Are third party lenses...

<p>Really worth the bother of putting on your camera?</p>

<p>Sony, Fuji, Olympus, have quality lenses....so, why bother with yesteryear lenses? lost in time lenses.</p>

<p>What really have they got to offer these old, back in time, lenses. Just for the oldie folk.....lost in a dream/fantasy of yesteryear and some special magic that these lenses can do></p>

<p> </p>

<p>Huh? Third-party lenses are current models. Nothing wrong with them; in fact, some like the Sigma "Art" series are better than the OEM lenses.</p>

<p>If you mean so-called "legacy" lenses, yes a lot of older lenses are still superb performers. The 105 f2.5 Nikkor comes immediately to mind, as does the 35mm Canon FD. I use a 50mm f1.8 Olympus OM on my Fuji X-E1. It's small, light and sharp, and its blur is just fine.</p>

<p>If you're referring to new third party lenses aimed specifically to the mirrorless market, the nebulous entity known as Samyang-Rokinon-Bower-etc. offer some very appealingly priced alternatives, and particularly some wide angle and fisheye lenses not made by the OEMs. Autofocus isn't critical or even necessary for those. And the Zeiss Touit lenses look interesting. All have tested pretty well, if not better than the OEM lenses.</p>

<p>In particular I'd like to see more competition from Sigma, Tamron and Tokina in the mirrorless market. Those makers have already exploited gaps in the Canikon lens lineups, particularly Nikon's lack of f/2.8 midrange zooms with optical stabilization. I'd like to see some fast primes with stabilization, since neither Nikon nor Fuji have sensor based stabilization. The main factor keeping me from buying lenses like the Fuji 27/2.8 and Nikon 18.5/1.8 or even 32/1.2 (other than the price of the latter) is the lack of stabilization.</p>

<p>Beyond that, there are plenty of interesting lenses that may not be technically better than the OEM offerings, but with unique enough characteristics. My favorite third party lenses are cheap pawn shop puppies and thrift store foundlings with interesting flaws that aren't easily duplicated with editing tricks. It's hard to digitally add convincing looking chromatic aberration, assuming one happens to like that for certain photos.</p>

<p>So, no auto focus, just awkward manual/peaking.</p>

<p>Is it only Leica worth it.</p>

<p>Be honest.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lex, the only serious challenge to a Leica lens is the 27mm Fuji I own.</p>

<p>Zeiss is about contrast....and for want of better word "thin" a lack of 3d imaging...sort of like your kit lens.</p>

<p>Just my take.</p>

<p>I am also a Leica user.</p>

<p>Let us look at some photos from third party and Fuji lenses.</p>

<p>Small jpegs, but still we can get a feel for the quality of the lens,</p>

<p>Wait a second, you mean this is a stealth Leica mystique thread? If so, I need to don my rosy micro-contrast and glow goggles.</p>

<p>I use vintage 3rd party lenses about 70% of the time on my Oly u3/4. Of course no AF, but I do get image stabilization. And I can use all of my Leica, Olympus OM, Nikon, Canon FD, Zeiss, and Tamrons...the hard part is more about choosing which to use. No question the modern lenses are great....but outside of the adapters, I don't have to spend more money for a full range of outstanding lenses. Sort of like being in photo heaven!</p>

<p>For me its all about the image...</p>

<p>The other stuff is playtime.</p><div></div>

<p>Wait a second, you mean this is a stealth Leica mystique thread? If so, I need to don my rosy micro-contrast and glow goggles.</p>

<p>Talk is cheap. Sorry. Show me.</p>

<p>Love you Lex. Fan.</p>

<p>" Sort of like being in photo heaven!"</p>

<p>Show me this heaven....i want to believe.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So, words.</p>

<p>We are photographers....we take photos and are proud.</p>

<p>Very proud of our work....so, please share.</p>

<p>I don't have an adapter yet for my Fudgie X-A1. I'll be trying my Nikkors on it as soon as the Fotodiox adapter arrives. I also have a couple of soft focus lenses with lots of glow.</p>

<p>But if someone wants to lend me an M adapter and Leica lens I will gleefully test it for mystique and glow. And I'll shoot only b&w, promise. However, if I find any mystique and glow I can't promise I'll return adapter and lens.</p>

<p>I'm not sure how objective I can be about objectives anyway. I'm still in the honeymoon phase with my Fudgie. Despite the engineering quirks, I'm still enamored of the image quality. And I need another battery too. Between the lens stabilizer and in-camera raw conversion options, I'm burning through the one battery pretty quickly.</p>

<p>Truth is are third part lenses just a waste of money.</p>

<p>Show me, Leica or wherever......</p>

<p>My mate Lex, bless him, has dreams about a Leca mount lens on his Fuji. He would mount it 24/7. No probs.</p>

<p>Bottom line.....Leica are the King of lenses....cry about it, have a tantrum, beat up Leica folk....just the way it is.</p>

<p>But the camera/lens is nothing. The eye of the photographer is everything.</p>

<p>That simple, really.</p>

<p> The eye of the photographer is everything.</p>

<p>No Allen it's only part of the equation. A large one but not everything.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Bottom line.....Leica are the King of lenses....cry about it, have a tantrum, beat up Leica folk....just the way it is.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Right. No evidence, of course, but The Truth is Out There. Sure it is.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The eye of the photographer is everything.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As long as he uses the King of Lenses™. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Show me, Leica or wherever......</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Allen, you should hang out here more. Canon FD, Nikkor, Leica, Olympus etc...all good. Especially for the exotic glass like super teles, ultra wides, shifts, etc. but even regular lenses work great. I don't know about other cameras but Sony's focus peaking is a breeze to use. A bit slower working...sure, but working well...and inexpensively. No magic, just good optics.</p>

<p>See my A7 report <a href="/digital-camera-forum/00cTKu">HERE</a></p><div></div>

<p>Canon FD 80-200mm f/4 L</p><div></div>

<p>Canon FL 50mm f/1.2</p><div></div>

<p>Micro-Nikkor 55mm f/2.8</p>

<p>You want more...just ask.</p><div></div>

<h1 ><a href="http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/stradivarius-violins-lose-in-blind-test-against-new-ones-1.2601191">"Stradivarius violins lose in blind test against new ones"</a></h1>

<p>Not only photographers...</p>

<p>Nice work, Louis! But it won't work. Allen has his confusing proposition set up to fail everyone else both ways. It's either the photographer that makes the image, or the Leica lens. If you're not part of his proud, royal <em>We</em>, or using something from his approved Magical Lens list, then you're just whistling in the wind.</p>

<p>I like the concept of the Sigma lenses with the USB port. You can upgrade the mystique.</p>

Allen. I generally shot the manufacturer's lenses or lenses designed for the system on my bodies. Indeed I have never

been known to buy cheaper glass. Thus I currently shoot Leica M and canon DSLR (there are subjects a Leica does not

work for). In the past (and even now) I will also shoot my old film systems (Mamiya and Fuji medium format - M645 and

GX680 plus canon FD and Contax G). That said I have been known to put film MF lenses on mirrorless bodies. I shoot

M645 lenses on Canon EOS at times (you can get a high quality TILT SHIFT adapter and while not up to my 17F4 the IQ

is very high). Similarly I have shot Leica R on EOS ( the 35-70 F4 zoom is better than my Canon 24-70 F2.8 for

example).

 

With my M4/3 body I only ever shoot canon FD or Contax G series lenses as the M4/3 lenses I have used do not produce

the same results. Of course I am comparing very expensive glass to quite cheap glass. Indeed the M4/3 lenses are

generally optically weak but corrected in software but the Contax G and best FD lenses are optically excellent.

 

Interestingly I never shoot Leica M glass on another body - why would I as I can shoot it on Leica. Indeed, from what

I have observed and read rangefinder lenses struggle on digital that is not designed for them. This review seems to sum

up what I have observed

 

http://www.dirkahlgrim.com/wordpress/?p=1637

 

In general I believe that lenses work best on the system they are designed for. Of course high quality lenses are better

than low quality lenses and if digital gives the ability to use a high quality (but inexpensive) lens on digital then it makes a

lot of sense. Louis' images show what good FD glass can do - indeed the canon FD 50 f3.5 can be found for about $50

and will outperform lenses that cost 20x as much. The other reason to use legacy glass on a new digital body is that it

gives a look that the native lenses do not offer. I even use FD glass on my Leica M240 - primarily the Fd35 Tilt Shift lens

and the 15mm fisheye. The reason being that there is no Leica (or native M mount) alternative.

 

So there is my view I use Old MF glass on digital bodies for two reasons - cost ( in the case of Mamiya M645 on EOS as

the outlay of $400 gave me a large selection of TS lenses from 35mm to 210mm as I already had the glass), native lens

lack of availability (e.g. FD fisheye on Leica) and a different look ( such as the FD 85 f1.2 on Leica)

 

I would personally not buy Leica glass for a non M series body but of course that is personal choice. I can see why it

makes sense if you are possibly later moving to an M series body or you just want a different look. What you should

remember is that while a digital Leica body depreciates, the glass almost always appreciates in value. Looked at this way

an M series lens perhaps can make (some) sense. For example a 28 F2 that cost $2500 about 6 years ago will sell used

for about $2800 today. In contrast a $500 Sony NEX or m4/3 lens of six year ago is probably worth $200. Given the

opportunity cost of the money invested in the Leica this would suggest that the two lenses have a similar cost.