OM lenses on M8

[jip]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Okay mister Crow I'm gonna sound like a rude adolescent here! I'm 21 like I have told you before, helped you as far as I could and this thread is still open, when I answered to you previously about OM lenses on the M8 all the things that make it possible to shoot OM glass on the M8 were already discussed... So I don't know why you keep on ranting on people who try to help you, either by telling you to try another body or not to try it at all. Because simply put the OM lenses will not be easily focusable on your M8.

 

Also I don't know what the F.... Is wrong with you when you keep ranting on about people's age, geez that makes you look like a toddler! Only toddlers or small kids care about age.

 

My few cents. And I hope you stop posting questions and then rant on people when the answer about what age they are and that you find their answers not useful at all.

 

Because really I don't like answering to people who don't like the answers anyway. Especially when all the options have been discussed and you keep on asking about it.

 

Now get your age biased ass out there and start trying what everyone has been telling you, smack on those OM lenses and use zone focussing and then check for sharpness on the screen? Or shoot tethered so you can check sharpness on a bigger screen. Here you are the only options that exist with the M8 without buying anything like another body.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[exile]

I've got an OM Zuiko 16mm fisheye that I use occasionally with my M9. Huge depth of field so zone focussing works fine even for close subject distances. I forket which adapter I use but it's a cheapo generig and does the job just fine, perhaps aided by the forgiving depth of field. The only downside is that the fisheye lens (which is pretty small for an SLR optic, as is typical of the whole OM range) when mated with the adapter makes for the bulkiest lens I have so it does not get carried often unless I am expecting a specific application for it. The Zuiko fisheye is quite priccey for an old fisheye, despite being a good optic. I think you would be better advised to get a CV 12/5.6 ASPH. Much easier to use and smaller.

 

I also have a the Zuiko 50/1.2 that I used to use regularly on a dSLR and is a good lens for the money, but is simply not worth the bother of guesstimate focussing on an M9 - so I've never even tried it.

 

My strong advice on your camera would be to forget adapting SLR lenses - it will only work for ultra-wide angles and comes at the cost of functionality and size/weight - stick to screw mount or M mount glass from Voigtlander, Zeiss, Leica.

[cliffpatte]

Guys, one of the problems with using the OM lenses on any digital body is that they basically weren't designed for it.

 

Light reflected off film emulsion is different from light reflected off a digital sensor, and lenses designed for digital bodies tend to deal better with reflected light hitting the rear element. This can result in ghosting, flare and softness in shots with the OM lenses on 4/3rds bodies like the OMD EM1.

 

Given that the M8 / M9 have certain micro lens configurations on the surface that are tuned for the rear end optical performance of Leica lenses, I wouldn't expect spectuacular results from OM lenses on the M8 or M9.

 

I suspect that the newer designed sensor on the Leica M Type 240 may be a bit less problematic with reflected light back onto the rear element. I also suspect that the live view and pixel peeping would help enormously to focus the lens.

 

I've got 3 OM lenses left in my aresnal: 50/1.8, 24-48/4, 24/2 - It would be fun to try on the M/240, but I'm not sure that £125 spent on the Novoflex on ebay would be a sound investment. Although since I only have 35/1.4, 50/0.95 and 75/2 lenses from Leica, the 24mm would be a useful addition if it was any good ...

[Jeff Daniels]

I use my OM Zuiko lenses on my M9 and MP all the time.

I have a comprehensive set of Leica lenses (WATE, MATE, 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 40mm (for CL), 50mm Noctilux, 90mm and 135mm.

I also have an even more comprehensive set of OM Zuiko lenses (all except the two longest lenses).

I use the Novoflex OM to M adapter.

By using either hyperfocal distance or zone focusing as a technique, there is no problem at all.

I only use the OM lenses that match the focal length of the Leica 'Frankenfinder' (which, incidentally, is beautiful). The rest I use on my A7r.

Yes, the OM Zuiko 24mm shift lens does obscure the rangefinder viewfinder, but so do many Leica lenses. It's not an issue for me.

Would it be recommended that someone should go out and purchase OM lenses to use on their Leica M camera via an adapter? No, of course not.

Would it be recommended that someone should go out and purchase an adapter to use OM lenses they already own on their Leica M camera? Absolutely.

[crow]

The M8 is for Leica M lenses, Leica screw, Zeiss, and some russian lenses I've tried on it like the 35mm Jupiter-12. It actually is a very nice lens and gives wonderful results on the 1.3x M8. I was looking at the industar-69 28mm lens. Looks good but someone mentioned that there is a 0.3 mm flange difference which means it doesn't do well with infinity focus. I've also heard that there is a conversion service that I am sure will raise the cost almost close to getting a Rokkor 28mm CLE lens.

The OM Zuiko lens to Leica M adapter, is a nicely built adapter but haven't been able to focus correctly so far. Only tried it for 15 minutes, with the 16mm Zuiko fisheye, the OM 24 shift and the 50/1.8. I was expecting to get the best results from the fish eye but actually the 24 shift did the best. Still a little bit soft, softer than the OM Zuikos on the OM4 or even E-P1, and softer than Leica M lenses or screw mount on the M8.

It seems my results are closer to the people who thought it wasn't such a good idea. I was trying to tale advantage of the 1.3x cf of the camera in relation to my other digital the E_P1 which is an awesome camera but is of 2x cf. Any way, Leica is for Leica. I guess I will have to start another thread for the screw mount German and Russian lenses on my wonderful M8. Thanks people for sharing your knowledge.

[plewislambert]

I used a 35mm Olympus PC lens on my M9 to good effect. Later I bought a 28mm Nikkor PC which is usefully wider, just possibly less sharp. These are both big lenses and can be seen in the viewfinder, but if I were working with a tripod and repeating the same shot with increasing rise, viewing the image on playback was better than using the viewfinder. Hand held three shots are needed, adjusting the rise between each.

A certain amount of correction in Pshop is always needed as I can't quite hold the camera straight!

Philip

[crow]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I hold it straight all right, but only 3 out of 10 times not shaking. Rare:o:D moments those are!!!

[Sandokan]

What is the problem with a 2x conversion factor? What is it that you are trying to do that a 1.3x is OK but 1.5x (with an APS-C sensor such as Sony Alpha or Samsung) or 2x is not?

 

I guess you cannot step back far enough ....

 

The problem with Photodiox and cheaper adaptors (and I have several) is that some do not fit well and the lens mount moves quite a lot, which means you will have severe issues on one side of the photo as it is out of alignment and out of focus.

[crow]

Yea,

exactly an issue of not having enough space to step back.

Actually the OM to M Fotodiox is pretty well made, no play at all on either end, the brand is not the problem at all. I also have an M to m4/3 adapter, that one is cheaper than Fotodiox, no problem at all. It is either the incompatibility issue, RF to SLR, or a bad adapter(?), but this never happened before so should be the first. Any way I am not giving any more time or effort n this matter. It is a closed issue as far as I am concerned.