What mount system should I get?

nickzou · Dec 25, 2011

So I got a GF2. Stock lens is... a stock lens. I mainly got it to play around with mounts and vintage lenses (also as a everyday carry around camera). I do plan to get the 20mm 1.7 as well. Should I get an m42 adapter or a m39 adapter? I feel kind of overwhelmed, can someone nudge me in the right direction.

Derrel · Dec 25, 2011

Adapters are relatively affordable--at least compared to the lenses. M42 has a lot of thread-mount lenses, many with the very handy AUTO/Manual diaphragm stop-down switch, which makes it super-easy to open the lens for easiest focusing, and then to simply "click" the lens down to a shooting aperture that is smaller than maximum, without the need to count click-stops.

Nikon F is a good mount adapter to have as well, since the majority of its lenses have direct aperture control rings on the lenses, and there are millions of lenses in F-mount.

Something in a Pentax K mount would also be nice to have...there were 'zillions' of lenses made in that mount as well.

analog.universe · Dec 25, 2011

I'd probably go for m42 first, there's such a wide selection available in that mount. From nice fast old Zeiss to $10 plastic randoms, lots of fun to be had.

unpopular · Dec 25, 2011

I also would go with m42.

usayit · Dec 25, 2011

I do this a lot (E-PL1 and G1), Ron here does too.. I have to say, this is a very loaded question.

My recommendation is to decide the lens you want to shoot THEN go get the adapter for it. In my case, I adapt lenses that I already owned (K, M, M39, M42).

Some initial thoughts...

* The advantage of an M39 adapted lenses is that the flange distance is pretty short compared to SLR lenses. This means that the adapter itself is going to be much more compact than let say Pentax K's. The same goes for Contax rangefinder lenses, and Leica M-mounts. Or even C-mounts.... another story.

* Adapters can be very high quality (novoflex) to medium (metabones) to cheap (rainbowimaging). The quality is noticeable but I've never really seen a problem with the cheap ones. The core difference are the tolerances and whether or not they use bent metal flanges or springs for tension. Obviously, the more complex the design the more costly. I have 4 K-mount adapters. 1 has an aperture ring for quick stop down used for macro photography. It costs twice as much as the others.

* If the adapter are screw based (M42 and M39), get 1 adapter for each lens you plan to carry. Its easier to disconnect at the micro 4/3 bayonet mount leaving the adapter attached to the lens.

* Be sure to research if you can stop down the lens w/ the appropriate adapter. If not, you'll be stuck at wide open (non-electro EF lenses)

* If you go with M42 lenses, check if they have the A-M switch to stop down the lens. Not all M42 lenses (sigma for example) have them. I know of no M42 adapter than actively stops down these lenses. If no manual stop down, you'll be stuck shooting wide open. All the Takumar (pentax) lenses I have come equipped with the A-M switch.

* GF2 manual focus on the back LCD may or may not be comfortable to you. Many find it difficult esp. without EVF attachment. The G1's has EVF built in and I use the EVF attachment with my E-PL1 which is of higher quality imaging than the ones for your GF2.

Ask more questions or PM me. I don't believe there are that many here on the TPF that use MFT much less adapt lenses to it. Be happy to answer more....

nickzou · Dec 28, 2011

Alright, it seems that I will be getting the m42 and an f mount adapter. I'll keep in mind all of the things in this thread. With the f mount adapter, I'll probably just use my 50. What lens should I start with for the m42? I kinda want something with a decently wide aperture (2, 2.5, 2.8, maybe even 3.5). What are some relatively cheap options with decent optics. Keep in mind this is definitely more for my own amusement (the hobbying side of me) than straight up performance. There's a lot of lenses on ebay and I'm not sure why some are 800 dollars and why some are considerably cheaper. All the things I'm using to seeing in determining prices (such as VR, wide aperture, nano-crystal coating) don't are obviously not what it determining the difference in price for these older lenses.

unpopular · Dec 28, 2011

Just make sure that you bring it. I spent 40 minutes on a city bus to get to my location only to realize I left my m42 adapter at home on another lens :/

usayit · Dec 28, 2011

nickzou said:
There's a lot of lenses on ebay and I'm not sure why some are 800 dollars and why some are considerably cheaper.

Much of the price is subject to supply vs demand when it comes to these older lenses. They are no longer made so its not like the availability for certain lenses are expanding. For example, both the Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 have earned a good reputation. Since the 50mm was a standard lens sold with camera bodies the market is plentiful compared to the relatively less available 85mm. Hence why the 85mm is going to be several times the cost.

When it comes to micro 4/3, remember the 2x crop factor and use it to your advantage. A 50mm f/1.4 is a fast 100mm equiv FOV. I shoot rangefinders which are limited in terms of telephoto (base length too short) and macro (not practical). Its no surprise that I use my micro 4/3 camera often to fill in that gap.

One example is this one taken with a Tele-Takumar 300mm f/4

A 600mm f/4 lens would be impossible to carry in a small shoulder bag.

Most of us shooting with vintage manual lenses aren't doing it to get the sharpest most technically perfect image with the low cost of old used lenses. This goal isn't a reasonable expectation given, manual focus, older optical designs, and older coatings (if even coated at all). We just find it fun and enjoyable part of the hobby to shoot with older vintage lenses. Not to say that some can do very well compared to even today's optics

Takumar 100mm Macro

I even have a Takumar 500mm f/5.6... how much for a 1000mm f/5.6 in current optics? Its unwieldy and I am badly need of a gimbel head for it so it sees very little use. Fun to take out once in a while though... This was a test image I took one night with the E-PL1.

I also like the pre-SMC Takumar 35mm f/2 as well... Fast lens... nice vintage warm look. I've also taken a liking to the SMC 135mm f/3.5 for portraits... Of course, most of my collection are Takumar lenses and there is a whole lot more out there. It'll be fun just to discover.

nickzou · Dec 31, 2011

Okay so I thought I was gonna try m42 first but I found this nice and cheap Industar 28mm 2.8. It's so nice and small, though not super fast, it is better than the kit lens.

Rare INDUSTAR-69 Wide Angle 28mm f/2.8 Macro Lens. M39. Soviet Russian vintage. | eBay
Ajustable M39 Lens to Micro 4/3 m4/3 Adapter G1 GH1 GF1 EP-1 EP-2 + screwdriver | eBay

I also found this video of a guy modifying the lens for the NEX-5n.

I don't think I'll have to do this since the m43 adapter says it can focus to infinity. And by the size comparison in the video, with the NEX-5n mount it is comparable to the Panasonic 20mm pancake. The m39 to m43 adapter seems thinner so it might be even thinner on the camera! Anyways, I think this will be the first lens I'll get. Unless someone else has some information why I shouldn't get this that I'm not aware of.

Nikon_Josh · Dec 31, 2011

usayit said:
nickzou said:

There's a lot of lenses on ebay and I'm not sure why some are 800 dollars and why some are considerably cheaper.

Click to expand...

Much of the price is subject to supply vs demand when it comes to these older lenses. They are no longer made so its not like the availability for certain lenses are expanding. For example, both the Takumar 50mm f/1.4 and 85 f/1.8 have earned a good reputation. Since the 50mm was a standard lens sold with camera bodies the market is plentiful compared to the relatively less available 85mm. Hence why the 85mm is going to be several times the cost.

When it comes to micro 4/3, remember the 2x crop factor and use it to your advantage. A 50mm f/1.4 is a fast 100mm equiv FOV. I shoot rangefinders which are limited in terms of telephoto (base length too short) and macro (not practical). Its no surprise that I use my micro 4/3 camera often to fill in that gap.

One example is this one taken with a Tele-Takumar 300mm f/4

A 600mm f/4 lens would be impossible to carry in a small shoulder bag.

Most of us shooting with vintage manual lenses aren't doing it to get the sharpest most technically perfect image with the low cost of old used lenses. This goal isn't a reasonable expectation given, manual focus, older optical designs, and older coatings (if even coated at all). We just find it fun and enjoyable part of the hobby to shoot with older vintage lenses. Not to say that some can do very well compared to even today's optics

Takumar 100mm Macro

I even have a Takumar 500mm f/5.6... how much for a 1000mm f/5.6 in current optics? Its unwieldy and I am badly need of a gimbel head for it so it sees very little use. Fun to take out once in a while though... This was a test image I took one night with the E-PL1.

I also like the pre-SMC Takumar 35mm f/2 as well... Fast lens... nice vintage warm look. I've also taken a liking to the SMC 135mm f/3.5 for portraits... Of course, most of my collection are Takumar lenses and there is a whole lot more out there. It'll be fun just to discover.