Yes, there is an adaptor specific for this Elmarit/Elmar macro lenses. I put mine on a macro elmarit 60mm f2.8 on a full frame digital camera. It still goes to 1:1.
Those 3 lenses are early models which do not have as good coatings as later models. The 100mm 4.0 Macro-Elmar-R goes to 1:1,6 with the Macro-Adapter-R and it goes to 1:1 with Focising Bellows-R, the 100mm Macro-Elmar-R are corrected to its optimum performance from ratio 1:5 to ratio 1:10 and gives the best results a aperture 5.6.
Hi Matti, I bought a Carl Zeiss Jena DRP Sonnar 52mm M36 and Idustar-61 L/D M39 for FED/ZORKI. What is the best mount adapters to make these work on Lumix GX95? Thanks
Double check the mounts your vintage lenses have and then buy a suitable adapter. For example, if your lens has the M39 mount, you'll need a M39 to MFT adapter.
Main reason is the lenses are as much as 80% lead…modern lenses have no lead except those made in Germany. Hence they under perform and require coating.
I've tried Leica R-lenses and a Pierre Angénieux zoom lense 45-90/f.4 on my Lumix GX8 and G2, but the result was poor. On the Leica M240 they are perfect, but not as good as Leica M lenses. The Lumix S1 is almost the same as the Leica SL. Thanks for your review.
Hi Matti, I have one question : have you ever experienced adaptation of Canon EF lenses on L mount ? Is Sigma MC21 ok or do you recommand something else ?
I have tried the MC-21 and is was fine, but I think there is at least one firmware update after my video. So, I'm not sure how good it is today. I think you have to try it for yourself to be sure, because the AF is not as fast as it is with native lenses. I probably would not use it, because there are already many native lenses for L mount, but if you have a bunch of EF lenses around, it could be worth it.
My son when he was 16 stayed a year in Jalasjarvi 5 years ago for an intercultural experience. He became a sauna addict ;-) That is why I know few words
@@titouyou1 Wow, interesting. Sauna can be additive. I'm gonna heat mine today. I thought you were just using google translate and trying to be polite. Let me apologize for my thoughts😀
I remain a little sceptical about the value of vintage lenses. Some indeed have their own characteristic, but many are not distinguishable from modern lenses. Especially after post-processing. Which lenses would you consider having a"special flavour".
Not all old lenses are anything special and post processing can do wonders. However, some old lens coatings and designs can look really nice. I have no favorite vintage lenses, that I could name.
Take care of your health sir. I've used the R4 with the 60mm macro (with the macro adapter) and the 90mm. Also used them with an R-EF adapter with mediocre results. Overall, the images do appear a little on the warm side, but nothing really spectacular. Focussing is lovely on these lenses. Eventually i gave them away as they were too heavy for practical use.
I had a very similar experience Shel Oui. Shot some R lenses on a R5 and on digital. I wasn’t overly impressed with the IQ and I didn’t like the weight of the lenses. True, the build quality was great and I enjoyed the super smooth focusing but they didn’t work for me.
Just a headup.. That "red dot" on the lens isn't specific to Leica, they were on most lenses from around 1975-1985 had those.. All Canon FDs , Minoltas had them as welll (and others)..
Thanks for your info on the topic. However, that was meant more like a figure of speech, because the real Leica red dot is, of course, their red logo. The white Leica text in the red roundel. I didn't mean to confuse anyone with this small anecdote.
There are some really unique vintages out there. The usual suspects of normal focal lengths etc. aren't all that interesting, but I picked up a vintage 180 f3.4 APO lens that is wicked sharp at infinity (was designed by Leica Canada for the US Navy) with a tiny footprint, then there's the 60 f2.8 Leica macro lens...fabulous sharpness and constrasty! I am in the process of digitising slides and negatives, using the 100 f4 bellows lens with bellows, the sharpness and picture quality cannot be beat for that kind of lens...not that the standard lenses aren't good, but the specialty lenses is where these shine...especially on a good m4/3 camera. :-)
Interest in R lenses under adaption is under consideration by many because of the zooms and prime telephoto’s prices, and prime telephoto’s are none existent. We’re all wondering how they do…example 250mm f4 prime.
I still have a few R lenses in my safe: focal lengths 24, 35, 90 and 180. I have yet to try these on a mirrorless digital camera but someday I will. I do not expect these to eclipse my modern Zeiss glass but it should be fun to try these.
@@ericcoen8894 I have the 35mm f/2.8. I used it in 1998 to shoot a Point Lobos seascape on Ilford XP2 chromogenic film in a Leica R4s, and had it printed to 30” wide for a print over my fireplace. Virtually grainless at normal viewing distances. Recently I tried that lens on a Nikon Z 5 and I liked what I saw. Still a great lens, despite its age.
You did not list the manufacturer and model numbers of the L mount and MFT adapters you used. Video is useless without that (I own all three of these lenses and G9, G95, GX7 and E-M1 III)
This is a lens video, not an adapter video, but I'm sorry, if you feel the video was useless. You can use any R to MFT or R to L adapter and there are many to choose from. You don't have to use the same adapters I used. Besides, I have another video where I talk about adapters and manual focus lenses and I linked to that video at the end of this video.
The best Takumars are actually the really early ones. The presets and autos from the 1950s. I have the Super Takumar 55mm f2 and it put me off buying any of the later Takumars. The earlier Auto Takumar 55mm f2 is better. I think they cut corners whereas earlier they were genuinely attempting to compete with Leica. The 200mm Takumar preset f3.5 is fantastic and can still be got cheap. They may lack contrast being earlier lenses without modern coatings but they make up for that otherwise.
Yes, there is an adaptor specific for this Elmarit/Elmar macro lenses. I put mine on a macro elmarit 60mm f2.8 on a full frame digital camera. It still goes to 1:1.
I wish that I had bought more Leica R Lenses 10 to 15 years ago when you could get them much cheaper.
Those 3 lenses are early models which do not have as good coatings as later models.
The 100mm 4.0 Macro-Elmar-R goes to 1:1,6 with the Macro-Adapter-R and it goes to 1:1 with Focising Bellows-R, the 100mm Macro-Elmar-R are corrected to its optimum performance from ratio 1:5 to ratio 1:10 and gives the best results a aperture 5.6.
Hi Matti, I bought a Carl Zeiss Jena DRP Sonnar 52mm M36 and Idustar-61 L/D M39 for FED/ZORKI. What is the best mount adapters to make these work on Lumix GX95? Thanks
Double check the mounts your vintage lenses have and then buy a suitable adapter. For example, if your lens has the M39 mount, you'll need a M39 to MFT adapter.
One of the reason Leica lenses are heavier is that many of them used brass focusing helical threads as opposed to aluminum.
Main reason is the lenses are as much as 80% lead…modern lenses have no lead except those made in Germany. Hence they under perform and require coating.
I've tried Leica R-lenses and a Pierre Angénieux zoom lense 45-90/f.4 on my Lumix GX8 and G2, but the result was poor. On the Leica M240 they are perfect, but not as good as Leica M lenses. The Lumix S1 is almost the same as the Leica SL. Thanks for your review.
Thanks!
Hi Matti, I have one question : have you ever experienced adaptation of Canon EF lenses on L mount ? Is Sigma MC21 ok or do you recommand something else ?
I have tried the MC-21 and is was fine, but I think there is at least one firmware update after my video. So, I'm not sure how good it is today. I think you have to try it for yourself to be sure, because the AF is not as fast as it is with native lenses. I probably would not use it, because there are already many native lenses for L mount, but if you have a bunch of EF lenses around, it could be worth it.
@@mattisulanto Kiitos Matti
My son when he was 16 stayed a year in Jalasjarvi 5 years ago for an intercultural experience. He became a sauna addict ;-) That is why I know few words
@@titouyou1 Wow, interesting. Sauna can be additive. I'm gonna heat mine today. I thought you were just using google translate and trying to be polite. Let me apologize for my thoughts😀
I remain a little sceptical about the value of vintage lenses. Some indeed have their own characteristic, but many are not distinguishable from modern lenses. Especially after post-processing. Which lenses would you consider having a"special flavour".
Not all old lenses are anything special and post processing can do wonders. However, some old lens coatings and designs can look really nice. I have no favorite vintage lenses, that I could name.
Take care of your health sir.
I've used the R4 with the 60mm macro (with the macro adapter) and the 90mm.
Also used them with an R-EF adapter with mediocre results.
Overall, the images do appear a little on the warm side, but nothing really spectacular.
Focussing is lovely on these lenses. Eventually i gave them away as they were too heavy for practical use.
Thanks!
I had a very similar experience Shel Oui. Shot some R lenses on a R5 and on digital. I wasn’t overly impressed with the IQ and I didn’t like the weight of the lenses. True, the build quality was great and I enjoyed the super smooth focusing but they didn’t work for me.
Just a headup.. That "red dot" on the lens isn't specific to Leica, they were on most lenses from around 1975-1985 had those.. All Canon FDs , Minoltas had them as welll (and others)..
The red knob was Leicas idea, Zeiss had blue knobs. The red dots were common on other brands too, that's correct.
Thanks for your info on the topic. However, that was meant more like a figure of speech, because the real Leica red dot is, of course, their red logo. The white Leica text in the red roundel. I didn't mean to confuse anyone with this small anecdote.
There are some really unique vintages out there. The usual suspects of normal focal lengths etc. aren't all that interesting, but I picked up a vintage 180 f3.4 APO lens that is wicked sharp at infinity (was designed by Leica Canada for the US Navy) with a tiny footprint, then there's the 60 f2.8 Leica macro lens...fabulous sharpness and constrasty! I am in the process of digitising slides and negatives, using the 100 f4 bellows lens with bellows, the sharpness and picture quality cannot be beat for that kind of lens...not that the standard lenses aren't good, but the specialty lenses is where these shine...especially on a good m4/3 camera. :-)
Thanks for sharing. I plan to review more vintage lenses and hopefully some special items too. This was just the start and I had to start somewhere😀
@@mattisulanto It was a great start! Looking forward to more!
Interest in R lenses under adaption is under consideration by many because of the zooms and prime telephoto’s prices, and prime telephoto’s are none existent. We’re all wondering how they do…example 250mm f4 prime.
I still have a few R lenses in my safe: focal lengths 24, 35, 90 and 180. I have yet to try these on a mirrorless digital camera but someday I will. I do not expect these to eclipse my modern Zeiss glass but it should be fun to try these.
If you have the lenses, you should try them. Adapters are cheap.
35/2 or 35/2.8?
@@ericcoen8894 I have the 35mm f/2.8. I used it in 1998 to shoot a Point Lobos seascape on Ilford XP2 chromogenic film in a Leica R4s, and had it printed to 30” wide for a print over my fireplace. Virtually grainless at normal viewing distances. Recently I tried that lens on a Nikon Z 5 and I liked what I saw. Still a great lens, despite its age.
@@mattisulanto I finally did, and the results were quite good.
You did not list the manufacturer and model numbers of the L mount and MFT adapters you used. Video is useless without that (I own all three of these lenses and G9, G95, GX7 and E-M1 III)
This is a lens video, not an adapter video, but I'm sorry, if you feel the video was useless. You can use any R to MFT or R to L adapter and there are many to choose from. You don't have to use the same adapters I used.
Besides, I have another video where I talk about adapters and manual focus lenses and I linked to that video at the end of this video.
Amatöörit juttelevat kamera kamoista, ammattilaiset ovat kuvaamassa!
Näin on. Jokaiselle kykyjensä mukaan😀
Super-Takumar 55mm f2 is just as good as the Summicron and costs $25.
Thanks!
You're absolutely right - and Hafei Lobo is even better than Porsche 911 (u can get it with 5 doors :-)
🤮 its not
The best Takumars are actually the really early ones. The presets and autos from the 1950s. I have the Super Takumar 55mm f2 and it put me off buying any of the later Takumars. The earlier Auto Takumar 55mm f2 is better. I think they cut corners whereas earlier they were genuinely attempting to compete with Leica. The 200mm Takumar preset f3.5 is fantastic and can still be got cheap. They may lack contrast being earlier lenses without modern coatings but they make up for that otherwise.