PDA

View Full Version : Leica M to Sony E AF Adapter


Harold Gough
13th February 2016, 11:47 AM
Others will surely follow, for other legacy lenses:

http://techartpro.com/

Harold

Graham_of_Rainham
13th February 2016, 12:08 PM
I feel that this is really negating the whole point of using legacy lenses. :confused:

Harold Gough
13th February 2016, 12:21 PM
I feel that this is really negating the whole point of using legacy lenses. :confused:

Why? The legacy lenses I use were made before the AF era. I do not use them because they have no AF but because of their optical qualities and at a price and because they can be adapted to various bodies, unlike current system lenses.

When it comes to it, I find AF (I have some AF lenses) not very useful or reliable but that is my personal choice.

Harold

Graham_of_Rainham
13th February 2016, 01:14 PM
...I do not use them because they have no AF but because of their optical qualities...

I've tried several lenses on FT/MFT bodies, and the only one that came close to my expectations was the OM 24mm. Even a well respected Hexanon 57 f/1.2 didn't really come close to the IQ of the Digital 50mm f/2 or the 45mm f/1.8

But that's just me. While I play with filters and things on the front of the lens to "adjust" IQ, having a lens that provides a certain "look", while interesting, I think I'd get bored with that "look".

One thing I have noticed is the lack of flair that new "ZERO" lenses produce, so old glass may well be something I'll take a second look at.

As for the AF on old lenses, I can't see that I'd ever use it or even want it. The added influence of what is a variable extension tube may also introduce some unwanted effects.

I'll be very interested in seeing what you get from it, should you get one, along with any other examples of specific "qualities" that you achieve.

*chr

Ricoh
13th February 2016, 02:16 PM
Can't understand why anyone would want to put their cherished Leica M glasswear on anything other than a Leica M. And apart from that, AF a just makes photographers lazy, lazy, lazy!

Harold Gough
13th February 2016, 02:59 PM
I've tried several lenses on FT/MFT bodies, and the only one that came close to my expectations was the OM 24mm. Even a well respected Hexanon 57 f/1.2 didn't really come close to the IQ of the Digital 50mm f/2 or the 45mm f/1.8

But that's just me. While I play with filters and things on the front of the lens to "adjust" IQ, having a lens that provides a certain "look", while interesting, I think I'd get bored with that "look".

One thing I have noticed is the lack of flair that new "ZERO" lenses produce, so old glass may well be something I'll take a second look at.

As for the AF on old lenses, I can't see that I'd ever use it or even want it. The added influence of what is a variable extension tube may also introduce some unwanted effects.

I'll be very interested in seeing what you get from it, should you get one, along with any other examples of specific "qualities" that you achieve.

*chr

I was after are more recent version of the Tamron 90mm than the original 2.5, which I used for decades with film. Then I came across the legendary Vivitar Series 1 105mm, made by Kiron and that is now my goto lens for up to 1:1. I use some very special lenses for higher magnifications. I use variable extensions on those to great effect for macro. You have variable extensions internally on most focusing lenses, especially "macro" ones..

Some of the old lenses are susceptible to flare when pointed towards strong, contrasty light.

I won't be getting one of the current offering as I have no M lenses (I have R) and my Alpha7R cannot take advantage of the IS. I might be tempted by an m4/3 version if they issue one.

I would not be expecting any "qualities" as there is no glass in the unit.

Harold

Harold Gough
13th February 2016, 03:03 PM
Can't understand why anyone would want to put their cherished Leica M glasswear on anything other than a Leica M. And apart from that, AF a just makes photographers lazy, lazy, lazy!

I'm not sure about "lazy" I tend to find it quicker, against a complex background, to focus manually. On the other hand, I do miss the focus on some manually focused images. I see it as a potential tool to have in my bag.

Harold

David M
13th February 2016, 03:16 PM
I've tried several lenses on FT/MFT bodies, and the only one that came close to my expectations was the OM 24mm. Even a well respected Hexanon 57 f/1.2 didn't really come close to the IQ of the Digital 50mm f/2 or the 45mm f/1.8

But that's just me. While I play with filters and things on the front of the lens to "adjust" IQ, having a lens that provides a certain "look", while interesting, I think I'd get bored with that "look".

One thing I have noticed is the lack of flair that new "ZERO" lenses produce, so old glass may well be something I'll take a second look at.

As for the AF on old lenses, I can't see that I'd ever use it or even want it. The added influence of what is a variable extension tube may also introduce some unwanted effects.

I'll be very interested in seeing what you get from it, should you get one, along with any other examples of specific "qualities" that you achieve.

*chr

Funny, my OM 24mm f/2.8 is the most disappointing. But mine has had a very hard life so not really a fair comparison. My 28mm is mint and much better. But my current standard is a Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 from the 70's. Unfortunately it's also had a hard life, it's so sloppy I expect it to fall apart each time I use it.

Graham_of_Rainham
13th February 2016, 03:21 PM
<snip> I do miss the focus on some manually focused images. <snip>

I still have my OM Vari-Mag angled finder that I used to get critical focus.
Now of course, the Magnify function and Focus Peaking make it very easy to get the focus right.

In the old days, we seemed to be a lot better at judging distance. Probably due to cross ply tires and drum brakes... ;)

Harold Gough
13th February 2016, 03:43 PM
Funny, my OM 24mm f/2.8 is the most disappointing. But mine has had a very hard life so not really a fair comparison. My 28mm is mint and much better. But my current standard is a Vivitar 35mm f/1.9 from the 70's. Unfortunately it's also had a hard life, it's so sloppy I expect it to fall apart each time I use it.

I've had a hard life too, which may explain why I sometimes misjudge the manual focus. :D

Harold

Harold Gough
13th February 2016, 03:45 PM
I still have my OM Vari-Mag angled finder that I used to get critical focus.
Now of course, the Magnify function and Focus Peaking make it very easy to get the focus right.

That sounds like a tripod application. I do almost entirely hand-held, a lot of it with fixed focus lenses, my body acting as the focusing rack. I do find focus peaking good as a guide.

Harold

drmarkf
13th February 2016, 09:21 PM
High quality manual direct-linked focus lenses are much better IMHO than most fly-by-wire lenses for a lot of street photography, especially in low light. AF is a total lottery if you want your subject at the side of the frame and you are at full aperture.

Yes, most of them are somewhat more prone to flare than the better of today's versions and most need to be used at mid-range apertures, but my 90mm f2.8 Leica R, 58mm f1.2 Rokkor and 24mm OM Zuiko plus adapters collectively cost less than my new (ex-dem) 35mm f2 Zeiss Loxia, so you get a lot of quality bang for your buck.

"You can now use your favourite Leica lenses for taking snap shots". Hmmm.

Ricoh
14th February 2016, 12:20 AM
That's correct Mark, here's a 'snapshot' using Leica M glass. My defence: It was my first time using the 50 f1.4, just getting the hang, or not, of the razor blade focus depth. Exif data isn't reliable, but I believe it was taken as wide as it goes, f1.4

https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1591/24640596179_969acb8514_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/DxpuMa)Winter Sun by -Steve Ricoh- (https://flic.kr/p/DxpuMa)

drmarkf
14th February 2016, 09:30 AM
Looks a bit more than a snapshot to me!

(I think you may have got your f1.4 and 1.7 mixed up?)

Ricoh
14th February 2016, 09:37 AM
Indeed, the camera makes a guess at aperture based on the other known variables, I fixated on f1.7 from LR, but I'm 100% it was f1.4. Plus old age has an input!!

Harold Gough
14th February 2016, 09:52 AM
I thought I would just chuck this in, as it may be of some interest, at least as a curiosity. It was something I thought I wanted from my OM manual focus film lenses. Eventually, I lost interest, partly through difficulty in finding one and partly by doing very well without it.

http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Olympus_OM-707_/_OM-77

Harold

Ricoh
14th February 2016, 10:50 AM
There's an article in LL concerning the pros and cons of AF cf MF, the author's opinion being AF is more accurate than the human eye. Whether it's quicker or not is a different matter, but it's good having more than one tool in the box, that's why I'm still using u43 alongside RF. Don't you love acronyms :)