leica m lenses on m43 system?

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 minutes ago, gteague said:

it's not a huge difference and at first i thought i was missing focus or moving, but i have no such problems on the cl which lacks ibis and the gh5 has industry leading ibis. even the best shots i got were noticeably not as good as the same subjects in the same light when taken on the cl. i have the advantage that i walk around about a 3 sq mile area time after time after time and i can shoot the exact same things with different equipment.

in comparing, i had to throw out the shots with the tele-ext engaged as they were very soft. but we've seen that this function on the cl and the s1 result in barely any degradation. all the shots without tele-ext were fine, just not quite as good as the cl and i suspect that's exactly the expected results. the only reason i was trying the experiment was to bring the gh5 out of retirement and perhaps to have the equivalent of a 200/2 in a very compact form. but i got a result (as the mythbusters are fond of saying!) and this result tells me that the m43 lenses perform better than the m lenses despite the latter being full frame. and, even though the tele-ext function works fine with m43 lenses, it seems to fall apart with the m lenses. 

still, as i said, i have the nocticron mounted now and come magick hour i'll go back out and confirm results. this lens is about 5x the size and weight of the 50/2, but if the tele-ext function works with it as a i remember, it'll be about a 170/1.2. 

/guy

Well, if you start pushing MFT OOC JPGs around, you should not be surprised that things fall apart pretty quickly, especially if you start zooming digitally AKA in-camera-crop. It has little to do with the lenses used, though.

[gteague]

funny how a different system can influence your long held view of a previous one. i used the gh5 for years using the tele-ext function dozens and dozens of time per outing and never saw a single thing wrong with any shots.

but now i've used the same function on the s1 and now the cl and returned to the gh5, i see that the images become 'soft' when that function is used. even with the best m43 lenses.

i took my walk just now and shot the exact same things i did yesterday using the nocticron instead of the summicron. and although it's not an order of magnitude better quality, it's is undeniably better in the same light at the same f-stops and distances. many shots approach what the best lenses on the s1 can do or at least equal what the best of apc can do. the gh5 is a superb camera that you could be happy with even if apc and ff didn't exist.

/guy

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ramarren]

11 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Why bother ? Years ago,  Lens rental proved that m4/3 were the worst candidate for M lenses. Due to über thick 4mm stack sensor filters. 
...

Why bother? Because I have about two dozen excellent M and R mount lenses that work just fine on mFT format cameras. Why else? I surely wouldn't go out and spend $2000 to $10000 on a new lens just to use it on an m43 format camera, and the Olympus and Panasonic-Leica lenses for the format are superb already. But anything I can do to gain more use out of my existing lenses is a net gain. 

As usual, you are obsessed with specs and statistics without giving a moment's thought to practical usefulness, Nicci. I have a great set of Leica M and R lenses that I use, and reuse, and reuse again on a wide variety of cameras ... and they nearly always produce satisfactory results, help me make a large number of satisfying photographs. Isn't that what's important rather than what some tester says about how many points one way or another a lens test shows?

G

[gteague]

here's an example of one that softened up using the 2.0x function:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!