How I Adapt Old Lenses (to Micro Four Thirds)

 INTRO:

The first thing to ask yourself is "Do I really need autofocus?" If you don't or you don't mind just experimenting with manual focus, read on. The good thing is, SOME old lenses can not only be very affordable, but very good...even better than some of the newer options, especially with newer (and sharper) camera sensors. So, lets get into exactly HOW I adapt old lenses (to Micro Four Thirds) and if you're wondering "Isn't adapting lenses as simple as buying an adapter, and putting it on the camera?" Well, it kind of is, but what I'll be talking about is the decision-making process that led me to coming up with the information you'll see in my notes below. It's about how I keep the image quality high, even when using smaller sensor (Micro Four Thirds) budget filmmaking cameras.

---

 WARNING: I no longer recommend focal reducers/speed boosters FOR CAMERAS WITH I.B.I.S. (In-Body Image Stabilization). The reason is, I dropped my camera (with a Viltrox NF-M43x on it) and the sensor got scratched (I'm pretty sure it was because the optic of the speed booster sticks into the lens mount more than an OEM Panasonic lens).

There are a ton of options when it comes to adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds, as you can adapt almost ANY lens mount (because of the small sensor size).

WHY ADAPT OLD LENSES?

Adapting vintage lenses can be a cost-effective way to enhance your image, especially if you're working with budget cameras (around $600 or less). I’ve found that many vintage lenses have characteristics that can help you produce great images (when paired with the right camera and CUSTOM, LENS-SENSOR SETTINGS). Adapting vintage lenses is one of the most rewarding things about using Micro Four Thirds, as you can unlock new looks with the unique image qualities of vintage lenses. Oh, and when I say "vintage" I include the late 80's and early 90's AF (autofocus) lenses, so keep that in mind.

Why Some People Go Vintage:

• Character: Vintage lenses often have distinctive color profiles modern glass can’t replicate.

• Manual Control: A tactile, hands-on shooting experience with manual focus and aperture rings.

• Affordability: Many high-quality vintage lenses are available for a fraction of the price of new.

• Build Quality: All-metal construction and solid mechanics are common in older lenses.

• Flexibility: Adapted lenses can give you access to focal lengths and apertures not available natively on MFT.

  
  

I actually consider AF lenses from the late 80s and early 90s to be "vintage". The Minolta AF mount (now called Sony A) has a number of super good lenses...and they're affordable too!

HOW I ADAPT LENSES: INDOOR VS. OUTDOOR

When adapting old lenses to Micro Four Thirds, the first thing I think about is what environment I'll be shooting in. I start by separating INDOOR vs. OUTDOOR situations, then I categorize the choices into my "3 Simple Shots" which are based on my Top 3 (Budget) Lenses for Filmmaking (WIDE, TIGHT and TELE).

HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (INDOORS)

• WIDE = "BOOST" (unless "SHIFT" or AF follow)

• TIGHT = "BOOST" (almost always)

• TELE = "BOOST" (almost always)

HOW I ADAPT TO M4/3 (OUTDOORS)

• WIDE = "SHIFT" (unless AF follow)

• TIGHT = "HELICOID" (macro adapter)

• TELE = "HELICOID" (or "BOOST"*)

ABOVE: My most important tip regarding adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds INDOORS is "Boost whenever you can". However, there are a few exceptions to this rule (see below).

INDOORS WIDE = BOOST

Indoors (or in low light situations) Micro Four Thirds sensors often need a +BOOST (i.e. a focal reducer). There are two reasons they need this: 1.) They need a wider max. aperture to expose the sensor to more light, and 2.) They may need a wider angle (a shorter focal length) to get everything in the shot. However, if there is enough light indoors, I would always prefer to use a SHIFT adapter  #ad (for correcting architectural distortion) but that can only work if your lens is both wide enough, and it has a decent maximum aperture. (This is why I love using the Tokina AT-X 11-16 2.8  #ad  ). The other reason I wouldn't use a +BOOST would be if I needed to "follow" using touchscreen AF (autofocus).

ABOVE: When using Micro Four Thirds INDOORS I like using a speed booster, but not because of low light (you can add light indoors) but to create a background blur in smaller spaces. Bad news is, now I DO NOT RECOMMEND USING SPEED BOOSTERS WITH IBIS, so I only do it with my GH4, G7.

INDOORS TIGHT = BOOST

The first reason I use a +BOOST indoors is simply to increase the amount of light being sent to the sensor. This allows me to use a lower ISO (which is really important for Micro Four Thirds cameras). Also, the indoor "TIGHT" shot is usually used for a "talking head" people shot, so the speed booster helps to create shallower depth of field (i.e. more background blur).

INDOORS TELE = BOOST

Since there really isn't any (affordable) telephoto lens that is as fast as F/1.4, I almost always add a speed booster for telephoto shots (INDOORS). There aren't many BUDGET options for low-light telephoto lenses either, so that makes this situation even worse. There are expensive F/2.8 options (and even a 50-100 1.8 from Sigma) but I often need something in the range of 70-300 for telephoto, especially after applying the 0.71x focal reduction of the speed booster. So, in many cases, the 200mm at the long end of a 70/80-200 2.8 isn't enough, even on Micro Four Thirds with a 2x crop factor. So, what do I do? Well, this is one of those rare times when I push my ISO up (to 800 max.) and add a +BOOST (speed booster). With a BOOST, even an F/4.5-5.6 70-300 zoom can (often) work in low light. I rarely push my ISO up to 800 when using Micro Four Thirds (and never higher) because the smaller sensor and the higher ISO will create a grainy image and/or overly noise-reduced image.

ABOVE: My When adapting lenses to Micro Four Thirds OUTDOORS, the first thing I do is add a "SHIFT" adapter to the WIDE shot, and then macro "HELICOID" adapters to the rest.

OUTDOORS "WIDE" = SHIFT

I love "SHIFT" adapters so much that I try to use them whenever possible (for "WIDE" shots). Also known as "perspective control" adapters (taken from "perspective control lenses") they can keep architectural lines of buildings straight, which ends up adding realism to the shot (in my opinion). There's more detail in my book on Amazon  #ad  (has a special section about using shift lenses for Micro Four Thirds) but I can quickly say that once you use a shift adapter or lens, you'll never want to go back. (You'll probably be able to see why I even try to use them in low-light situations where I would normally use a speed booster, etc.)

Now about why I say not to use the shift adapter if you're doing a "follow" is that I "Always Shoot With 2 Cameras" and when doing so, I find it's much easier to control 2 cameras when 1 of the 2 is using touchscreen autofocus (because you're manually focus-pulling on the other shot). This even works on my Panasonic M43 cameras, if using Single Shot AF.

ABOVE: I can't tell you how much I love using an inexpensive ($123 US) tilt/shift adapter  #ad  on Micro Four Thirds. What this means, is you can turn almost any (Nikon F/G mount) lens into a TILT/SHIFT lens, including variable focal length (zoom) lenses!

OUTDOORS "TIGHT" = HELICOID (MACRO)

If you haven't noticed from my lens test videos (on YouTube) I like to be able to shoot macro anytime I'm outdoors. There's a number of ways to do this, but the way I like to do it is to use a macro helicoid adapter  #ad . The reason I like this approach (instead of buying a macro lens) is that it allows me to test almost ANY lens at a macro distance, even though they weren't designed for this. It also means I can use more low-light capable lenses, such as a 50mm 1.4, and be ready for both INDOOR and OUTDOOR situations (compared to most macro lenses being an F/2.8, F/3.5 or even an F/4.0).

OUTDOORS "TELE" = HELICOID (MACRO)

The reason I add a "BOOST" to a telephoto lens OUTDOORS, is that sometimes these tele lenses can be heavy, and my focal reducer ("speed booster") has a tripod mount on the adapter which bears the weight of the lens, instead of the camera's mount. Lighter lenses such as the 70/75-300 4.5-5.6 variety (from the early AF era in the 90's) don't need this special mount, so I use a macro "HELICOID". (If someone would design a macro helicoid adapter WITH an integrated tripod mount, THAT would be great!)

ABOVE: When shooting OUTDOORS, there are so many moments you can miss if you don't have a MACRO lens! To be prepared for this, I like to always have a macro helicoid adapter  #ad  on hand. These are golden as they pretty much turn ANY lens into a MACRO!

SO, WHAT LENS MOUNTS DO I PREFER?

I’ve tested a variety of lens mounts, but I only want to discuss those I’ve personally used. I believe in sharing experiences rather than speculating about products I haven’t tried. This post will not cover every vintage lens mount but will focus on the ones I’ve tested and found noteworthy.

CANON FD

First of all, I will only quickly state here (because I have an entire podcast episode about it) that there are some nice Canon FD lenses I really liked (especially the FD 50 1.8, not the 1.4) and so I've purchased several of them. However, it seems like more than half of the Canon FD lenses I've had have problems with mold (which can contaminate other lenses, etc.) but if you find one that smells clean, it might be worth it trying.

MINOLTA MD (& AF)

One of my favorite lens brands to adapt are Minolta lenses (the company that Sony bought in 1995 to boost it's camera department). I especially like the older manual focus Minolta MD series, and I think they're certainly worth considering. The Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is an optical jewel, and the build quality is good. Also, the autofocus era Minolta lenses (from before they were purchased by Sony and called Sony A mount) are also really good, and what I really like is that most of the Micro Four Thirds adapters give you a de-clicked/stepless aperture (which is especially good for video production).

NIKON F

Nikon F mount is probably my top recommendation for adapting vintage lenses (if you only had one mount). The clickable aperture control on the Nikon F lenses makes them easy to adapt to other systems, including Canon EF. For Nikon F-mount lenses, I particularly recommend the first autofocus generation (and the D-series) such as the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 D, which is a fantastic bargain at around $50 to $60. The build quality of these lenses is pretty good (not as good as the manual focus era, though) but the main point is they have great optics. Optically, I think the 1st generation Nikon AF lenses are one of the most color-accurate lens lines ever (not so with the next generation of Nikon lenses from the 1990s). The older (manual focus) Nikkors do have better ergonomics with larger manual focus grip area, but the optics on a lot of those older lenses wasn't very accurate or complete (Nikon glass seemed like it didn't render the full spectrum of color, and had a warm bias). Also, another thing to note about Nikon lenses is they focus in the opposite direction of most other brands (filmmakers complain about this the most, because of their focus-pulling habits).

OLYMPUS OM

Olympus OM lenses were the first adapted lens I ever tried (and why did I ever sell it)! The 50mm f/1.8 is excellent optic. This lens is so good I had a DP from the Discovery Channel look at a shot I had set up with this and say "Wow!" So, the old manual focus Olympus OM lenses are well-known for their optics. Plus, I really like that they have the aperture control on the front end of the lens, which is not only easier to use, but it means they can be easily adapted to Micro 4/3 cameras with a cheap adapter (and they can also be adapted to Canon EF too, if you need to).

PENTAX K

So then, about Pentax. I've only tried the super-vintage Super Takumar lenses, so I should probably not say much more. The Super-Takumar that I tried had to be de-yellowed (because of the radioactive elements in the coatings) and so I didn't want to spend much time getting custom settings figured out for it, since the lens was probably going to change. Oh, I also tried tiny Pentax 110 lenses, and that was fun (but the edge sharpness isn't going to be there). So, maybe I'll come back to them later.

ARE ANY AF LENSES CONSIDERED VINTAGE?

If you don't mind stretching the definition of "old" (or "vintage") I think some of the best lenses (good quality, for not much money) were actually from the early AF era (when AF/autofocus was in the 1st generation). This would make the lenses be from around the 1980s, when I think Nikon and Canon produced some of their best lenses. The Nikon AF and AF-D lenses are probably some of the most color-accurate, realistic-looking lenses I have ever used! The second thing to be aware of, is some of the OLDER vintage lenses might have problems with fungus...and fungus is no fun (I almost lost a lens to it).

IF THERE'S NO MULTI-COATING, I DON'T BOTHER

So, buying (and hunting for) vintage lenses can be a lot of fun, but before you get too addicted, there are a few things to keep in mind. The first is that there was a time when vintage lenses weren't very good when they didn't have multi-coatings. As interesting as they may look, those kind have rarely (pun not intended) been worth my time. Therefore, the general rule I follow to stay within the multi-coated era is to not buy lenses from before World War 2.

ABOVE: There are some really great old lenses out there, but before you get too excited, smell it (like Jared @Fro Knows Photo does) and inspect it for fungus. You don't want it spreading to other lenses.

The following ads help fund THIS BLOG (Click one to send me money for 100% free )

I know, sometimes these ads look the same...

...But I figure if I'm trying to make money, so why not post 3 of them eh???