter what camera it is mounted on assuming it is correctly mounted at the correct flange distance for that lens. If it is true that the DOF changes I have never heard a cogent explanation as to why (or how) it can be so. It is, on the other hand, true that (lets say) a 50mm lens DESIGNED FOR AN M4/3 camera having an aperture of f2 (to continue with this example) can be expected to have less depth of field at that aperture setting than a 50mm lens designed for a full frame camera at f2. Why? The FF lens is typically designed with bigger optical components (to provide coverage of the larger area of the FF sensor). A 50mm lens designed for an m4/3 body is only designed to provide an image circle for that sensor and is typically much smaller. That means the aperture of the FF lens will be physically larger at each operating aperture and it is the physical size of the aperture which determines DOF ( other things being equal). When you take that FF lens and place it on an adapter and mount it on a M4/3 body the lens does not "know" what body is being used - as far as it is concerned it could be mounted on a body with a FF sensor. Nothing has changed about the lens or its optical characteristics. The lens is agnostic about what camera it is mounted on. It does not know that some of the light passing through it will be absorbed by the interior of the camera rather than the sensor itself. Hence the depth of field must be the same on both cameras. All that differs in the case of an M4/3 body is that the sensor is smaller and hence it only captures the central part of the image circle. As far as I can see it, this does not affect DOF.
Thanks for the explanation - you're right of course, nothing about an FF lens changes when mounted on an M43 body, but the effective focal length is different (multiplied by 2). As I understand it, with an FF lens on an M43 body, DOF for a given shot effectively changes because double the subject to camera distance is required (effective focal length is multiplied by 2). So if a shot with lens A on an FF camera is taken from 1 metre away, if lens A is then mounted on a M43 body, 2 metres will be needed to get the same shot, increasing DOF in the process.
Does it also mean that because a vintage lens's f number is being increased on MFT, it is also reducing the light that the lens would let in even MORE on an MFT system?
Not quite, because (as far as I know) the way the adapter fits on the extra light isn't being focused onto the sensor. For that you'll need a speed booster to focus the light onto the sensor. Please, if this is wrong someone correct me
@@lolapplesauce you seem to have made the same point I am. If it's not being focused on to the sensor, it means that light's being "lost". So I am losing light that normally on a full frame camera would have made it to the sensor.
The old rule is 1/(focal length) so minimum for the: 28mm- 1/30s 50mm - 1/60s 100mm- 1/125s 300mm- 1-320s Use a tripod if needing to shoot at slower speeds. Though keep in mind to switch the IBIS setting when you change lenses. The setting needs to match the lens.
In one sense it is, but digital noise is usually considered less pleasing because pixels have straight lines, whereas silver halide molecules don't; because of that the noise of each has a different character.
In general I really enjoy watching your videos but in this case I was put off by the flawed introduction. You neglect to mention the loss of resolution and light gathering ability when adapting a vintage lens without a speedbooster. Also, you totally don't talk about speedboosters/focal reducers, essential in this context imo.
@@borderlands6606 Yes, but at the same time, I totally don't agree with you. When you adapt a fullframe lens with a simple extension tube to MFT then you are throwing away a huge amount of resolution and light. Simply because most of the resolution power and light does not hit the sensor. This effect is far stronger than the loss of resolution due to using a speedbooster.
@@Kelkschiz The advantage of a speedbooster is to retain the original focal length and aperture on cameras of a smaller format than the lens was designed for. Resolution will always suffer to some degree by the additional of more glass. It may be by a small amount depending on the quality of glass used (as with a filter), but will always be sub-optimal compared to a glass-less adapter.
@@borderlands6606 Sorry but you are not looking at the complete picture of what speedboosters do and their implications. Which I've tried to point out. Let's agree to disagree.
@@Kelkschiz I am looking at the bigger picture :) Basically, a lens made for a 35mm film camera throws a bigger image circle than that required by a M4/3 sensor. This creates a telephoto effect. Let's say you have a circle of fungus in the middle of your vintage lens. In that circumstance a speed booster would reduce the impact of the blur on the image as a whole by reducing the proportion of the photograph occupied by the fungus. It wouldn't remove it, it wouldn't make the image sharper, it simply returns it to the original focal length by use of an extra element or elements. Thus making the fungus blob proportionally smaller in the frame. Adding glass is not a magic formula, a lens will only resolve as much as it was designed to do originally. The only way your supposition can be true is if you want to compare a 50mm film lens to a 25mm M4/3 lens. Which is isn't, it's a de facto telephoto. It will never be a micro four-thirds standard lens, but a reduced tele lens with all that entails.
Great video! I hate those youtubers who jump into the audience and try to speak as fast as machine guns. I love well, paced, calmed and clear explanations and you've just done that! Thanks for sharing!
Thanks, glad you appreciate the slower rhythm!
I've learned from you and your enthusiasm is contagious...Lucky my wife is understanding!
I'm glad to hear it!
Since my 50s I have developed mobility issues and the purpose of me mentioning this is I find the MFT system very compact and light in weight for travel photography. If I'm honest, I never really got on with bulky cameras, which is why I chose Olympus SLRs. Thank goodness I did as I now have some nice vintage gear to attach to my E-M10 IIIs. I also have a Canon M50 so I find bokeh is much easier with APS-C but the reach MFT gives me with smaller, lighter long lenses is fabulous. Quite often we hear about the cons of format types when we should be paying more attention to their strengths. Thank you for including MFT in your channel as I feel it is much overlooked.
I think it is somewhat overlooked, but it's a great little system - and the Olympus colours are quite something too!
Am so glad you popped I to my feed. So easy to listen to, some great examples of what the lenses do ...thank you 👍
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Very useful video. I recently bought an Olympus OMD EM10 mk1 body to use with my vintage Zuiko lenses (and Urth OM to M43 adapter). Such a great little camera and the usual high Olympus build quality. I also found that 1.4 lenses have trouble focusing so I sold mine - who needs that hassle?
M 50mm f1.8 M.Zuiko lens produces fabulous results on mr EM1 ii.
Very informative indeed, this guy has done a lot of work end experimentation for all our benefit. I shudder to think of what he has spent on all his cameras and lenses.
Thank you for this informative video. I have recently made my way into the world of micro 4/3 and have been looking at the possibility of getting some vintage glass.
You definitely provided value to me and I do appreciate it.
Absolutely enjoyed this video! Thank you for sharing your knowledge and the shots you made are wonderful! Was inspired to look it up since I just got a 4/3rds to M4/3rds adapter and two zuiko digital lenses, and I loved the results so much. Looking at vintage options is definitely an exciting next step in my thrifty camera kit journey ❤😊
my Olympus EM-10 MKII arrives next week, this is a very useful video, thanks!
Glad it was useful, thanks!
Love all your videos. You inspire me to want to shoot my vintage lens :-)
My first M 4/3 cam on the way... £26 eBay.. And here we are.. Zenography after quick search.. Thank you !
No problem, enjoy!
@@zenography7923 Thanks. Actually looking forward to trying it out... Panasonic G1
Very interesting video which has whetted my appetite, thank You!
But one hint: street photography is NOT merely shooting persons on streets, it is telling "street stories" and thus requires the presentation of the environment - and for that light wide angle lenses and small distances are important!
You're quite right, it's just that when I'm on the street the main thing I'm interested in is people, so I tend to emphasise street portraits. Thanks for watching!
Another great video. I am new to vintage lenses and I am really enjoying your videos. Quick question; are you sure only the central part of a full frame lens is used? Surely this isn't correct, I am pretty sure you can't map light to a certain part of a lens. A point of light within the field of view hits every part of the lens, and a M4/3 sensor captures the centre part of the projected circle. Not trying to be a know it all, I am honestly not convinced your right on that one.
Hey, thank you, that was very informative!
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Very interesting upload, I was aware of the x2 crop factor but not the ability to focus closer or the aperture alteration, I have used a Panasonic GX7 with my vintage glass with good results and the focus peaking seems to work well.
Vintage lenses do not focus closer depending on the camera in which they're mounted. That is simply not true. A lens doesn't care what it's mounted on, the physics involved will behave the same- you're just using a smaller part of the projected image, hence the crop factor.
The aperture bit is completely true though. Also to keep in mind, with physically smaller pixels, diffraction will set in at wider apertures than a FF cameras of the same resolution. Therefore, I would highly recommend you not stop your lenses down below 5.6 unless you absolutely need to for the effect you want. The sharpest theoretical aperture on a 20mp MFT sensor is about f/4.7 technically. A 20mp FF sensor will have the same theoretical sharpness around f/9 and effective DOF will be similar. If matching DOF/sharpness like this, the low light advantages of FF will be mostly mitigated. If wanting to research further, look into "circles of confusion".
I guess you like Olympus lenses. As a former Nikon owner before going M4/3, I have a soft spot for Nikkor lenses. I recently picked up a Micro Nikkor 55mm F3.5 lens for use with my G3. I've needed a good Macro lens, and this one works nicely. It should also be a nice portrait lens with an effective FL of 110mm. BTW the effective aperture of a lens for depth of field is double the actual setting, but for exposure the effective aperture remains the actual setting.
Super video I'm thinking of buying vintage lenses for my gx80
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Thank you so much! This is exactly the information I was looking for.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I have enjoyed using a vintage Helios lens on my Cannon m6.... I’ve used both the cannon eos adaptor and viltrox speed booster and both have good results. Thanks for this video...
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
I appreciate this explanation of focal length changes of vintage lenses > micro four thirds.Very helpful. Two questions: what if you need deep focus and sharp backgrounds to tell a visual story? what focal length do you start with? can you walk us through that?
Well, generally speaking, the wider the focal length, the deeper focus your lens will have, so a 28 has greater dof than a 50. Also, stopping down your lens will greatly increase dof - shoot at f5.8 or f8 for best results. Thirdly, the greater the subject to camera distance, the less background blur your lens will make. Perhaps a stopped down 35mm lens would be a good place to start?
Good vid mate , how about macro and bellows on these cameras?? 👍🇬🇧👌
You talked about minimum focus distane become shorter in some videos before. I have to say. They have magnificaton bigger because the photos have been cropped 2x. Not because minimum focus distance change.
Sensor size make field of view change
Thats all
The lenses alaway perform the same , nomatter which sensor/camera they mounted in.
(Sorry for bad english, i tried my best)
Exactly right; that's why I'm always careful to refer to effective focal length, not actual!
It's worth mentioning that although depth of field equivalence is multiplied on a M4/3 sensor, so is focal length. So the "converted aperture" (to use a misnomer as light gathering capability remains the same) is that of a longer lens. In other words a 50mm f2 lens isn't a slow standard lens, it's an average aperture telephoto on a micro four-thirds body. Which is why out of focus effects aren't an issue on M4/3. Vintage lenses on digital cameras show their age because of the resolving potential of high megapixel sensors, not through any deficiency in the format. What looked sharp in a 15 x 10" print from film will look equally so in digital - but it won't hold up at 200%!
M43 also looks worse with vintage glass because of physical pixel size. The more pixels you have closer together on any format, the harder it is for a lens (of the same image circle... But not going to get into that) to match that raw sensor resolution.
Thank God I have the little Zuiko 28 and the EF to M4/3 adapter on way from the east.. I already have selection of cheap EF adapters.. P.S. 300 mm ! I will get Tair 3 out... perhaps with Vivitar X 2 = Effective 1200mm.. : )
Gosh, that's almost a telescope!
I picked up a used Panasonic GX1 to pair with adapters for my Contax\Yashica lenses and and now have an adapter for Olympus OM lenses on order. I tried a Nikon G-Type adapter for some DX F-mount lenses, and that was a horrible experience... lenses made for AF are not comfortable to manually focus easily and chunky for AF and VR as in the case of Nikon DX lenses. Wish the GX1 had a EVF built instead of the optional EVF attachment...make focusing easier.
I think the best focussing aid for mirrorless cameras with manual focus lenses is focus peaking - not sure if your camera has that? The magnification feature is also very useful and gives very accurate focus. It may be worth buying a viewfinder, to make the experience a little easier?
I love using my collection of vintage lenses with the Protodiox Pronto AF adapter on my Sony A7ii. It's quick and accurate... than me doing MF.
I'd love to try one of those...
The version I have is by Fotodiox which is cheaper than the TechArt Pro version. The firmware updates appear to be compatible.
Here's a review of the TechArt version:
ruclips.net/video/w7SFi8j3dUE/видео.html
Very informative thank you.
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
Another good video although it is worth mentioning that lenses designed for full frame cameras may not give as sharp results on crop bodies (apsc or M4/3) as the design of the lenses are quite different. It's less important with legacy glass but I just wanted to point it out, as it is more complex than saying that the sensor only 'sees' the centre of the projected image when used on a crop body. Nice work though
You're right, FF lenses aren't quite the same on M4/3, and not always at their best, however I find them to be perfectly useable, and fun too! Thanks for watching.
Another excellent video
Many thanks, glad you enjoyed it!
One of my favorite vintage lenses is the Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AIS from 1980. On my film Nikons it produces gorgeous images, but on my Olympus MFT cameras, I cannot seem to get any image worth keeping. Its sharpness becomes too soft and the crisp colors seem to blend into blurred blobs. Precise focusing is also difficult even with peaking but it's doable. My older Zuikos don't act like that. Why would this happen with that beautiful Nikkor (which is in excellent shape)? I've tried 3 different adapters but all are disappointing. Why??
This is very odd. I've experienced a very slight loss of quality with all FF lenses on M4/3 bodies, but not noticeable unless you look very hard, and certainly not like what you describe. I would suggest an adaptor fault but as you've tried three... I suppose if they were all the same make it could be a bad batch?
That 105 is notoriously unsharp. (Usually flaunted as a benefit though as it's usually considered as a portrait only lens)
As pixels get physically smaller and closer together (as on MFT or 61mp FF sensors), the demand on the lens is greater, hence the softness is more obvious on a smaller format. On a 20mp FF sensor, the lens would preform much better though it's still not the lens for biting sharpness.
That all said, I love the Nikkor 105 2.5 P.
Hi I’ve been watching a few of your videos and purchased a couple old Zuiko lenses for my MFT cameras. Any thoughts on focal reducers? Have you tried any? I love my Zuiko 28mm but I find the 50mm a bit too long. It’s telephoto area. Great job. I’m looking forward to watching more.
I can't help with focal reducers I'm afraid as I haven't used one yet - might be good for a future video though...
Zenography thanks for the reply. I will be sure to look out for the focal reducer video along with past and further videos.
What are your thoughts on adapting a carl zeiss jena biotar 58mm f2 on a micro four third body? Would this lens work better on a full frame body?
F2 on mft is f4 on full frame as far as I know. Not f3.5 as you stated
Lens Zuiko 38/1.8 film olympus pen-F - best lens from micro 4/3 .
Very relevant information and wonderful job. I have an Olympus OM-D EM-10 Mark II (MFT) and I'm looking for a not so expensive lens with a focal less than 28mm. I have an Industar 61 and I know the Industar 69, but if I can find a 15, 17, or 20 mm, that would be great. Any ideas ?
These angles tend to be expensive and I can't immediately think of a budget one. However, I recently used a Miranda 24mm f2.8 that I found entirely satisfactory. It vignettes a bit on full frame but you wouldn't notice that on M4/3, and it would give you (effectively) a focal length of 48mm. Hope that helps!
I have, for both Nikon F and Olympus OM mount, a Metabones Speedbooster. I then multiply with X0,71 to get the focal length and I gain one stop. Those increase also the sharpness, but are expensive. Now I have several glasses, what give med F:/0,85. When it's dark, and you can't see, but still possible to take photos handheld with my Oly.
What about the Mitakon 85/1.2. Sharp as ... wide open, and it gives 60/0.85 with speedbooster. Heavy, but creamy as a ... !
I also have a Nikkor 300/2.8 ED AIS. That lens give me equivalent 420/2.0 - 600/2.8 - 840/4.0 and 1200/5.6 with TC and without, and Metabones Speedbooster. A beast.
I wonder if bokeh is rounder for the whole m43 frame and avoids outer lens area lemons that are seen with full frame?
Most vintage lenses are a little imperfect towards the edges, so using them on M43 cameras means you look through the central, 'better' part of the lens. There's a trade off though, as there is always a slight loss in sharpness - unless you use a speedbooster that is, which allows you to look through the whole of the lens. Speedboosters are a bit pricey though...
Want some small m43 lenses? Look no further than the Pentax 110 series of lenses. They are absolutely tiny, can be easily adapted with tiny adapters, pretty high quality and cheap!
18mm, 24mm, 50mm, and 70mm available, btw.
You are right, very cheap lenses and very small... but they are clearly not the sharpest lenses.
Is micro four thirds equivalent to 1.5 crop factor?
Nice video indeed
Excellent collection! About the 50mm flare/reflection. Were you shooting with the filter on? I had similar experience with my FD lenses and found out that the culprit is the old filter.
Ah, that could very well be the problem! Thanks for the tip!
You're amazing!
Wow, thank you!
Hi, I've a Olympus OM-D E-M1 and from my very old Pentax MG I also have the following lens:
- Pentax 1:1.7 50mm
-Tokura 1:3.5-4.5 28-70mm and
-Tokura 1:4.0-5.6 70-210mm
So my answer is, is it possible to use these lens in my Olympus, if yes, how and is it worthy?
Thanks
You can use all of these lenses on your em1. They sound like K mount lenses, so you'll need a K mount to micro four thirds adaptor to mount them on your camera. Enjoy!
Did your Zuiko 50mm f/1.4 have a filter on it when you were shooting the night shots and getting all the unexpected reflections?
It did - but I'm pretty sure they're reflections off the sensor. No technology is perfect I guess...
Nice! Interesting video :-)
So the sensor size determines the death of field and the boakah.
Sensor size has nothing to do with depth of field. Depth of field is determined by Focal length, focal ratio and distance to subject. Longer focal length, wider f/ratio and closer distance to subject all contribute to a shallower depth of field. Sensor size gives different fields of view for a given focal length. To get the same field of view as a full frame sensor with a 50mm lens, a M43 lens should be 25mm focal length. But if you are happy with the field of view of a 50mm lens on your M43 sensor, it will have exactly the same depth of field and bokeh as if it were used on a full frame sensor, any other sensor of any size.
One mistake in your video: you need to double the aperture number, for equivalent depth of field. f/2 lens on mft body is f/4 equivalent, not “f/3.5”, etc. For exposure, ie “light gathering”, it’s still f/2.
Thanks for watching Joel - and for the correction!
You can take perfectly fine pictures with vintage lenses on mft bodies. But the ful potential of those lenses only shows on full frame.
On smaller sensor bodies you do lose the outer portion of the image circle, changing the character of the lens to some degree, but images can still be quite spectacular!
Can you mount a speedbooster adapter plus a lens adapter at the same time?
You should be able to. I don't see any reason why you couldn't.
Well; no. The speed booster IS your lens adaptor, i.e. it replaces it ;)
@@thomaslilly5834 pretty sure what the OP meant was for instance a Nikon to Canon EF adapter to then attach to the speed booster with the EF mount.
I do this all the time. Most of my vintage lenses are Nikon or Olympus but my speed booster has an EF mount
@@drmoreausbunker Oh of course, in that case, yes! Thanks for clarification :)
About depth of field with micro four thirds.................I too have often heard it said that (to take the example used in this video) a lens set at f2 when used on an M4/3 camera will produce the approximate equivalent depth of field of the same lens set at f3.5 on a full frame camera.
I am bound to ask this question. The same lens placed on a FF camera and then taken off that camera and placed on an M4/3 camera does not magically change its optics. DoF is amongst other things (such as its focal length, distance from the subject etc) a product of its optical design. What magical change takes place when a lens is removed from an FF camera and placed on an M4/3 camera which changes its optical design? Short answer - it does not, the optical design of that lens is the same no matter what camera it is mounted on assuming it is correctly mounted at the correct flange distance for that lens. If it is true that the DOF changes I have never heard a cogent explanation as to why (or how) it can be so.
It is, on the other hand, true that (lets say) a 50mm lens DESIGNED FOR AN M4/3 camera having an aperture of f2 (to continue with this example) can be expected to have less depth of field at that aperture setting than a 50mm lens designed for a full frame camera at f2. Why? The FF lens is typically designed with bigger optical components (to provide coverage of the larger area of the FF sensor). A 50mm lens designed for an m4/3 body is only designed to provide an image circle for that sensor and is typically much smaller. That means the aperture of the FF lens will be physically larger at each operating aperture and it is the physical size of the aperture which determines DOF ( other things being equal).
When you take that FF lens and place it on an adapter and mount it on a M4/3 body the lens does not "know" what body is being used - as far as it is concerned it could be mounted on a body with a FF sensor. Nothing has changed about the lens or its optical characteristics. The lens is agnostic about what camera it is mounted on. It does not know that some of the light passing through it will be absorbed by the interior of the camera rather than the sensor itself. Hence the depth of field must be the same on both cameras. All that differs in the case of an M4/3 body is that the sensor is smaller and hence it only captures the central part of the image circle. As far as I can see it, this does not affect DOF.
Thanks for the explanation - you're right of course, nothing about an FF lens changes when mounted on an M43 body, but the effective focal length is different (multiplied by 2).
As I understand it, with an FF lens on an M43 body, DOF for a given shot effectively changes because double the subject to camera distance is required (effective focal length is multiplied by 2). So if a shot with lens A on an FF camera is taken from 1 metre away, if lens A is then mounted on a M43 body, 2 metres will be needed to get the same shot, increasing DOF in the process.
Does it also mean that because a vintage lens's f number is being increased on MFT, it is also reducing the light that the lens would let in even MORE on an MFT system?
Not quite, because (as far as I know) the way the adapter fits on the extra light isn't being focused onto the sensor. For that you'll need a speed booster to focus the light onto the sensor. Please, if this is wrong someone correct me
@@lolapplesauce you seem to have made the same point I am. If it's not being focused on to the sensor, it means that light's being "lost". So I am losing light that normally on a full frame camera would have made it to the sensor.
how hard is ti to stabilize this lenses? u need a tripod?
It depends how you're shooting - I'd certainly suggest a tripod if using slow shutter speeds.
The old rule is 1/(focal length) so minimum for the:
28mm- 1/30s
50mm - 1/60s
100mm- 1/125s
300mm- 1-320s
Use a tripod if needing to shoot at slower speeds.
Though keep in mind to switch the IBIS setting when you change lenses. The setting needs to match the lens.
thank u, im fairly new in the photo world so this helps a lot
Hi, Do you know if the Zuiko 35 1.4 is as sharp as the 3.5?
Olympus never made an OM 35 f/1.4 that I’m aware of. The fastest 35mm was the f/2.
☕️👍
What is a “leis” lens? Oh this is the Leica lens you pronounce “laika” ^^
Indeed!
"Noise" all it is, is film grain.
In one sense it is, but digital noise is usually considered less pleasing because pixels have straight lines, whereas silver halide molecules don't; because of that the noise of each has a different character.
Watch this at 1.25x or 1.5x speed so you don't fall asleep.
:)
In general I really enjoy watching your videos but in this case I was put off by the flawed introduction. You neglect to mention the loss of resolution and light gathering ability when adapting a vintage lens without a speedbooster. Also, you totally don't talk about speedboosters/focal reducers, essential in this context imo.
Any adapter with a glass lens, including speedboosters, lead to loss of resolution. The best adapters are plain "extension tube" varieties.
@@borderlands6606 Yes, but at the same time, I totally don't agree with you. When you adapt a fullframe lens with a simple extension tube to MFT then you are throwing away a huge amount of resolution and light. Simply because most of the resolution power and light does not hit the sensor. This effect is far stronger than the loss of resolution due to using a speedbooster.
@@Kelkschiz The advantage of a speedbooster is to retain the original focal length and aperture on cameras of a smaller format than the lens was designed for. Resolution will always suffer to some degree by the additional of more glass. It may be by a small amount depending on the quality of glass used (as with a filter), but will always be sub-optimal compared to a glass-less adapter.
@@borderlands6606 Sorry but you are not looking at the complete picture of what speedboosters do and their implications. Which I've tried to point out. Let's agree to disagree.
@@Kelkschiz I am looking at the bigger picture :) Basically, a lens made for a 35mm film camera throws a bigger image circle than that required by a M4/3 sensor. This creates a telephoto effect.
Let's say you have a circle of fungus in the middle of your vintage lens. In that circumstance a speed booster would reduce the impact of the blur on the image as a whole by reducing the proportion of the photograph occupied by the fungus. It wouldn't remove it, it wouldn't make the image sharper, it simply returns it to the original focal length by use of an extra element or elements. Thus making the fungus blob proportionally smaller in the frame. Adding glass is not a magic formula, a lens will only resolve as much as it was designed to do originally.
The only way your supposition can be true is if you want to compare a 50mm film lens to a 25mm M4/3 lens. Which is isn't, it's a de facto telephoto. It will never be a micro four-thirds standard lens, but a reduced tele lens with all that entails.