Rol Lei Nut

+1 I use nearly the same kit. Or the WATE + a Minolta AF 24-85 (lovely lens if you can find a good sample). *If* situation & weight allow, a longer tele or tele zoom as well (though nothing which ...

M42 mount lenses are generally getting a bit long in the tooth, though there are some very good ones. But some more recent mounts will offer more lenses giving stellar results. IMO, if I had to ...

While I like my Novoflex adapters very much, mine are all on the short side. For that reason I've had to shim them for use with lenses having floating elements (with some very noticible differences ...

I've also had the Nikon 105 2.5 & 200 4.0 since the mid-1980s. Those & the 24 2.8 & 35 2.0 were my kit for nearly 20 years. Then, when the price of film-based systems collapsed, I discovered Leica ...

Well, the Macro-Elmar 90mm 4.0 weighs 10 grams more, but is collapsable and focuses to less than 80 cm without accessories. Rendering is absolutely stellar. Unfortunately it's also very expensive, ...

If 90mm is long enough, then a Leica Tele-Elmarit 90 2.8 is a great light solution (238 grams + c. 50 for the adapter). If the T-E is too expensive, an M-Rokkor 90 4.0 (282 grams + 50) or a C/Y ...

Truly good zooms can rival primes, but usually not wide open...

Don't forget the contribution of those tricky variables called lenses....

In my case, it had/has nothing to do with available native lenses. I simply found that on M4/3 cameras, adapted lenses weren't nice to use and often didn't make any sense. On full-frame mirrorless ...

The Olympus OM 21mm 3.5 is quite good, compact and affordable. I didn't keep the one I had, because it wasn't as good as some much more expensive options (Leica R 19mm II, Leica WATE 16-18-21, ...

Though the Leica M 135 4.0 Tele-Elmar is a *great* lenses and can be found very cheap.

In order to exploit the various manual focusing facilitators and to keep the lens' original field of view (esp. in the case of wide angle lenses), a full frame mirrorless camera is the ideal platform.

Why does a landscape telephoto lens need a realtively wide aperture? Several threads in recent weeks about recommended longer lenses & zooms...

Leica made many R lenses over a period of about 40+ years: some (especially older ones) aren't much better than their contemporary SLR lenses and not worth their price, some are very good, visibly ...

I had the Vivitar and it was quite good. Not as good as APO or ED or L and so on glass, but better than I expected. The Pieskar is likely a huge & heavy beast, though it was the possible star in ...

Compared to the Canon 16-35 4.0, corners...

The Canon 16-35 4.0 has floating elements. Like all lenses with floating elements (especially if UWAs), its quality can suffer when its used with an adapter having an effective length on the short ...

I'm guessing that that lens is a re-badged Minolta. It, and the very similar 24-85, have the reputation of being excellent lenses when a good sample is found (I'm a huge fan of my Minolta 24-85). S ...

I find the Nikkor 105 2.5 (AI) a bit large and heavy for its FL/aperture, though it is a nice lens. There are several 85 & 90 2.8 & 100 3.5 lenses which are smaller and are *even* better, so my ...

Try (carefully) cleaning all electrical contacts on cameras, lenses & adapters. My experience with a Commlite Canon EF => FE adapter was that the electrical contacts were very poor quality (a.k.a. ...