# best adaptable lenses for fuji



## pixmedic

is there a "best" kind of lens for adapting to mirrorless? 
im more talking about legacy glass than anything new. we're at the flea market almost every week and there are old cameras and lenses pretty often. usually cheap. 
with the x-e2 having focus peaking, i was thinking manual focus might be an actual option for me now if i run across any nice older lenses. 
I was thinking m42? they are one of the priciest on ebay though. 
canon FD are plentiful, and often found at the market, and i sometimes find runs of Minolta. 
does it even matter what mount is used? you can get an adapter for pretty much everything to mount on a mirrorless camera.


----------



## Ysarex

A lot of Fuji users are partial to Leica glass -- the whole rangefinder schtik is big in the Fuji camp. But good glass is good glass and if it worked well on a 35mm film camera it's going to work well on your X-E2. I do a lot a flower close-ups but rather than buy the Fuji macro I bought a helical adapter and pulled an old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens out of a drawer. Camera is on a tripod so no rush and in this case manual focus is preferable to auto-focus. You can't convince me that the Fuji macro is better so all I lose is the auto-focus that I'd turn off anyway and I have to use Aperture priority or Manual exposure control.

Joe


----------



## IronMaskDuval

There are so many good legacies that I'd be hard pressed to recommend one over the other, choosing  system is a good idea so that you don't find yourself with ten adapters. I really love the Contax Zeiss lenses, but they're really large compared to the older Nikons and Super Taks. I settled on Nikon for both my Sony and Fuji. They just fit on the Fuji better, although the Pentax lenses are just as small if not smaller. With the Nikon AIS lineup, you have the 28 AIS, 50 1.8 AIS, and 105 2.5 AIS. All really great lenses.


----------



## Gary A.

I haven't heard of any specific lens or manufacturer which is better for Fuji.  I would just go by general historical resume. i.e. Leica/Zeiss are top drawer. Nikkor is damn good. Canon is very good (most are the equal of Nikkor). Vivitar is far below, Konica (Hexagon)/Pentax/et al somewhere in between. 

(Not to start a war over Vivitar, but back in the film-only days, back when legacy lenses were not 'legacy', no pro I knew would use a Vivitar lens.) 

IIRC, back then you generally paid by the F-Stop. Leica/Zeiss/Nikkor ... say a f/2 50mm was cheaper than their f/1.4 50mm, but the glass was pretty much equally sharp and the build was relatively equal across the board. In other words, from the top lens makers, all the lenses were pretty much the best lens they could make in that aperture. (Generally back then, there wasn't any consumer/prosumer/pro lines of lenses.)


----------



## Gary A.

Ysarex said:


> A lot of Fuji users are partial to Leica glass -- the whole rangefinder schtik is big in the Fuji camp. But good glass is good glass and if it worked well on a 35mm film camera it's going to work well on your X-E2. I do a lot a flower close-ups but rather than buy the Fuji macro I bought a helical adapter and pulled an old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens out of a drawer. Camera is on a tripod so no rush and in this case manual focus is preferable to auto-focus. You can't convince me that the Fuji macro is better so all I lose is the auto-focus that I'd turn off anyway and I have to use Aperture priority or Manual exposure control.
> 
> Joe
> 
> View attachment 116292


I love autofocus.  I paid a lot of monies for an autofocusing camera. I find that manual focus in general lowers my photographic experience. But, as Joe pointed out, manual focusing in macro probably embellishes the experience especially when working with a tripod. But, (the big but), the Fuji 60mm is also a nice portrait lens.





Fujinon 60mm

On the flip side, the Fuji 60mm, @ .5 magnification, isn't a true macro.


----------



## pixmedic

Gary A. said:


> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of Fuji users are partial to Leica glass -- the whole rangefinder schtik is big in the Fuji camp. But good glass is good glass and if it worked well on a 35mm film camera it's going to work well on your X-E2. I do a lot a flower close-ups but rather than buy the Fuji macro I bought a helical adapter and pulled an old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens out of a drawer. Camera is on a tripod so no rush and in this case manual focus is preferable to auto-focus. You can't convince me that the Fuji macro is better so all I lose is the auto-focus that I'd turn off anyway and I have to use Aperture priority or Manual exposure control.
> 
> Joe
> 
> View attachment 116292
> 
> 
> 
> I love autofocus.  I paid a lot of monies for an autofocusing camera. I find that manual focus in general lowers my photographic experience. But, as Joe pointed out, manual focusing in macro probably embellishes the experience especially when working with a tripod. But, (the big but), the Fuji 60mm is also a nice portrait lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fujinon 60mm
> 
> On the flip side, the Fuji 60mm, @ .5 magnification, isn't a true macro.
Click to expand...

The fuji 60mm macro isn't 1:1?

Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk


----------



## Gary A.

pixmedic said:


> Gary A. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ysarex said:
> 
> 
> 
> A lot of Fuji users are partial to Leica glass -- the whole rangefinder schtik is big in the Fuji camp. But good glass is good glass and if it worked well on a 35mm film camera it's going to work well on your X-E2. I do a lot a flower close-ups but rather than buy the Fuji macro I bought a helical adapter and pulled an old 60mm Rodagon enlarging lens out of a drawer. Camera is on a tripod so no rush and in this case manual focus is preferable to auto-focus. You can't convince me that the Fuji macro is better so all I lose is the auto-focus that I'd turn off anyway and I have to use Aperture priority or Manual exposure control.
> 
> Joe
> 
> View attachment 116292
> 
> 
> 
> I love autofocus.  I paid a lot of monies for an autofocusing camera. I find that manual focus in general lowers my photographic experience. But, as Joe pointed out, manual focusing in macro probably embellishes the experience especially when working with a tripod. But, (the big but), the Fuji 60mm is also a nice portrait lens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fujinon 60mm
> 
> On the flip side, the Fuji 60mm, @ .5 magnification, isn't a true macro.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fuji 60mm macro isn't 1:1?
> 
> Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That is correct. The Zeiss 50mm macro is a true macro @ 1x magnification. I have both (one for Mary Lou and the other for me.) Optically, the difference in IQ/sharpness isn't significant between the Zeiss and the Fujinon.





Zeiss 50mm macro

A comparison between the Fujinon and Zeiss is here:

Zeiss-Fuji Macro Compare - Gary Ayala

A plus on the legacy glass, you can get a Nikkor macro (f/3.5) and a cheap adapter for around $100, if you're a careful shopper.


----------



## Gary A.

Close focusing on the Fujinon:






Close focusing on the Zeiss:


----------



## pixmedic

wont be doing any shopping for "real" lenses anytime soon. 
I mostly asked because we run across old lenses at the flea market frequently. sometimes in very good condition.


----------



## gsgary

Voigtlander screw and M fit are very small and light and very sharp

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## IronMaskDuval

pixmedic said:


> wont be doing any shopping for "real" lenses anytime soon.
> I mostly asked because we run across old lenses at the flea market frequently. sometimes in very good condition.



There's no reason not to buy them if they're good, fast primes. If nothing else, if you get a deal on them, you can sell them off.


----------



## cherylynne1

IronMaskDuval said:


> There are so many good legacies that I'd be hard pressed to recommend one over the other, choosing  system is a good idea so that you don't find yourself with ten adapters. I really love the Contax Zeiss lenses, but they're really large compared to the older Nikons and Super Taks. I settled on Nikon for both my Sony and Fuji. They just fit on the Fuji better, although the Pentax lenses are just as small if not smaller. With the Nikon AIS lineup, you have the 28 AIS, 50 1.8 AIS, and 105 2.5 AIS. All really great lenses.



If you're only using a "dumb" adapter and manual focusing, do you need AIS or can you get by with non-AI? I thought I read that you can't put non-AI on a digital Nikon camera, but for adapting to mirrorless it's fine.


----------



## Derrel

I would pass on most short focal length legacy lenses: most older wides are not very good on digital sensors. I would look for 55/3.5 Micro-Nikkor as a good value, 105/2.5 Nikon Ai-S is a superb handling lens with a silky-smooth helicoid and astoundingly smooth,easy,repeatable focusing, and is one of the lens models Nikon made its 1960's-1980's fame upon, the 105, in various era designs is really one of the **key** lenses of the film era. It's gonna be 157mm FOV, but for that angle of view, it is small.

You might look for some of the nice Olympus lenses. Canon FD is plentiful. I would evaluate everything based on how well YOU can focus it, manually, and at 1.5x its original focal lengths design and focal length focusing mechanism design. Older, slower-rate focusing might be easier to use, for you, especially at Infinity to say 30 feet. In that Infinity to 30 foot range, I would bypass probably almost every AF lens.

A few Nikkors: Nikkor 45/2.8 P; 55/3.5 pre-Ai or Ai or Ai-s; 85/2 Ai or Ai-s, 105/2.5 Ai or Ai-s, 135 2.8 Ai or Ais, 200/4 Ai or Ai-S.

In m42 thread, the Asahi 200/4, and the 135/3.5 Super-Takumar lenses are really nice, the 135/3.5 has gorgeous bokeh; these have slow helicoids, so precise focus is possible.


----------



## IronMaskDuval

cherylynne1 said:


> IronMaskDuval said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many good legacies that I'd be hard pressed to recommend one over the other, choosing  system is a good idea so that you don't find yourself with ten adapters. I really love the Contax Zeiss lenses, but they're really large compared to the older Nikons and Super Taks. I settled on Nikon for both my Sony and Fuji. They just fit on the Fuji better, although the Pentax lenses are just as small if not smaller. With the Nikon AIS lineup, you have the 28 AIS, 50 1.8 AIS, and 105 2.5 AIS. All really great lenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you're only using a "dumb" adapter and manual focusing, do you need AIS or can you get by with non-AI? I thought I read that you can't put non-AI on a digital Nikon camera, but for adapting to mirrorless it's fine.
Click to expand...

I mentioned AIs because some of them are better built lenses than the non AI. The 28 AIs is muuuuch better than the non AI.


----------



## cherylynne1

I really want to try the 105 2.5 with my a6000, because I have been wanting a long portrait lens and, well, it's a legend. Would you consider that to be one of the lenses that was much better as AI/AIS? I actually had just settled on one, but couldn't pull the plug because B&H's website doesn't sell on Saturdays, lol! But maybe it's for the best, since it is non-Ai?


----------



## IronMaskDuval

I have the ais but have used them all. They all produce the same or similar images. I just like the form of ais more. It's my favorite lens, without a doubt.



cherylynne1 said:


> I really want to try the 105 2.5 with my a6000, because I have been wanting a long portrait lens and, well, it's a legend. Would you consider that to be one of the lenses that was much better as AI/AIS? I actually had just settled on one, but couldn't pull the plug because B&H's website doesn't sell on Saturdays, lol! But maybe it's for the best, since it is non-Ai?


----------



## pixmedic

will Ai -vs- non Ai matter when adapting to mirrorless?


----------



## IronMaskDuval

pixmedic said:


> will Ai -vs- non Ai matter when adapting to mirrorless?



No, they use the same adapters if you're using a fotodiox or other cheap one.


----------



## gsgary

Voigtlander 40F1.4







and a crop






Jupiter 12 (35mm) wide open






Voigtlander 50F1.5 asph


----------



## gsgary

Look how small the Voigtlander 35mmF2.5 Color Scopar is


----------



## Derrel

cherylynne1 said:
			
		

> I really want to try the 105 2.5 with my a6000, because I have been wanting a long portrait lens and, well, it's a legend. Would you consider that to be one of the lenses that was much better as AI/AIS? I actually had just settled on one, but couldn't pull the plug because B&H's website doesn't sell on Saturdays, lol! But maybe it's for the best, since it is non-Ai?



The non-Ai 105mm lens is built very solidly, and the chrome-and-black styling of the 1960's and 1970's is evident. I think the oldest is an old Sonnar design, and sometime in the 1960's it was modified. Go here for a rundown of the 105/2.5 variants, but as I understand it the Ai-S model has CrC, whihc is something Nikon invented, and that stands for Close-range Correction; this is why the 24/2.8 AiS is so much better a wide-angle than the old 1960's-1970's 24mm 2.8 lenses: CrC, for better performance with flatter field at close distances and better corners.

The 105/2.5 Ai-S has the new Ai-S cosmetics, and has a built-in sliding lens hood that's not removable; the Ai has older-looking cosmetics, and uses a screw-in or snap-in threaded type lens hood, and as I recall, the Ai has the slower-rate focusing travel, and likely a bit stiffer ring movement. Ai-S lenses got a cosmetic revamp in some ways: slicker barrel finish, more "polished" black finish; rubber looks more modern; sometimes the focusing ring front edge is angle for more dynamic look, and the focusing ring turns over a much shorter total arc, AND with a very light, free-and-easy, one-finger-light touch. Ai lenses have stiffer turning, much more force needed, and many turn far more degrees to go from Infinity to Minimum Focus Distance or MFD. Ai-S lenses all have a major difference too from all the earlier lenses: linear diaphragm travel. Ai-era lenses make a big clunky sound on a modern d-slr...it's noticeable, but will likely not be a NEX issue.

I have found that when using adapted lenses and focusing by EYE, using Nikon-on-Canon, that having a focusing ring that turns with more pressure needed is actually helpful. I got a 200/4 Ai--STIFF focusing as is normal for an AI lens, and a 200/4 AiS. I got both for stupid-cheap prices about a year apart...I payed $50 for the 200 Ai...I just could not pass that up. Anyway, on my 5D, I found that the stiffer 200/4 was EASIER to focus accurately than the Ai-S model.

The thing is this: when you ADD a teleconverter like a 1.4x or 2x to a telephoto lens, the focusing ring's travel becomes MORE 'hair-trigger-like', especially from Infinity in to about the 10 foot zone...if the ring moves too easily, it can miss focus...if it moves the focusing distance too far with too little ring turn...you miss focus a lot...in this very real way, the Ai-series lenses might actually be the better lenses for adapted use on a camera where the crop factor is 1.5x or 2.0x.


----------

