>>3300950Adapted wide angles tend to have horrible corner blur, at least 28mm Takumar and Hexanons do. Longer lenses are generally fine (pic related with 1.4/57 Hexanon). Minolta MD 28mm doesn't fuck up the corners, so it's about as good as a poor man's M4/3 standard lens gets. Also, most lenses struggle at wide apertures and bloom a lot when wide open. This can also be desirable, for instance I got some great portraits of my parents using a Helios 44-4 wide open. Chromabs are also very prominent in lenses that are prone of them from the get go. Thing is that most good lenses end up in the rather inconvenient range of 70-116mm.
Focusing is a struggle. Peaking is pretty useless outside shooting isolated subjects that are very close, and the infinity point is slightly off so you always have to be careful of where the focus actually is, even when shooting landscapes. Technically M4/3 would be perfect for extreme tele shooting, but the difficulty of accurate and quick focusing kind of ruins it. Adapted 135mm's is about as long as you can get hand-held. The stabilization doesn't do much, it's much more helpful when using native lenses that aren't hit by the crop factor. The dirt cheap Sigma 2.8/19 is better for a normal lens that almost anything that old manuals can provide, at least it will save you the trouble of focusing.
t. struggled with adapted lenses on EM-10 for two years
