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
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.
- The Versatility of the m4/3 (or any mirror-less interchangeable lens camera) (omdem5.wordpress.com)