Interesting observations on using Leica M lenses on Panasonic G1

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by jimsimmons, Apr 22, 2009.

  1. I'd be interested to see a comparison of the Summilux to the Olympus ZD 50/2 macro.

  2. From the photos I've seen from the Olympus 50mm on an E-520, Dwayne, I think it would compare to the Summilux quite nicely, and I'm a diehard Leica loyalist.
  3. sheeze...the only reason for using a 50 SummiLux asp wouLd be for the increased speed...altough there are other alternatives with better Bokeh...
  4. Compared to the G Vario 45-200, the major difference in using the Summilux-M 50 is that the Summi is two and a half stops faster and much smaller in the hand. That translates to both more light gathering power (rendering the OIS less necessary) and better focusing zone control. All manual operation I find to be useful on many occasions.
    Compared to the ZD 50, things are a lot closer. The ZD 50 will outdo the Summi in terms of focusing range but it's only a stop slower and is manual focus only as well. Both are superb quality lenses so it becomes a matter of whether you want the 50's macro focusing capabilities and all the other program metering modes, auto MF Assist option, etc vs the Summi's all manual control.
    I bought two fast, old primes specifically to use with the G1 (not Leica but Olympus Pen F, a 40/1.4 and 70/2). I prefer using them over using the standard zoom or tele zoom because of their speed and rendering qualities, and I actually prefer the all-manual lens operation. That's why I wanted the G1 ... access to interesting lenses with an excellent viewfinder.
  5. I am surprised that there is no difference. I shoot Canon FD lenses on the G1 and based on my tests a top Canon lens (e.g. The 85mm F1.2) is much better than the Panasonic lens. Slightly higher resolution (but an image tha has more "bite") and a significant contrast improvement. I have noticed however that the old FD lenses (and this probably
    Applies to some of the Leica lenses) is that when shooting into the sun contrast falls dramatically. I assume this is due to reflections of the sensor and the lack of an anti-reflective coating on the rear lens element
  6. I am looking forward to getting a micro 4/3 camera and putting my 40mm Summicron it. But I'm waiting to see what Olympus comes out with to compete with the G1. This whole development really excites.
  7. I would not go and buy Leica M lenses to put on a G1, or any m4/3 camera for that matter, hoping that they would be better than the very good lenses designed for that body. But to have a small digital body that can make use of existing M lenses, especially when out and about using a film M body, is valuable to me. M8 is too much money for that. The G1, or whatever Olympus eventually comes up with, would be perfect for that. My experience from using film lenses, whether OM or Leica R, on 4/3 body is that some lenses perform really well, others perform very poorly, even if they are great lenses on film. I suppose the same applies, and even more so on the micro 4/3 because of its smaller distance from lens to sensor.
  8. Ilkka - i agree that you should not buy Leica lenses for the G1 but I have been much more impressed with the FD lenses on the G1 body than with the 14-45 supplied with it. this is not a fair test as I have mainly used the 85 F1.2, 135 f2, 200 f2.8, 80-200 f4L, 24 f2 and 35-105 F3.5. With the exception of the last two lenses any of the others sold for more than the G1 plus lens did when they were bough 25 years ago. I suspect if you use cheaper film glass you will be disappointed.
  9. how do cosina voightlander lenses compare on the g1 with an adaptor?

Share This Page