Does anyone use and have experience with these lenses together with the OM-D? How does it work with focussing?
Any problems with red edges ect?
I'm thinking of a AF camera that can film and like what I have seen from the OM-D. The NEX 7 is also an option but from what I see its not that good with the wider M mount lenses.
I would like an EVF with it so that exclude the NEX 5.
Lenses should be leica's 18mm, 28/2, 35/2, 50/2 and maybe a 21 or 25 zeiss ZM.
I'm not really sure why people would use MFT cameras with legacy lenses. Doubling the FL while 2x magnifying optical aberrations seems like a disaster to me.
FlyPenFly wrote:
I'm not really sure why people would use MFT cameras with legacy lenses. Doubling the FL while 2x magnifying optical aberrations seems like a disaster to me.
The reason is my main camera is a leica M9P. So I have the lenses and don't really have the need for the best altenative camera. I don't really need it for quality shots since I will be using my M9 for that.
The OM-D will be mainly used with the standard zoom or maybe prime lens for the AF. Just a camera for family stuff with my family would be able to use also. And off course being able to shoot film.
But, when I have the lenses, it would be nice to be able to use them to. Why buy a 50mm for the OM-D when I have a 50/2 cron laying here.
So the main reason is not to use these lenses, but when its possible it would be a big plus.
Bijltje wrote:
But, when I have the lenses, it would be nice to be able to use them to. Why buy a 50mm for the OM-D when I have a 50/2 cron laying here.
So the main reason is not to use these lenses, but when its possible it would be a big plus.
Not trying to be insensitive or elitist, but you do understand what a micro4/3 sensor does to effective field of view and depth of field right?
Just in case, it doubles the effective field of view and doubles the effective depth of field.
That wonderful 50mm f/2 summicron might look great on the M9, but it is effectively a 100mm f/4.0 lens in terms of rendering on micro4/3.
On an APS-C sensor it is effectively a 75mm f/2.8 lens.
While this is great if you love to shoot tele, it means to get reasonably wide you would want to use native lenses (or the 12/5.6 Voigtlander for example) which negates your case for using your M lenses.
I think if you're looking for a backup for your M9P, you'd be much better served with the Ricoh modular solution or the 5N.
The OM-D though could make a great casual use camera especially if you pair it with a good prime. The camera really deserves a great lens to go with it like the Panny Leica 25mm or Oly 45mm.
thrice wrote:
Not trying to be insensitive or elitist, but you do understand what a micro4/3 sensor does to effective field of view and depth of field right?
Just in case, it doubles the effective field of view and doubles the effective depth of field.
That wonderful 50mm f/2 summicron might look great on the M9, but it is effectively a 100mm f/4.0 lens in terms of rendering on micro4/3.
On an APS-C sensor it is effectively a 75mm f/2.8 lens.
While this is great if you love to shoot tele, it means to get reasonably wide you would want to use native lenses (or the 12/5.6 Voigtlander for example) which negates your case for using your M lenses....Show more →
I know the OM-D has 2x cropfactor. Wasn't aware of the double field of field. Thought it would only give 1 stop difference. A 100/4 indeed isn't that exiting .
Looking at my other lenses, 18/3.8 (36/8?) 28/2 (56/4) 35/2 (70/4) and 50/2 (100/4) its not really that exiting at all
However, for my normal photography I use the M9, for film and family stuff I intend to use the OM-D. Its not really the idea to use the OM-D for serious stuff so don't wanna spend much money in it.
The idea is more like, If I have the lenses, and I have the OM-D why not buy a cheap adapter to be able to use them together. That I would miss wide angle isn't a problem, I have the M9 for that.
If I can find a 25 dollar adapter it means I get an 25 dollar 100mm lens for free
+1, by the way, I have seen color shift/smearing of Pen F 25 on m4/3, I think it also happens on M lenses < 35mm too according to some old discussion.
joxang wrote:
Have you looked at a GXR with M mount module? APS-C sensor, supposedly great results with most lenses, and it has focus peaking for accurate focusing.
The GXR is great for stills using M-mount glass shooting RAW, as long as you don't need shot to shot time faster than every 5 seconds. Manual focus is very easy and accurate with the grayscale peaking, but will not nearly match AF speeds of mFT, unless you are just zone focusing of course. Plays well with all of my lenses including the ZM 25/2.8, 35/2.8, CV15/4.5, 35/1.2. No need for corner color correction, though the 15mm can be persuaded to show magenta shift in corners without smearing. Not at all recommended for video, JPEG engine sucks. I also consider the add-on EVF a must.
Here's one from the ZM 25/2.8. Detail in the original sized file is striking.
The GXR isn't really what I'm looking for since I want a AF camera with can film. The M mount lens would be just for fun so buying an extra module with sensor is more than I'm willing to pay for it. It should be just an AF camera in the first place. I always have my M9 for the standard work.
The 5N with EVF seems like a nice solution. Not that expensive also compared to the other solutions.
I have the OM-D and several m-mount lenses. As has been mentioned the crop factor (and related DOF issue) make it less attractive to use the m-mount lenses but they can be used. There is some issues with smearing with wider angles, so the longer lenses are most interesting. There doesn't seem to be much issue with red edges...this is cropped out. In short, if you have them, they can be interesting and fun, but I wouldn't buy a rangefinder lens solely to use on the OM-D. Here's pretty much the worst case that you could find...the ZM C-Biogon 21mm f 4.5 w/o (use of this lens on the M9 is discouraged by Zeiss/Leica due to red edges, etc) As you can see, even at this size, smearing on the edges, but no real red edges.
