GH3 Does an adapter degrade optical quality? (interesting article)

S

Stab

Well-known member
Apparently, it does...

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters

Is it noticable in the 'real world'? Do you guys have experience with lens adapters? And how does it work for you?
And is there really a difference between a $150 adapter and a $14 one on ebay? (not talking about electronic connections or aperture blades here)

I was about to pull the trigger on a $12 Nikon F to M43 adapter but then I found this. What do you guys think? Neglecatable? Or save up...
 
I have both a $17 Nikon F to m4/3 adapter and a $40 one. I had ordered a second $17 one and had to send it back to amazon because it would not take the Nikkor lenses. Sloppy fit, but the first one is fine.

You just have to be prepared to return what won't work.
 
I don't believe that article in any way. 10 microns is only 0.0004" and well within most any semblance of manufacturing tolerance. It's extremely difficult to measure that kind of tolerance much less be able to see the difference in an image.

My only experience with the expensive ones has been with a Nikon F to EOS and it is identical to the inexpensive ones in fit and performance.

The less expensive ones have a small slot in the ears that you can bend out ever so slightly to adjust the fit to the lens. Here's an image I posted a few years ago on how to adjust them to make them fit more snuggly. A tiny press and twist of a pocket knife in the slots can firm up that interface quite nicely.

Cheers,
Pete
 

Attachments

  • fotodiox adaptor adjustment.jpg
    fotodiox adaptor adjustment.jpg
    56.5 KB · Views: 0
  • nikon-micro43-1.jpg
    nikon-micro43-1.jpg
    103.7 KB · Views: 0
I have a set of adapters for my GH's and the Ag-Af. I am a bit sceptical about the cheap ones. I have no proof though, that they will cause problems. Not yet. The proof may be when something really bad goes wrong like the adapter sticking to the camera body or the lens. So my hope is when buying more expensive ones loke Hot-Rod PL: Spend a bit more money, hope to have less risk.

Apart from that: Everytime you introduce a new factor into a given constellation the chances this constellation may get a bit more unstable is ... Well.... obvious, me thinks. I am sure a Zeiss 100 F-mount macro lens will give a slightly better results on an F-mount camera. But having such a lens or not having it is the more important question fore me when I use my cams. Even if I lose a bit, what I gain is still outweighing a mostly, in real wold terms, undetectable loss. And having such lenses includes the possibilty to one day maybe switch back to FF.

On the other hand this test may explain, why some people invest in expensive glass like the Voigtlaenders. In the hope that those are - on the long run - mechanically more stable than a lot of the other- sometimes appearing a tad nifty - stuff. But, again: This is more an estimation for a normal user without an optical bench in his garage.. :-)
 
In stead of buying the Samyang 24mm, I am thinking about buying the 35mm and a speedboster.
I would then have 2 focal lengths for less money. The speedbooster would turn the 35mm in a 24.85mm.

But, is there any downside to this? Any cache? Would this affect the quality in a bad way?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top