Alright, I've got the adapter and tried a few M lenses. And my conclusion so far is that the E-M5 sensor is NOT good for lenses with the exit pupil close to it.
The Voigtländer 15/4.5 is terrific in the middle with very high local contrast and great sharpness per pixel already wide open, but the corners are awefully smeared, probably due to curvature of field induced by the hot mirror.
The same goes for the ZM 50/1.5 Sonnar, which surprisingly enough is really sharp at f/1.5, but only for something like 1/3 of the radius from the middle. Beyond that both curvature of field AND total smearing occurs and I find the results totally unacceptable. At f/4 you get something that is close to "sharp" from corner to corner, but then the purpuse of the lens is defeated.
I have yet to test the ZM 50/2, which I have high hopes for, and the Summarit 35/2.5 which could be good stopped down a bit since it gives some corner smearing already on the NEX-5N at wide apertures.
------------------
And so a couple of shots from yesterday with the 20/1.7 and a better color profile in ACR!
I don't like the second image, but they fit together very well color-wise. It's also a good example of how nice it is with IS and a tiltable screen, since it's not cropped at all and shot at 1/15 second.
sebboh wrote:
the 40mm and 90mm that came with the CL i believe, though i've heard differing versions of who did what.
Hmm, although those were M-mount, they are technically C lenses, not M lenses. Leica has always been very protective about their M lenses and their designs, I would be surprised if there are any real M lenses which are not Leica designed and made.
carstenw wrote:
Hmm, although those were M-mount, they are technically C lenses, not M lenses. Leica has always been very protective about their M lenses and their designs, I would be surprised if there are any real M lenses which are not Leica designed and made.
Non the less, the 40/2 is said to be very much like a corresponding 35/2 Summicron from the same era. I haven't tried the latter, but the Summicron-C is really good. It exhibits a fair amount of field curvature even on film, but the minimal size makes up for that flaw and I like the rendering very much. It's sort of the definition of "classic" with a nice glow wide open and super sharpness already at f/2.8.
carstenw wrote:
Hmm, although those were M-mount, they are technically C lenses, not M lenses. Leica has always been very protective about their M lenses and their designs, I would be surprised if there are any real M lenses which are not Leica designed and made.
yeah, leica tried to pretend those lenses wouldn't focus properly on their m series cameras for a while (total bs). i thought there was a non c 90mm elmar of the same design though?
Makten wrote:
Non the less, the 40/2 is said to be very much like a corresponding 35/2 Summicron from the same era. I haven't tried the latter, but the Summicron-C is really good. It exhibits a fair amount of field curvature even on film, but the minimal size makes up for that flaw and I like the rendering very much. It's sort of the definition of "classic" with a nice glow wide open and super sharpness already at f/2.8.
But, I don't think the E-M5 sensor will like it.
why not? it's pretty good on the NEX-7, especially if you crop it to the E-M5's sensor size.
A few grab/test shots with the M. Zuiko 12-50 and Lumix 100-300 lens. I am quite impressed with the 100-300 lens - it's very sharp at 100mm. 4th image is a crop from the 100-300 @ 100mm.
Thanks, cputeq and mortyb!
Bobbytan, the composition of #2 is fantastic! Well done.
sebboh wrote:
why not? it's pretty good on the NEX-7, especially if you crop it to the E-M5's sensor size.
"Pretty good" doesn't include corners, right? I like it stopped down on the 5N, but wide open the curvature of field is problematic to say the least.
---------
Just tried the ZM 50/2 Planar, and it's really, really good, as I expected. Flat field, good local contrast and nice colors as well. There is a trace of veiling flare and/or spherical aberration wide open, but it's all gone at f/2.8. It's actually much better than the Sonnar at f/2 and I like the character better, with a well defined depth of field.
jeffryscott wrote:
Have had my OM-D for a while. Love this little camera. Shooting way more than with my Canon 5d kit - so much easier to take with me.
some of the best images i've seen from the camera yet. lens?
edit: just checked the exif. panasonic 14mm. amazing. see so little from this lens anywhere.
Makten wrote:
"Pretty good" doesn't include corners, right? I like it stopped down on the 5N, but wide open the curvature of field is problematic to say the least.
but the corners on the NEX won't be there on the the E-M5. on the NEX-7 the corners are sharp stopped down if you focus on them (but of course then the center isn't sharp). on a flat subject i actually get sharper corners at f/2 than f/5.6 when i put best focus on the center of the frame, i'm told this is due to spherical aberration.
jeffryscott wrote:
Have had my OM-D for a while. Love this little camera. Shooting way more than with my Canon 5d kit - so much easier to take with me.
I love that brown leaf shot. What lens was that made with?
I havent really used my camera yet, but tried the ISO 25,600 with the Lumix 20 lens at F1.7. I cropped some off the left side and sized it only.
Harry Palmer
It's also a good example of how nice it is with IS and a tiltable screen, since it's not cropped at all and shot at 1/15 second.
I like it stopped down on the 5N, but wide open the curvature of field is problematic to say the least. 
