Canon EOS-Micro 4/3 adapter

<p>Hello All,</p>

<p>IS anyone using the Kipon m 4/3 to EOS adapter with an Olympus OMD. I'm interested in using my Canon EF 70-200 f2.8 with the OMD body.</p>

<p>Any vignetting issues. Can I focus at infinity or is that sacrificed?<br>

Also comments about other EF lenses with the Kipon adapter are welcome.</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Don Bryant</p>

<p>Canon's EOS lenses are a very poor choice to adapt to micro 4/3 cameras. First of all, there is a simple way to get digital photos with Canon EOS lenses, buy yourself any new or used EOS camera! There is nothing to want with regards to resolution, sensor performance, size, etc. The advantage of adapting lenses is that you get a digital body to use stranded manual-focus lenses like Minolta Rokkor, Pentax Takumar, etc. The Canon crop-sensor cameras already have a 1.6x crop factor, which means that you aren't really gaining much usable focal length by using the OM-D over any of the Canon cameras.</p>

<p>Second, Canon's EF lenses aren't mechanical in any way, so you not only give up autofocus, but you also lose the ability to stop down your lens, forcing you to shoot wide open! You also lose EXIF data, image stabilization, and there's no overall size advantage given the volume of the lens. It just doesn't make any sense. Buy yourself a used Canon T1i, T2i, or T3i and you have a perfect outlet for the 70-200mm lens. Even better, grab a used 60D.</p>

<p>Don, have you try Googling? <a href="http://philipbloom.net/2010/12/17/ne-adaptor-for-using-you-canon-eos-lenses-on-gh1-gh2-af101/">http://philipbloom.net/2010/12/17/ne-adaptor-for-using-you-canon-eos-lenses-on-gh1-gh2-af101/</a></p>

<p>Except for the part about aperture control, I agree with Ariel that adapting EOS lenses to m4/3 makes very little sense.</p>

<p>Unless I am missing something, you don't "lose image stabilisation" you just swap in-lens for in-body IS.<br>

If were going for an EOS body I would go for full-frame to use my manual ultra-wideangle lenses.</p>

 

<p>Fred, that adapter is $100. Let's keep things in perspective, you can buy a used XTi for about $150-$200 and keep the awesome, blazing fast AF of the 70-200mm lens. If you want video, Canon has refurb'ed T3i's for $450. The adapter you linked has a dinky "1-6" ring instead of actual aperture markings, and it introduces its own set of aperture blades behind the rear element. This makes buying both your lens and the camera a complete waste of money.<br>

http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00ZRku<br>

The only worthwhile adapter for an EOS lens is simply an EOS digital camera. If your current system has shortcomings, then there's no shame in replacing it, or supplementing it, with a system that does what you need. I have a D200 with many lenses, but I also have a micro 4/3 camera with a few pieces of glass. I grab them for different purposes. You owe no loyalty to any company: buy what you need.</p>

<p>Harold, that's true, but with previous Olympus cameras that I have used, you have to manually input the focal length. So, you can either put in your most used focal length, or just the longest end, or the middle of the range, and just take it as "good enough." However, it's nothing compared to the camera and lens actually communicating.</p>

<p>Ariel, that adapter is exactly what Don was asking about. I'd think he already knows how much it costs.</p>

<p>And in case you missed it, I already said it makes very little sense adapting EOS to m4/3.</p>

<p>Whether adapting an EOS lens to a m4/3 body makes sense wasn't the purpose of my question. I just wanted some real world feed back regarding the Kipon adapter. </p>

<p>Thanks to Fred for sharing a pertinent link.</p>

 

<p>The link I posted above from an earlier thread is more pertinent. Some half-assed aperture ring behind the lens doesn't stop the lens down much, just mostly vignettes it. Read what Joseph Wisniewski wrote in that previous thread. It's a gimmick product that's a waste of money; an aperture has to be part of the lens. Putting it between the lens and body is a poor solution. I've used regular Kipon adapters though on older manual focus lenses, and they work well enough. They preserve infinity focus, since the adapter plus camera is shorter than the register distance of EOS cameras. It doesn't matter anyway, since the 70-200mm lenses focus past infinity because of their fluorite lens element.</p>

<p>Ariel thanks for your input; we each have our own opinions.</p>

<p>I would suggest you express yours a bit more kindly rather than wagging your virtual finger in the face of others asking questions. In short your posts tend to paint your personality as a sexual intellectual. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>For Ariel's information, some very accomplished photographers who are pushing the limits of lens performance and function might just put the aperture behind the lens, to very good effect:<br>

<a href="http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8656">http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8656</a></p>

<p>Don,</p>

<p>For the most part, I would suggest getting a low-end Canon EOS or Rebel for the 70-200mm Canon lens as opposed to try to adapt the same lens to an Olympus 4/3 or m4/3 camera. The advantages outweigh the manual focus. The only slight advantage to placing a Canon lens on an Olympus body is the 2X focal length factor making the above described lens equivalent to 140-400mm.</p>

<p>There should not be any vignetting issues, because the lens is made for EOS and Rebel; the sensors are larger than the m4/3 and 4/3 sensors.</p>

<p>Good luck to ya.</p>

 

<p>I disagree as to the use of EOS lens with micro 4/3 lens, I often use my Sigma 400mm with a Sigma 1.4 multiplier, the F/5.6 allows for excellent macro use gives me the equivalent of 1120mm f/6.3 lens.</p>

Hi, i just purchased an Olympus OM-D EM-5 with a Panasonic 12 -35. Plan to get the the Panasonic 35 - 100 when it comes out. I

would also like a macro lens and realized I have a Canon 50mm compact macro. Would this work with an adaptor and be worth the

trouble?

 

Thanks,

Cyndi