Anton Aylward

Not the lens I thought it was

When I read this  I realised that the lens I had with the GF-1 was not what I thought.
In reality its “90-400” in 35mm SLR terms.

The article says

This is the traditional portrait lens focal length. However, with f/4
as the maximum aperture at 45mm, the lens can hardly be called a true
portrait zoom.

Well, I thought of a 85mm lens as being a for portraiture.
The “Portrait Zoom” I bought for my Canon is a Soligor 80-200mm F4.5, but I normally use the 35-70mm F3.5.
Both are FD breech mount and both have macro capability.

Call that 17-35 and 40-100 in Four Thirds.

On the Minolta I normally use the 35-105 F3.5 but also have a 75-300
F4.5. Again, both have macro capability. These are AF mount lenses.

Call that 17-50 and 37-150 in Four Thirds.

An adaptor for the Canon FD lenses to the GF-1 does exist but the Canon lenses of that era are not automated.
One review  is quite positive, but makes it clear that this is a MANUAL lens.
There’s a forum that picks up on using Canon lenses with cheap adaptors.
The results look satisfactory but I don’t know about the handling.

Another review was not so positive.

One reviewer suggest an alternative
This warns against using Minolta Maxxum lenses on a four thirds camera.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Leave a Reply