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
Anton Aylward

Macro? Well, No

All the lenses for my Canon and Minolta have Macro capability.  There’s something about zoom lenses, it seems, the lends then to being able to be macro lenses without the need for an extension tube or bellows.  In macro mode the zoom function now becomes a sort of focusing mechanism.  I don’t now the details.

But the 45-200mm lens with the GF1 doesn’t seem to have a macro function.

Typical close-up lensYou can also do close-up work with a magnifying “filter” lens at the front of the camera.  I have one of these but its a 58mm thread and the lens on the GF-1 is 52mm. Continue reading