I am really interested to know how non MFT lenses do work on the E-P1!

Many thanks! I reayll love the Leica 35mm lens because it is a high quality small sized lens. Do you have some picture to show me (us)

Not that I've tried just yet, but I'm getting Voigtlander Color-Skopar 21mm F4 (screw mount). This will give me 42mm (35mm equivalent) focal length, which I personal like very much.

My plan is to use this lens without TTL MF, and just use the distance # on the lens. (OTL?) Combined with not-so-stretching F4.0 lens and E-P1's great high ISO capability coupled with "imperfect" focusing, I'm hoping this will be my digital Rollei 35. (I still love and use my real Rollei 35 often though.)

Or using TTL MF and make it Digital 35RC which actually has 42mm lens. 

Don't know any of you would think it's a good idea, but will post some samples later next week.

Here's what I've found using adapted lenses on my G1 (yes, I know it's not the E-P1, but they probably behave similarly if not the same way with adapted lenes):

Nikkor 20/3.5 AiS (via Nikon F to 4/3 adapter): Great performance near its minimum focus distance (compared to other lenses). Good resistance to flare. Nice bokeh, good for portraits. Corners soft wide-open, but improves with stopping down. IMO, a good choice for portraits and street photography. Compared it against samples from the CV Color-Skopar 20/3.5 SLII before purchasing the Nikkor. The main differences I observed were that the CV Color-Skopar was sharper wide-open in the corners, but had edgier bokeh (which I personally don't like).

Zeiss ZF 25/2.8 (via Nikon F to 4/3 adapter): Great magnification. Can focus closer than most and yet retain sharpness at its min focus distance. Great resistance to flare. Nice bokeh. Sharp and contrasty across the frame and surprisingly good performer wide-open. Basically, an excellent performer on m4/3. Only drawback: this lens is massive compared to Leica Elmarits and CV Color-Skopars. Long and heavy.

CV Ultron 28/1.9 Asph (via LTM to M-mount adapter): My sample was a disappointing performer. Low contrast and soft in the corners wide-open, extending quite far into the frame. Need to stop-down to f/4 or 5.6 for decent performance.

Samyang 85/1.4 Asph (via Nikon F to 4/3 adapter): Good for portraiture, but otherwise a very average lens on m4/3. Basically a poor man's Nikon 85/1.4. Surprisingly decent wide-open at f/1.4, although you definitely need to stop down for good performance. Nice smooth bokeh. Nikon's 85/1.4 doesn't really perform much better, so in that sense, it's a good value. Another massive lens, but you expected that from an 85/1.4, didn't you?

Olympus OM 100/2.8 (via OM to 4/3 adapter): Good for portraiture but average for landscape, etc. Need to stop down for good performance. Best thing about the lens is that it is relatively small for its focal length and aperture. Decent price and a good choice if you want something compact.

Nikkor 180/2.8 AF: Very good performer. Contrast a bit low and a bit soft in the corners wide-open, but improves quickly upon stopping down. Relatively compact for its focal length and speed. Good price, good performance, and a good choice IMO.

Here are some example shots using the Nikkon MFT adapter from Rayqual



This is using the Micro Nikkor AF-D 60mm at around F16 on a tripod natural light



This is a pre AI 35mm Nikkor at F2 (wide open)

The Micro-Nikkors really shine on the MFT format because you are doubling the magnification and increasing the DOF at the same time. It's nice to be able to access dirt cheap pre AI glass from Nikon which you can't use without modification in the modern Nikon DSLRs hence the low price, but this glass is superb.

mod2001,

Can you post some examples using the 40/1.4?

Here's a rather textured shot taken with my Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 SL II:


A Touch of Red

Recently got the CV Nokton 35/1.4 MC, which is very similar to the CV Nokton 40/1.4. My impressions so far are mixed:

As an f/1.4 lens, I find it a bit disappointing, as it is not a good performer wide-open. We must remember, however, that it is a compact, almost pancake design, and the designers were not given much to work with with respect to size constraints (which makes it very difficult to optimize image quality). Having said that, this lens seems a lot better if you think of it as a 35/2 with an emergency f/1.4 setting.

The fact is, there isn't much choice if you want a fast, compact 35 mm that performs well at wide apertures (unless you want to pay a fortune for a Leica Summilux). The Zeiss Biogon 35/2 is quite good, although it is "only" f/2, and is 60-70% more expensive.

Come to think of it, its only competition in this price range and size class is its cousin: the CV Nokton 40/1.4. I'm thinking it's not worth the 30-35% premium over the CV Nokton 40/1.4, as it pretty much performs the same way despite the additional element (8 vs. 7 for the 40/1.4). The bokeh might be a bit smoother in the 35/1.4, and you do get a more usable 70 mm EFL, does that justify the price difference?. I don't know... If I were to do it again, I'd think I would go for the 40/1.4...

I've recently acquired the EOS to m43 adapter, and have tried 3 lenses with it. Performance is pretty good so far. The lenses I've tried:

70-200 f/2.8 IS
24-70 f/2.8
35 f/1.4

I've used the Canon "Nifty Fifty" on the E-P1 and it's really pleasing - the adapter was ordered off Ebay from Shanghai, and got delayed by the UK postal strike, but it was worth it. I paid £53 inc postage/insurance for the mount/adapter.


I've only been out to try it on the way to the supermarket and back, so no really interesting pics just yet!