Adopting an "Orphan" (lens mount): Which Would You

[Univer]

Hi All,

I'd appreciate your suggestions and insights with respect to a question.

Now that I have access to a micro-4/3 camera, I've picked up several adapters to allow me to use lenses I already owned: LTM, Leica M, Leica R, Exakta, Pentax K, M42, Pentax 110, C-mount.

I find myself seeing what look like some excellent bargains among lenses in some of the other "orphaned" SLR mounts: Canon FL/FD, Minolta, Olympus, Konica, C/Y, QBM. So I'm considering the purchase of an adapter for one of these mounts, even though I don't currently own any lenses that belong to any of these systems.

My question: among these choices, which do you think represents the most "bang for the buck"? If I'm leaning toward one as opposed to another, it might be Canon; I'm typically not a Canon fan, but the FL lenses seem to offer excellent value nowadays. (For purely personal reasons, the FL lenses are generally more attractive to me than the FD lenses, but since the same adapter would work for either one, I regard that as a non-issue.)

So what do you think? If you were going to buy an adapter for the express purpose of being able to invest in one of these mounts, which would you choose?

Thanks for your help!

Cheers,

Jon

PS Moderators: I see this as a lens question rather than an adapter question; but if it belongs in the "adapter" subforum, please feel free to move it there.

[Himself]

[Univer]

Hi,

Topic name edited, for clarity's sake.

Thanks!

[Joosep]

I think Minolta is the best "bang for buck" on that list.
But FD aint far behind.

[justtorchit]

To me, it would be a matter of what kind of lenses you are looking to use combined with availability. I shoot a GF1 and have not delved fully into the adapters world just yet (I own a Nikon F and Canon FD adapter). I was interested in fast glass. Canon has a lot of fast lenses. Minolta and Canon have a wide range of lenses that are readily available but the prices still aren't dirt cheap (85mm f1.2 - $600+ and so forth). On some of those more obscure brands you mentioned, it may be advantageous just to buy the adapter when you find the lens you want just because you never know what will show up and it what mount.

I would say if you wish to buy an adapter before you buy the lens, Canon FD or Minolta merely because they offer such a wide range of readily available glass. These wont be the cheapest optics, but cheap enough in most cases. And more importantly, available!

[magkelly]

Well, M42's are of course by far the most practical choice but of the ones on your list I'd say the Yashica lenses, the ML's not the YUS/DSB's. They run a lot less usually than the others and some of them are just excellent glass for the money or so I am told. I like the two ML's I have so far very much, though honestly I don't see the DSB/YUS's as being so far behind.

My lens budget is pretty low. I'm talking $10-20 a lens, low. If it wasn't for the Yashica and M42 lenses I wouldn't be doing photography probably. I've got an FD mount working Canon AE1 sitting but I've yet to be able to afford anything but the lens that came with on those or more Takumars than I got with my SPI either. They are both far more expensive than the Yashica's I've run across.

Ultimately it depends upon what camera you want to mount them on. Yashicas work fine with Canon DSLRS via adapter though apparently not as well with Nikon or Pentax. M42's on the other hand I believe can be mounted on Pentax, Canon and Nikon with adapters easily. FD's don't work well at all even with an adapter on Canon's from what I've read and cannot be used with either Pentax or Nikon either. I don't know about the Minolta or Konica's sorry. But I will say this you can pick up either very cheapy from what I've seen compared to say later Canon lenses, M42's or even the Yashica ones.

[walter g]

[Orio]

[mo]

There are a lot of interesting lenses that come in the Minolta mount by various makers and they don't sell because of the mount it has.You could pick a few random lens mounts on ebay and watch to see what happens and get a small feel for the market?

[Pancolart]

[OM]

[yinyangbt]

Me !
Also vote for Konica Hexanon and Rokkor
Good idea picking one by one if you find in good price and get adapters after the mounts that you've aquired

[std]

Hi Jon

You say you have the Exakta adapter already.
Have you tried those Zeiss Jena lenses?

Most of them are very nice - for example Flektogon 2.8/35 , Biotar 2/58 and Pancolar 2/50
Well they are SLR lenses and not so small as Contax G lenses for example but are very good and the price is lower than their M42 version.

BR,
Stefan

[magkelly]

Just an FYI, though the C/Y lenses can be used on Canon cameras apparently I'm not seeing them as being as sought after as the M42's. You can still pick up a lot of the better C/Y lenses fairly cheaply which is something I was actually having problems doing with the M42's.

I don't think they've caught on as much with the other camera users as much at least not yet. I think it's happening but it's still in infancy stages and now might be a good time actually to pick up Yashica stuff in general. It's petty cheap compared to old Pentax gear. From what I've seen it's getting just a bit more pricey than it was say six months or a year ago, but it's still not nearly so collectible as the Pentax stuff as yet. I've actually been able to pick up a really nice kit in terms of Yashica stuff fairly cheaply for what I've gotten. I really wish I could do half as well with the Pentax gear for the same $$$.

[aleksanderpolo]

I was in your situation not long ago, end up selling my Canon FD/FL, minolta, Konica lens, etc. Keeping only Takumar, Olympus OM lens for their small size and C/Y lens for their excellency. FD/FL, MD, Konica lens are cheap, but they also have lower resell value due to not able to use easily on digital if you decide to sell them later and upgrade, just something to consider.

[Attila]

[Pancolart]

But then again Samyang proved (i still didn't try any myself) even these days quality lenses for acceptable price are possible. So one can assume new good products will appear for low price to calm MF crave a bit.

4 Biotars!?!? Do you still own them? What is your address ?

[Univer]

Hi All,

A tardy thank-you for all the excellent comments.

I've decided - as several of you suggested - that I may have been thinking the process "backwards." Instead of buying an arbitrary m4/3 adapter, and the seeking lenses to use with it, I plan to look for opportunities to acquire good lenses at good prices, and then buy the adapter(s) I need.

In fact, I've already put the plan into action: I had the chance to acquire a nice Canon FL lens at a very favorable price, so I bought it. I'll now add an FL/FD adapter. If I'm happy with IQ, handling, etc., I'll look out for other Canons.

I think I agree with the sentiment that this is an unusually good time to pick up lenses from these defunct mounts - and that, as new digital systems are developed, the prices of these lenses are almost certain to rise. (C-mount lenses were ridiculously cheap, too, not so very long ago.)

Cheers,

Jon

[Attila]

[cooltouch]

I agree that the Canon and Minolta lenses that were previously immune to Canon interest are now subject to interest from the 4/3 crowd as well as the new EVILs that are beginning to appear. The days of these lenses being dirt cheap are likely behind us.

Univer, I think you'll be pleased with the performance of your FL lens. Which focal length? I have a couple of favorites -- the 19mm f/3.5 and the 35mm f/2.5. The latter can still be found for reasonable, but the former typically goes for big bucks on eBay. Currently the only FL lens I own is a 55mm f/1.2. It has a fair amount of flair and CA wide open, but sharpness is not bad, and stopped down it's actually a very nice optic.

[Univer]

Hi Michael,

I'm delighted to hear that the 35/2.5 is a favorite of yours; that's the lens I bought. I seem to have this thing for 35mm 2.5 retrofocus lenses; for years I was trying, I think, to find an alternative to the Angenieux, since I wasn't sure I'd ever own one of those. Now I do (a pure stroke of good luck), but I'm still adding 35/2.5s.

I think an FL 1.2 and an 85/1.8 may ultimately be in the cards as well. (Hey, I've got to amortize the cost of the adapter.)

Cheers,

Jon

[cooltouch]

[Univer]

Hi Michael,

I've actually seen 55/1.2s included in eBay lots that wound up selling for around $50 - bad listing photos, but probably worth the gamble. (Of course, I didn't have the adapter then.)

The images I've seen from the 19mm look awfully good; I'm pretty confident that if I ever got my hands on one, I'd hang onto it. And that lens seems to be all over the place pricewise - although the low end of the range still isn't exactly "low."

Cheers,

Jon