Using Vintage Film Camera Lenses on Digital Camera Bodies PART TWO.

March 12, 2018

#239

Gentle reader,

Some time ago, I wrote about adapting vintage film camera lenses to my Nikon Digital SLR. I chose an adapter for Leica Screw/Thread/M39 rangefinder camera lenses. Knowing full well, the difference between the lens-mount-to-film-plane is much greater with SLR camera bodies than rangefinder bodies. Someone in the vintage camera collector group suggested, "Why don't you get a mirrorless camera body?"

At first, I thought, "I can't afford one of those." Having seen them in camera magazines, I thought they were very expensive. Again, knowing full well that digital cameras like cars get much cheaper to buy when they are used and a few years old. Expensive when new, yes, this one was over $600 when it came out. I got it for $75. via eBay.

Back to that lens-mount-to-film-plane topic I brought up above. I had compared my Cosina-made Voigtlander Bessa R to a Cosina SLR body in an earlier blog chapter, here are two photos from that article vividly showing the difference:

You can clearly see that the black Bessa rangefinder body is made from the same parts as the SLR body. Yet, look at how much thicker the SLR body is because it has to have room for the mirror and prism so that one can look through the lens. Remove the need for a mirror and being able to see EXACTLY what you will be shooting and the body is only as thick as it needs to be to hold and transport the film. Viewfinder and rangefinder cameras always have a slightly off-center view which the closer one gets to their subject becomes more pronounced. This is called "parallax error". See, below, where the viewfinder window is compared to the lens opening? One of the reasons SLR cameras became dominant over all other types as time went by.

I have read a tremendous amount of information about mirrorless cameras in the last week or so. Several different types to choose from are available. Since I love my Panasonic Lumix cameras (my DMC-LX3 with Leica Vario-Summarit lens makes all my Internet photos) with their Leica lenses and superb build quality. And I have loved Olympus cameras since my first one I bought in 1995, it made sense to look at their mirrorless offerings.

The two companies cooperated in using (and inventing?) Four-Thirds mirrorless cameras and then creating the Micro Four Thirds cameras and lenses. In the former, Panasonic created one lens, a 14-45mm zoom lens for their three types of Lumix 4/3 cameras: GX, GH, GF and maybe a few other G+ names were chosen. The REST of the lens line for these non-micro four thirds cameras were made by Leica. And, unlike their Lumix 4/3 bodies, the Leica lenses STILL go for big bucks. So, I won't be buying one of those.

I wanted an SLR-type body so that it has an eye-level-viewfinder. I am certainly used to EVF* cameras  *(Electronic View Finders) since my Fujifilm Finepix S7000 from many years ago. The ONE thing I don't like about my two pocketable Lumix cameras is having to use the screen on the back to compose and make photos. Not as steady as holding a camera against your forehead. Too much like a phone, but I digress.

I chose a Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 Micro Four Thirds (shortened to: MFT and M4/3 for eBay search purposes) body since adapters are made for them that accept Pentax 110 lenses (got 'em all!) AND Leica M39 (see other code names above) that allow the multitude of classic Leica and other camera brand's lenses from WAY back to be used on these cameras.

This photo differs from the one at the very top of the article due to the angle I shot. Plus, I chose "Original Size" for it. Sadly, you can't see it that big. ANYWAY, above are all the  lenses (plus two Pentax 110 lenses not yet shown) that I have adapters for that I can use on ANY Micro Four Thirds camera. ON the body is a Soviet copy of a Zeiss Sonnar 85mm f2.0 lens. On the very left, top is a Sigma 18mm lens, next to that is another Soviet copy of a Zeiss Sonnar lens, this one is 135mm f4.0. Then the body and my one and only Canon M39 lens, this a 100mm f4.0, and farthest right is a Sigma 12mm f8.0 (slow, I know) full-frame fisheye lens. Both Sigma lenses are T-mount, well, the 18mm is YS, but same mount, YS lenses and adapters allow the lens' apertures to be operated by the body they are mounted on. FRONT ROW is a Pentax 110 18mm wide angle lens, then the 85mm on the camera. To the right of that is another Soviet copy of a Zeiss Sonnar lens, this one the fastest, 50mm (5cm if you prefer) f1.5 which is normally on my Leica IIIC camera. IN front of that is the Pentax 110 "normal" lens which is 24mm, mounted on the adapter and lastly the Pentax 110 50mm telephoto lens.
NOTE: The M39 Jupiter 35mm lens will not work on this camera since it is retro-focus and the real element sticks way into the camera body.

The cool thing about these cameras, is that the M4/3 sensor is almost exactly the same size as 110 film frames are. So, Pentax 110 lenses are ideal for this! Here is the camera with the basic three lenses:

18mm wide angle lens.

24mm "normal" lens.

50mm telephoto lens.

I also am fortunate to have the illusive 20-40mm Zoom lens and graceful 70mm, the 70mm has the factory lens shade. The zoom lens and 70mm are the only all-metal lenses of the six made for the Pentax 110 tiny SLR camera. And as you can see they are much larger.

Admittedly, these huge (on the Pentax) lenses look great on the Lumix. Here is a photo made with the "normal" 24mm lens:

Yes, it is a little blurry. I'm 61 and use reading glasses. This camera has a diopter adjustment for the EVF, however, until I get a lens made for this camera, I can't adjust the diopter to my eye. So, I guess at focus correctness. And no, the screen does not help.

If you decide to try shooting classic lenses on a modern digital body you too will find it has a steep learning curve. Here are more photos shot with the combination, this time Leica rangefinder lenses:

First three were shot with the Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5 lens. 

A photo of my wife at 29, before we married. Yes, it is not that dark normally. Below is looking at the window, I focused upon the little solar powered toys. Yes, the T-Rex lost an arm, he tended to move around and fall off the window. All are secured with reusable adhesive putty.

These three were shot with the Jupiter 85mm f2.0 lens. 

I played with the aperture on these two.

So far, I have found that using the "S" setting which is shutter speed priority, that the images look right in the EVF and fold-out screen, however, when I press the shutter, it shows a lower speed in RED, what I do not know yet, is whether it is CHOOSING that speed or if I'M supposed to use that speed! So, I take another shot with THAT speed and it shows a lower number again!
The great thing about using a digital body with film lenses is, other than the cost of the body and adapters, there is no cost and one can shoot as many photos as they want experimenting. Fortunately, this particular camera came with everything it came with new, so I have the manual to read and learn from. I have a lot of experimenting to do to get this right.
Will we get BETTER photos using classic lenses than the lenses that are MADE to work perfectly with the digital body we have chosen? That is subjective. Here's a story I heard once:

"A wedding photographer is invited to the bride's parents home to show samples of his work, hoping to get the wedding job. As the parents and bride-to-be look through his portfolio, the mother said, 'Oh, you take wonderful photos! You must have a good camera.' He keeps what he wants to say to himself and nods his thanks. After dinner, he says to the mother, 'Dinner was wonderful, you must have a good pot'."

The point I'm making is the person behind the camera makes the photos great or average. While the freedom (provided correct adapters exist for your lenses) of using all kinds and focal lengths of lenses on something they were not made to be used on is wonderful, it is time consuming to see what does and does not work. Below are photos of all the lenses not already shown mounted on the Lumix body:

The Jupiter 3 50mm f1.5 lens above looks cloudy at first, but I had stopped it all the way down. Just look at all those aperture blades that make a circle rather than something with many straight sides.

Right now, you may be thinking, "Didn't he write that these are Sigma lenses?" Right you are. Both were made by Sigma and sold with their own name or Spiratone which was a huge photographer supply company back in the day. See the Greek Sigma symbol preceding the serial number? Plus the 18mm lens cap also has the sigma symbol on it.

Since I have no lens cap for this beast, I keep it in a soft cloth bag. Thus, dust collects on it. Plus, the camera seller attempted to clean the body and left some white paper towel specks on the body.  Have you ever cleaned the rim of a steering wheel on a vehicle that is several years old? Yuck! The stuff that comes off of it. Various plastics tend to really hold on to dirt.

Final thoughts: As you may know, the longer the lens the harder it is to have a large maximum aperture. Thus so many zoom lenses are: "f3.5-6.7" as an example. When looking through these two lenses which mount further away from the body, especially this one which is VERY slow at f8, the image is quite dark which requires a very slow shutter speed. They DO make T-mount adapters for these, so that opens even more lens opportunities.
I admit that I have yet to venture outside to experiment, so all images are subject to available light indoors. Thus the Jupiter 3 with it's super fast f1.5 aperture excels with available light. All the Pentax 110 lenses are f2.0 BUT, they lack apertures since the camera provides a built-in two-blade aperture.So, it is strictly shutter speed and no depth of field adjustment with those lenses.
The warmer the weather gets (despite being still winter, here in Virginia, we have had some warm days and trees are budding and some flowers are already up) the more I will be outside making lots of photos with this and many other cameras and lenses. Being a member of the vintage camera collector groups on FaceBook has inspired me to get back to my love of making beautiful photos.

Thanks for looking,
Scott
March 12, 2018