# Adapters + legacy lenses on the EOS M: any advice?



## JohanCruyff (Jul 23, 2014)

I recently installed Magic Lantern on my M and appreciated the improved ability of manual focussing, thanks to the focus peaking feature.

At almost-macro distance, the 100mm IS Macro L plus focus peaking gave me better result than using autofocus, so now I'm more confident about manual focus and I wonder whether an investment in "old" lenses (plus adapter) is worth or not.

With regard to one popular FD lens, I think that it is not worth to spend some 50 €/$ for an old FD 50mm F/1.8, because I can buy a new EF 50mm F/1.8 (which I could borrow to my daughter's 1100D/T3 or to my own 5D) for 90/100 €/$... but I'm almost sure that there are ancient lenses with better value for money than the 50mm F/1.8, or with unique features.


I don't own any legacy gear, but please feel free to post in this thread not only suggestions on possible purchases you made, but also your esperiences with lenses that you already owned and that woke up due to the arrival of a mirrorless body.


Thank you in advance for your advice, fellow friends from Canonrumors Forum!


----------



## noncho (Jul 23, 2014)

You seems to have good lenses, so if you look at old film lenses should be something really unique. 
I have Canon 40 2.8 pancake and even with adapter is small enough for M. 
You can also wait for native 50mm lens for M.


----------



## sdsr (Jul 23, 2014)

It depends on what you mean by "worth it". As you may have noticed, lots of vintage manual lenses are cheap, and lots of those can be very good to superb; it's an inexpensive way to play around with a variety of lenses. Given the tiny size of the M you'll likely want small lenses. If so, Pentax is perhaps the best place to start - a few weeks ago a bought a Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 for c. $100 which makes excellent images, and an even smaller Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 for less than half that. Check out the pentax forum for vast numbers of user reviews. Your 100L is a marvelous lens, of course, but you might rather use something a lot smaller, such as the superb Nikon 55mm 2.8 macro (if you want to get close) or the Nikon E series 100mm 2.8, which looks tiny next to a 100L. I recently bought both those lenses in excellent shape for c. $120 each (and could have paid less if I had tried harder). With the right adapters, the range to choose from is vast. (I use them on my Olympus M43 and Sony a7r & a6000, but I don't see why they wouldn't work at least as well on an EOS-M.)


----------



## Rocky (Jul 23, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> I recently installed Magic Lantern on my M and appreciated the improved ability of manual focussing, thanks to the focus peaking feature.



What is your impression on the Magic Lantern?? Did you see any problem?? Which built day did you used? I am thinking about installing magic Lantern on my EOS-M. But I have also read that there are problems with the shutter release. Thanks for the advice in advance.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Jul 24, 2014)

noncho said:


> You seems to have good lenses, so if you look at old film lenses should be something really unique.
> I have Canon 40 2.8 pancake and even with adapter is small enough for M.
> You can also wait for native 50mm lens for M.


Thank you.



sdsr said:


> It depends on what you mean by "worth it". As you may have noticed, lots of vintage manual lenses are cheap, and lots of those can be very good to superb; it's an inexpensive way to play around with a variety of lenses. Given the tiny size of the M you'll likely want small lenses. If so, Pentax is perhaps the best place to start - a few weeks ago a bought a Pentax Super-Takumar 50mm 1.4 for c. $100 which makes excellent images, and an even smaller Pentax-M 50mm 1.7 for less than half that. Check out the pentax forum for vast numbers of user reviews. Your 100L is a marvelous lens, of course, but you might rather use something a lot smaller, such as the superb Nikon 55mm 2.8 macro (if you want to get close) or the Nikon E series 100mm 2.8, which looks tiny next to a 100L. I recently bought both those lenses in excellent shape for c. $120 each (and could have paid less if I had tried harder). With the right adapters, the range to choose from is vast. (I use them on my Olympus M43 and Sony a7r & a6000, but I don't see why they wouldn't work at least as well on an EOS-M.)


 
Thanks for your suggestions. You're right, I would like to try a light/small lens on my M. 
I also have to consider that a new 50mm Canon (F/1.8 IS?) could (will eventually) be delivered, so I'm not sure about having (in the future) two prime lenses with the same focal lenght. 
Maybe something different (the 100mms you mentioned, or a good 35mm...).









Rocky said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > I recently installed Magic Lantern on my M and appreciated the improved ability of manual focussing, thanks to the focus peaking feature.
> ...


 
No problems so far, but I just played with it two hours, so I'm not (yet) a reliable tester.


----------



## ecka (Jul 24, 2014)

JohanCruyff said:


> I also have to consider that a new 50mm Canon (F/1.8 IS?) could (will eventually) be delivered, so I'm not sure about having (in the future) two prime lenses with the same focal lenght.
> Maybe something different (the 100mms you mentioned, or a good 35mm...).



You may also have to consider that a new 50mm f/1.8 IS will cost $300-$400 and still won't deliver the umph. If I was looking for a really small manual lens for my mirrorless camera, I would consider something like Leica Summicron-C 40mm f/2 (I think it is $500-$800 used).


----------



## Rocky (Jul 24, 2014)

ecka said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > I also have to consider that a new 50mm Canon (F/1.8 IS?) could (will eventually) be delivered, so I'm not sure about having (in the future) two prime lenses with the same focal lenght.
> ...


40mm on crop will be 64mm angle of view in 35mm. It may be too narrow. If you want to go to the route of Leica lens. 35mm f 2.0 (Summicron) will be a better choice. It is about the same size of the 40mm f 2.0. If the price is too high, then you may try the 35mm f2.8 Summaron.


----------



## ecka (Jul 24, 2014)

Rocky said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > JohanCruyff said:
> ...



Well, 50mm isn't any less narrow than 40mm . There are some interesting Voigtlander lenses too - 21/1.8 Ultron, 35/1.2 Nokton, not cheap though.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 25, 2014)

My Leica-M to EOS-M adapter came in today. I have been playing with a 35/2 Summicron from my 45 years old Leica collection. The 35/2 Summicron is my favorite lens. It is sharp and contrasy when stopped down to f 4.0 in the film application. Tripod and manual focusing was used ( with 10X magnification) for both indoor and outdoor shots. Outdoor is just shooting down the street with the center of interest 60 ft away and 150 feet away. Indoor target is a unframed (no glass) fine painting with a lot of detail (Flash is used to avoid hand shaking). F2.0 to F8.0 was used to eliminate focusing error for all indoor and out door shots..
Result : It is shocking. As a pixel peeper, the Canon 22mm f 2.0 beats the Summicron in both contrast and sharpness.
Conclusion: It is fun to play with the old lens. I suppose the old lens was not built for 18 MP resolution Bayer sensor with AA filter ( may be that is why Leica digital M is not using AA filter). Is it worthwhile to use old lens on the EOS-M??

Update: Tried the Voigtland 25/4 after diner (indoor) it is worst than the Summicron.
Tried the Elmar 50/2.8. It is a touch better than the Summicron. But still below the Canon22mm 2.0
Elmar 50/2.8 is a very sharp lens at its time. It it so sharp that it was double duty as a 
macro lens with the proper attachment

Final verdict: I give up, I do not even want to try the Elmar 90/4 or the Hector 135/4.5. These two are too big and too heavy for the EOS-M anyway.


----------



## ecka (Jul 25, 2014)

Rocky said:


> My Leica-M to EOS-M adapter came in today. I have been playing with a 35/2 Summicron from my 45 years old Leica collection. The 35/2 Summicron is my favorite lens. It is sharp and contrasy when stopped down to f 4.0 in the film application. Tripod and manual focusing was used ( with 10X magnification) for both indoor and outdoor shots. Outdoor is just shooting down the street with the center of interest 60 ft away and 150 feet away. Indoor target is a unframed (no glass) fine painting with a lot of detail (Flash is used to avoid hand shaking). F2.0 to F8.0 was used to eliminate focusing error for all indoor and out door shots..
> Result : It is shocking. As a pixel peeper, the Canon 22mm f 2.0 beats the Summicron in both contrast and sharpness.
> Conclusion: It is fun to play with the old lens. I suppose the old lens was not built for 18 MP resolution Bayer sensor with AA filter ( may be that is why Leica digital M is not using AA filter). Is it worthwhile to use old lens on the EOS-M??
> 
> ...



There are plenty of modern lenses that are not good enough for 18MP resolution Bayer sensor with AA filter or without one. Sharpness is not all that matters. Every lens is a compromise between sharpness, aberrations, bokeh, build, focus features and price. I never was a huge fan of adapting old luxury lenses, because all the decent ones just cost too much and I feel the same about overpriced modern crop optics (like m4/3). Nice and small f/5.6 zoom on FF makes a lot more sense to me.
The EF-M 22/2 STM is nice, no need for replacing it with an old junk (there is nothing better or even similar in its price range). I hope more is coming.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jul 25, 2014)

Adapting old FD or FL lenses is fine if they are free, but don't pay a overpriced amount for them. I often find a old Camera with one for $5.00. I have never been able to find a old FD "L" lens or any one that was valuable.

The 50mm f/1.8 is the best wide aperture lens for the $$, its just not particularly durable.

If you are going to adapt a old lens, there are some that are supposed to be pretty good from Olympus, I have almost every brand, but I don't adapt them to use, I test them and then pass them on along with a matching body to photography students or film enthusiasts. I'm spoiled by having a bunch of "L" lenses.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 25, 2014)

My intention is to use my "good old lens" along side with the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm for the EOS-M. Never have any thought of replace them and going back to "stone age".With the Summiron, I will have a 56/2.0 ( 35mmm equivalent). With the Elmar, I will have a 80/2.8 ( 2 stops faster than the zoom). Together, with an adapter on each lens it will only take up 3.5 inches of space. Leica have a ring that allows you to put two lenses together in back to back position. The Elmar is collapsible. That will make a very small travel outfit. I do not even need to buy the two lenses. Another reason is the Bokeh on both lenses are excellent due to the perfectly round aperture with 10 0r 12 blades.

Too bad this idea does not plan out.


----------



## ecka (Jul 25, 2014)

Rocky said:


> My intention is to use my "good old lens" along side with the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm for the EOS-M. Never have any thought of replace them and going back to "stone age".With the Summiron, I will have a 56/2.0 ( 35mmm equivalent). With the Elmar, I will have a 80/2.8 ( 2 stops faster than the zoom). Together, with an adapter on each lens it will only take up 3.5 inches of space. Leica have a ring that allows you to put two lenses together in back to back position. The Elmar is collapsible. That will make a very small travel outfit. I do not even need to buy the two lenses. Another reason is the Bokeh on both lenses are excellent due to the perfectly round aperture with 10 0r 12 blades.
> 
> Too bad this idea does not plan out.



That would be a nice "stone age" travel kit .
Actually, you have 56/3.2 with the Summicron on EOS-M, and 80/4.5 with the Elmar. The bokeh would still be nice, but nothing like FF. That's the price of the crop.


----------



## Rocky (Jul 25, 2014)

ecka said:


> Rocky said:
> 
> 
> > My intention is to use my "good old lens" along side with the 22/2.0 and the 18-55mm for the EOS-M. Never have any thought of replace them and going back to "stone age".With the Summiron, I will have a 56/2.0 ( 35mmm equivalent). With the Elmar, I will have a 80/2.8 ( 2 stops faster than the zoom). Together, with an adapter on each lens it will only take up 3.5 inches of space. Leica have a ring that allows you to put two lenses together in back to back position. The Elmar is collapsible. That will make a very small travel outfit. I do not even need to buy the two lenses. Another reason is the Bokeh on both lenses are excellent due to the perfectly round aperture with 10 0r 12 blades.
> ...


56/2.0 and 80/2.8 is from light gathering point of view, not background burling effect. that is the same reason why Canon call the 22mm as 2.0 not 3.2.


----------



## ecka (Jul 25, 2014)

Rocky said:


> ecka said:
> 
> 
> > Rocky said:
> ...



Not really. There is no "point of view" for it to be 56/2 and 80/2.8, it doesn't work that way. Crop is affecting everything - the light (1.6x APS-C gathers 2.5 times less light, simply because it has 2.5 times smaller sensor area), the bokeh and perspective (because of the longer distance) and overall image quality (stronger aberrations, diffraction and noise; less sharpness and contrast).
Canon calls it 22/2 because it is 22/2, but its FF equivalent is 35/3.2, not 35/2.


----------



## bf (Oct 16, 2014)

I want a lens for natural light portraits and good bokeh to use with EOS-M. I just want it for fun and won't invest high $$$ on it. I guess a fast tele between 85mm to 200mm can be a good candidate. What is your best practical suggestion? Should I look to old FD models or classic Nikors or others?


----------



## Rocky (Oct 17, 2014)

bf said:


> I want a lens for natural light portraits and good bokeh to use with EOS-M. I just want it for fun and won't invest high $$$ on it. I guess a fast tele between 85mm to 200mm can be a good candidate. What is your best practical suggestion? Should I look to old FD models or classic Nikors or others?


If you want good bokeh, look for lens that have at least 10 aperture blades. The more blades, the better it will be. This is give you an almost round opening on the aperture. The bokeh will be excellent.


----------



## LovePhotography (Oct 19, 2014)

A Konica Hexanon 135mm f/2.5 is simply a *remarkable* lens on an EOS M (with the Konica Hexanon- EOS M adapter, of course).


----------



## bf (Oct 20, 2014)

Thanks. 
It seems 135/f2.5 runs between $100-$300. I could not find any info about the number of blades but as you said it seems the best Konika offered at this range. Konika 135/f3.5 is much cheaper for half of weight.

How is Pentacon 135 f2.8? I know nothing about the brand and this product but they say it has 15 aperture blades.
That can be found cheaper than Konika 135 f2.5.


----------



## kent.russell (Oct 20, 2014)

I have had immense fun playing with old lenses on the EOS M choosing a single each month to enjoy/test. So far for wider angles, I have not found any old lenses reasonably priced (for me < $100) that will beat the 22mm Ef-m. However, at the longer end, the Vivitar/Tokina (Bokina) http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-series-1-90mm-2-5-macro.html has proven the best for me by far. Most on ebay seem to trade in the $100-$200 range.


----------



## Rocky (Oct 20, 2014)

bf said:


> Thanks.
> It seems 135/f2.5 runs between $100-$300. I could not find any info about the number of blades but as you said it seems the best Konika offered at this range. Konika 135/f3.5 is much cheaper for half of weight.
> 
> How is Pentacon 135 f2.8? I know nothing about the brand and this product but they say it has 15 aperture blades.
> That can be found cheaper than Konika 135 f2.5.


You can do a Google search on just about anything.


----------



## bf (Oct 21, 2014)

> You can do a Google search on just about anything.



Everybody knows it! We are here to share our personal experiences and discuss our personal insights.


----------



## LovePhotography (Oct 22, 2014)

bf said:


> Thanks.
> It seems 135/f2.5 runs between $100-$300. I could not find any info about the number of blades but as you said it seems the best Konika offered at this range. Konika 135/f3.5 is much cheaper for half of weight.
> 
> How is Pentacon 135 f2.8? I know nothing about the brand and this product but they say it has 15 aperture blades.
> That can be found cheaper than Konika 135 f2.5.



The Hexanon 135/2.5 has 6 blades. The thing I like about it compared to the 135/3.5 (I have both) is the brighter image in the viewfinder for focusing, and the better IQ. It is also a really pretty lens, if you're into such things! )


----------



## bf (Oct 22, 2014)

> The Hexanon 135/2.5 has 6 blades. The thing I like about it compared to the 135/3.5 (I have both) is the brighter image in the viewfinder for focusing, and the better IQ. It is also a really pretty lens, if you're into such things! )



Thanks I noticed the demand for it according to its price tag. I've also read old Konika lenses are more clear compared to legacy Nikons and Canons of the similar range/type. I also learned their Hexanon 85mm F1.8 is a rear and pricey find.


----------



## yorgasor (Oct 22, 2014)

You might look into a Zeiss 45mm f/2.8 Tessar pancake lens. I have to use it with the mirror lockup on my 5D3 as the mirror hits it when focused to infinity, but I'm very impressed with the results when I do use it. The SMC Takumar 35mm f/3.5 is another fabulous lens that can be had for a song and produces wonderful images, and it's very small. At the longer end, an SMC Takumar 135mm f/2.5 is another great lens, and yet still small enough to not look silly with the EOS-M. 

keh.com is an excellent place to buy these lenses from. They have a well respected rating system and a wide selection to choose from. I'd trust them much more than something similar on ebay, and it's usually cheaper too.


----------



## kphoto99 (Oct 22, 2014)

Which lens is better: KONICA 135MM F/3.2 HEXANON AR or PENTAX 135MM F/2.5 SMC TAKUMAR M42.
Better, as in sharper for micro shots attached to the EOS-M with some extension tube and an adapter?


----------



## sdsr (Oct 25, 2014)

kphoto99 said:


> Which lens is better: KONICA 135MM F/3.2 HEXANON AR or PENTAX 135MM F/2.5 SMC TAKUMAR M42.
> Better, as in sharper for micro shots attached to the EOS-M with some extension tube and an adapter?



I can't answer that question directly (I have the Konica Hexanon 135 3.2 and 135 2.8s from Olympus and Vivitar ($28!), along with the Canon 135mm L) but allow me to suggest another for you to consider as well, the highly regarded Vivitar 135mm 2.8 close-focusing - it's bigger than the standard Vivitar 135mm 2.8 (though not as big as the Konica-Hexanon) but allows you to focus much closer than any of the others and, depending on what you want to do with it, this may make extension tubes etc. unnecessary (on the other hand, if mine's typical, it's probably not as good at capturing detail on distant subjects as the others I have). To find out more, this may be a good place to start (it's where I first learned about it, I think):

http://www.pentaxforums.com/userreviews/vivitar-135mm-f-2-8-1-2-close-focusing.html

I should perhaps warn you, if you're interested, that this lens seldom shows up on ebay (I've never seen it at KEH/Adorama/B&H) and when it does, as often as not it's not this lens at all but the regular Vivitar 135mm 2.8 misidentified (whether the sellers are clueless or devious I can't say) - but it's easy enough to figure out. All you have to do is look at the photo the seller provides of the front of the lens - it will have "close focusing" (among other things) written on it. (Despite the evident scarcity of the real thing, it's still not expensive - I don't think I paid more than $120 for mine, which seems to be in good condition and even came with its original case.)

All that said, you might find the ergonomics of the bigger 135mm MF lenses a tad awkward (to say the least) on an EOS M - they're all metal and even the smaller ones are heavy for their size compared to most modern lenses (I use mine on mirrorless Sonys).


----------



## kphoto99 (Nov 22, 2014)

I found a Konica Hexanon AR 135mm F2.5 on Kijiji, it cost me $65, so not bad. I have it on my M with an adapter and extension tubes. I didn't have a chance to test it yet.

I have not been able to find an adapter without optics that would mount it to my DSLR, I know that without optics I would not have infinity focus, but that is not something that I care for micro.


----------



## TAF (Nov 22, 2014)

The first lens I tried was a Canon 50/1.2 FD, since I had it (so $20 for an adapter was all it cost me). Very nice, and since I also had an FD bellows, it has been a useful macro. I won't be buying a 'modern' macro lens, as this setup is quite adequate for my needs.

Then I started experimenting with really old view camera lenses (various Ektars and even older stuff). Quite a lot of fun, and the images tend to be unique. The 'period' look had/has as much to do with the lens as it does the film. In monochromatic mode, the pictures look like they could have been shot in the 50's.

I'm not sure I would recommend spending significant money for such things, but if you like experimenting (and yard sale-ing/antiquing), you can acquire a wide selection of interesting lenses cheaply (next weekend, the one after Thanksgiving here in the US, is a perfect antique store weekend). The various adapters are inexpensive as well.


----------



## Rocky (Nov 22, 2014)

If you have the lens laying around, it is fun to do it. If you have to buy the lens, think twice. EOS-M is not made for manual focusing under the sun.


----------



## timzog (Dec 4, 2014)

I have the fd 50 1.4 from my dad's old Canon A-1. The 1.4 is a brilliant lens. It is great for portraits, but it does require more time to set up your shots but with it wide open, you can go without a flash in almost any condition. The place where the fd prime lenses shine is for video. I took video of my daughter's choir concert with a small tripod and the 50 1.4 in very low light conditions and beautiful quality. I'd like to learn more about the magic lantern focusing aid.


----------

