Hi, I'm interesting in exploring some legacy lenses. I do not currently own anything (well except for the zoom kit that came with my pen1). I am also not a professional, meaning I do not want to spend a lot of money -exploration being more important.

What adapter should I get? In some post here people mentioned that Minolta Rokkor was a possibility (price, availability, adaptor cost) but the cmounts look very interesting as well.

So if you had to start from scratch where would you?

well I'm not an expert but i was in the same boat as you when i bought my E-P1. i bought the OM adapter and a few prime OM lenses (28mm, 50mm, 135mm). I think it was a good call as i use the 50mm all the time (and they also fit my old OM10 SLR which is a lovely camera).

Next step - I've asked for a 3-in-1 m42, m39 and c-mount adapter for christmas (link) so I can use cine and Pentax lenses.

I'm using Contax G lenses (I already owned them). They are very cheap today (especially concerning their superb image quality) but focusing is very slow, see http://e-p1.net/index.php?topic=930.0

I've also a Nikon F adapter (see http://e-p1.net/index.php?topic=718.0) but as mentioned above, this combo is not very compact (the E-Series lenses are cheap, small and light).

Some people are very satisfied by using Leica R lenses, see http://e-p1.net/index.php?topic=823.0

The Voigtlander lenses are great too: superb build quality, very small, they are using slim Leica M or M39 adapters and are very low priced even brand-new.

Guess any lens is fun to use with the E-P1/GF1. Go and quest for some nice lenses and buy a suitable adapter (I got mine from "RJ camera accessory store" at ebay. R.J. has now even a Nikon S lens adapter!). It's probably more important to decide which type of lens to buy than of which brand / lens mount they are, e.g. a fast 35mm or 50mm prime. I would not start with longer lenses than 105mm or 135mm (they become difficult to focus manually using the LCD).

Next step - I've asked for a 3-in-1 m42, m39 and c-mount adapter for christmas (link) so I can use cine and Pentax lenses.

I would througly recommend you buy dedicated adapters for each of those lens types. The cost won't be significantly different and you won't have the play that you get in a doubled up adapter arrangment.

I have a MFT to FT adapter coupled with an FT to OM adapter for my OM lenses. I wound up with this as MFT to OM adapters were not readily available at the time.

I also have a MFT to C-mount adapter coupled with Robot flange for my Schneider Robot lens.

The latter is fine (and was quite expensive for what it is) but there is too much slack in the FMT to FT to OM combination, so I am sticking to dedicated adapters from now on.

ok, thanks all for the advice. So, what am going to do is see what lens I find. Lens first adapter second. Having said this it seems that:

- Range finder lenses in terms of sizes might fit better.
- Shorter is the way to go (25mm, 50mm, etc)
- C mounts are fun with some possible cheap glass
- Minolta lenses and OM's can be pretty affordable

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
do the cosmicars vignette at all with the adapters you use??

Well, I have only the Pentax Cosmicar 25/1,4. And only JR's adapter. I wasn't at home this morning when the Hawke one came by. I don't think it will matter much which adapter I use.
Mine starts vignetting at 5,6. So it has sharp black corners when fully stopped down, especially at infinity. Wide open the vignetting edge becomes unsharp. At close focus the focal length is slightly longer, so less vignetting.

As indicated above, I am one of those happy users of Leica-R legacy glass with my E-P1.

Both with Leica-R and OM lenses, I have found it's easier to rely on the E-P1's LCD for focusing manually with telephotos rather than wide angles or normal primes.

I guess this confirms the extensive experience John Foster shared with us in his evaluation of Olympus OM lenses with an E-P1.

In deciding which OM primes to buy for your µ4/3 body, it's also useful to pay close attention to the aperture ranges Olympus recommends.

Good luck.

The explanation can be found in the 7th bullet point after the introductory paragraph to the OM Compatibility Table:

"Because the OM-Series lenses were designed for use with film rather than a digital sensor, there are practical restrictions on the focal length and aperture (F number) that can be used. Certain settings will not produce a quality image... It is not recommended to use lenses or to shoot with settings that are not shown in the table. Recommendations are based on Olympus' testing standard."

Well, I guess that's one possible interpretation.

Another one is, quite simply, that OM glass is not optimized for digital.

As a result, with two or three exceptions, you get optical distortions such as coma, astigmatism, chromatic aberrations, soft focus, etc. at the widest apertures.

And of course, diffraction as you stop down beyond f/8.

Nothing new, really.

It's what happens to the CaNikons with their own, supposedly "fully" compatible, legacy glass, once they try to use it with their newer, higher resolution sensors...

At least Olympus is sincere when issuing a compatibility table listing the acceptable apertures for the use of OM glass with digital sensors.

You won't find anything of the sort in the CaNikon world!

Yeah, I didn't think about the telecentric advantage 4/3 sensor gives you.  The wide angle Zeiss lenses suffer greatly (at least that's what I've read) because of oblique incident light hitting the sensor at too great of an angle.  FF sensors use micro lenses to compensate for oblique light, which drives up their cost severely.  That's probably why the 55mm F1.2 is better than the newer 50mm F1.2, it's more 4/3 telecentric friendly.   

"And of course, diffraction as you stop down beyond f/8."

Would you say that 150mm m.zukio is sharper at F22 (f44 equiv) focus at infinity than a 300mm OM lens set at F22?  Theoretically, I would say yes.

I've said this many times before that I would actually prefer an even smaller sensor than 4/3 to gain DOF especially in low light, and just use digital processing to simulate bokeh etc...  the tilt-shift filter on the EP-2 is probably Oly's way of easing the customer into a simulated bokeh.  If they can make lenses more telecentric cheaply with smaller sensors, that's even better.  As long as the sensor doesn't sacrifice resolution and noise at high ISO, make it smaller.  The great thing about software is that its a one time R&D investment.  One year after the technology reaches the market, the R&D cost is paid off (assuming it sells), and then the company just milks profits for years later.

That looks pretty good to me.