Which prime lens focal lengths to get?

[Mike@AF]

Okay, I wasn't going to, but I've decided to get some primes for this bad boy for some better low light shooting. Assuming I'm going to really like the camera when it finally arrives and keep it, I've already ordered a jinfinance Nikon adapter off eBay.

Now I need to get some lenses, but I don't know which focal lengths to get. I personally don't like the lens distortion that comes with real wide lenses, so I don't want to go too wide. I'm currently looking at getting Nikon 24mm f/2.8, 35mm f/1.4, and 50mm f/1.2. Any thoughts on how well those lenses work with the GH1? Any other suggestions?

[PerroneFord]

What are you planning to shoot?

It is impossible to give suggestions on lenses without knowing what you'll be shooting. If you plan on shooting wildlife, you'll get a very different set of advice than if you plan on shooting inside cars.

Wide lenses don't necessarily produce a lot of distortion. Cheap wide lenses do.

[Mike@AF]

Good point. I'll be shooting mostly narrative shorts, maybe a feature. Mostly indoors I imagine, but there's definitely going to be outdoor shooting and possibly inside cars.

On the HVX the widest angle has been plenty wide enough for what I shoot and I usually set it to around the 6 mark on the zoom ring at the widest. I don't know what the equivalent focal length of that is.

[PerroneFord]

There ya go... now someone will be able to help.

Seems to me that you'd want to cover essentially 18-135mm in 35mm equivalent. Now it's just a matter of how many "steps" you can afford in that range.

When I shot 35mm (still) I always found 35mm length to be about ideal for what would be an establishing shot. And something closer to 85mm for 2-shots. Inside a car, you're going to want to be between 18-24 I would suspect. And if you need to cover some distance, then the longer lens might be helpful.

[Mike@AF]

I think I'd like to keep this at around $500 so I figure that gives me up to 4 lenses, maybe 5 depending on if I get some great deals or not. So would 24, 35, 50, 85 cut it? Then a 135 if there's money left over? Should I seriously consider a 20 over the 24? I'm not sure what the difference in the FOV would be. Is there any distortion with the Nikon 20 or 24?

[Mike@AF]

I think the 85 (and the 135) might be a no go. Just looked at them on eBay and they're more than I'd want to spend right now.

[PerroneFord]

So you expect to pay about $100 a lens. I can't help you there, as I've never bought a 35mm lens that was any less than $300, and several over $1k.

I'd be very suspicious of any 35mm lens under $100. Either it's going to be in quite poor condition, or it's going to be rather slow.

[Mike@AF]

I'm tracking them on eBay and hoping for a really good deal. We'll see I guess. If I was going to get just one for low-light use, what would be the best? 35mm or 50mm?

[PerroneFord]

I just looked at your original post again. I would caution against buying any prime at F2.8 or higher for indoor work. That's ok for shooting outdoor landscapes, but it's pretty slow for indoor work. I'm usually at F2.0 indoors and wishing for 1.4.

I also don't know the multiplication factor for the GH1 but I know it's not full 35mm so you are going to have to go even wider to get an equivalent FOV. Maybe down in the 18mm to get 24mm equiv. (That's a wild guess).

[PerroneFord]

I'm tracking them on eBay and hoping for a really good deal. We'll see I guess. If I was going to get just one for low-light use, what would be the best? 35mm or 50mm?

Generally a 50-55mm F1.2 is where we went for low light. Not necessarily best focal length, but fast lenses in that size were pretty inexpensive to do. You'll pay REAL money for a decent 35mm F1.4 lens, and I can't remember seeing a non-cinema 35mm 1.2 or faster.

[Kholi]

--Primes that'll get you by:
18 - 22mm
28 - 35mm
50 (optional, completely depends on your tastes. If I had to forego a piece of glass it would be the 50)
70 - 90mm
135 - 200mm

Pick one from each section and you will rarely run into a situation that you can't handle as far as focal length goes. This also depends on your preference for cinematography.

1.4's are all well and good, generally a 2.0 is going to work for interior just fine on the GH-1. I think the only time I wished for a full set of 1.4's was outside shooting the action test. Only had two 150w HMI's and one 85w CFL to light an alley (flood the alley, rather). So yeah, 1.4's, 1.2's and 0.95's would've been awesome.

Are you considering zooms?

[eL ProduceR]

I don't know if the OP will consider zooms, but I'd like to know your suggestions.

[PerroneFord]

kholi, thanks for that. Seems my experience from still work still holds up in terms of picking focal lengths. I agree with you on the 50, but the ONLY reason I'd suggest one is just to have one darn fast lens in case you really need to make something work. Being able to "reach in the bag and pull out a 1.2 has always had merit for me. Even when I had to reframe in post.

So to me, it looks like you've got your:

Tight Quarters/scenic range
Establishing/interior range
Optiional "normal viewing" range
2-shot range
1-shot range

I think I'd be afraid to shoot anything over 135mm with my tripod so if the OP goes with a long lens, I hope consideration is given to a solid set of sticks.

I also agree that at a decent wide zoom, and a decent short tele zoom would be good. In fact, it would speed up shooting a ton, probably save money in the long run, and be easier to deal with than running around with a bag full of primes.

[dvbrother]

Keep in mind the GH1 has a 2x crop faactor, so the field of view is only half as wide as the same focal-length lens on a full-frame 35mm camera. So, a 24mm lens becomes like a 48mm. So what would be a wide-angle (24mm) on a full frame 35mm acts more like a "normal lens". I believe the HVX lens is equivalent to about 28mm on the wide end, perhaps even a bit wider than that. So, if you want to equal the HVX's wide field of view, you need about a 14mm. And to get something 14mm that is f2.8 or faster is going to be EXPENSIVE. Those are just the facts.
The kit lens is f4 at 14mm. That is admittedly slow. And if your goal is to have that trendy shallow depth-of-field, shooting at f4 probably won't cut it. But if that's not an issue, and you can't afford hundreds into the thousands for fast wide primes, there's an alternative. Lighting.
I know it's old-fashioned, but actually lighting your films to a level where f4 is the proper exposure can make your film look awesome. Especially since shooting at 400 or 500 ISO or maybe even 800 ISO looks pretty good on this camera.
Or maybe you can light your close-ups at f2.8 with cheaper primes (fast 28mm, 35mm and especially 50mm lenses can be found dirt cheap), then shoot your wide shots with the kit lens at f4 and lower your shutter speed by one stop...or light just your wide shots one stop hotter...they will match in editing if you're diligent. It's kind of a pain in the ass, but it's cheaper.
Another option I'm exploring for really fast, wide primes are c-mount lenses, which are mainly old 16mm camera lenses. They're not exactly cheap either, unless you get lucky, or buy a really crappy lens, but boy are they fast and wide. Problem is, they have serious vignetting on the sides of the image. I have my own workaround for that problem, but now I'm just rambling.
If you find any fast wide primes for $100, let us know!
Good luck. It's a killer camera!

[eL ProduceR]

Taking in consideration the gh1's cropping factor, do you still apply the same focal length? for the types of ranges you listed?

[Mike@AF]

Wow, this as turned into a good discussion. Thanks everyone for your input. To respond to some of the comments/questions...

I would prefer a zoom lens, but I haven't seen any at f/1.2 or f/1.4. The best I've seen is f/2 and that was pretty expensive. I figured I could get a few primes at f/1.2 or f/1.4 for when I really need better low light capability. The 24mm f/2.8 was a thought to get something wide and better with low light than the stock GH1 lens. I would definitely prefer an f/1.2 or f/1.4 over the f/2.8, but they're out of the budget range I'm trying to keep for this.

The crop factor of the GH1 is definitely an issue. I don't like the distortion on those real wide lenses getting below 20mm. The 20mm lens is an option though. I usually don't shoot wide shots. I don't really shoot masters either. I may use a master-type shot to establish quickly, and maybe revisit within a scene as necessary, but typically stick to medium and close-up shots.

If the HVX is about a 28mm at it's widest, then is it safe to assume that at the 6 mark on the zoom ring it's maybe a 35mm? So I'd have to get a 17mm wide lens to be equivalent to my usual wide shots? Problem would be the distortion that I typically don't like. 20mm seems acceptable to me so would give me a 40mm field of view and perhaps not too different from my usual style.

I just realized that I have to keep in mind that when I would shoot in low light with the HVX I would stay wide only because I needed the f/2 or open on the camera. If I zoomed in to get the field of view and focal length I wanted it would close the aperture too much.

Much to think about. We'll see how it goes with eBay and where I end up.

[Mike@AF]

Oh, I forgot...

I'm looking at Nikons right now. Any recommendations on others to look for that would be better at roughly the same price? Anything better for less money? Prime or zoom.

[Kholi]

I don't know if the OP will consider zooms, but I'd like to know your suggestions.

There are some great Sigma 2.8 constant zooms and Tamron 2.8 Constants that'll more than do the job in most situations. They can be had on Ebay and Craigslist for fair prices at that.

However, if you're doing a lot of daylight work, don't count out even cheaper, slower zooms. I say it alot, but one of my favorite lenses is my Contax Zeiss 28-70/3.4~5.6 zoom.

[Kholi]

kholi, thanks for that. Seems my experience from still work still holds up in terms of picking focal lengths. I agree with you on the 50, but the ONLY reason I'd suggest one is just to have one darn fast lens in case you really need to make something work. Being able to "reach in the bag and pull out a 1.2 has always had merit for me. Even when I had to reframe in post.

That's a really good and valid reason. Faster 1.4 and even 1.2 50mm's aren't too hard to come by. Although I'd personally rather have a faster 28, 30, or 35mm. And there is certainly a quick 30/1.4 Sigma floating out there if I remember right that's getting awesome reviews. Needs to be tweaked a bit but still. 30mm @ 1.4 will be awesome for tight quarters.



So to me, it looks like you've got your:

Tight Quarters/scenic range
Establishing/interior range
Optiional "normal viewing" range
2-shot range
1-shot range


Correct. And even then, I've gone through entire shoots using only a 35mm and 85mm. So three lenses (wide, medium, tight) will be ample in most situations.



I think I'd be afraid to shoot anything over 135mm with my tripod so if the OP goes with a long lens, I hope consideration is given to a solid set of sticks.

It's absolutely scary! Especially with DSLRS + Video. So far, the only way around it for me has been to turn the MKii into a 14lb unit. At that weight I'm comfy @ 300mm handheld. It's no more distracting, the motion/drift, than stuff I see in theaters which is awesome.

I'd definitely suggest weight or a steadicam system if you plan on going handheld.



I also agree that at a decent wide zoom, and a decent short tele zoom would be good. In fact, it would speed up shooting a ton, probably save money in the long run, and be easier to deal with than running around with a bag full of primes.

Exactly. An all around zoom (the 14-140 kit lens is perfect) will speed up production in an awesome way.

[Kholi]

Keep in mind the GH1 has a 2x crop faactor, so the field of view is only half as wide as the same focal-length lens on a full-frame 35mm camera.

That's incorrect. It's about 1.4x actually. It's not an actual 4:3 sensor, it's 16:9 and the movie mode uses that. So a 24mm is actually somewhere around 32mm/35mm range.

[/quote] And to get something 14mm that is f2.8 or faster is going to be EXPENSIVE. Those are just the facts.[/quote]

Tokina 11-16/2.8 -- Incredible. Ebay it. 500.00 a pop. This lens is being rehoused for PL application.



The kit lens is f4 at 14mm. That is admittedly slow. And if your goal is to have that trendy shallow depth-of-field, shooting at f4 probably won't cut it.

Most movies you watch are shot between 2.8~4. Given the actual crop factor (which isn't 2x) an F4 will produce hyper-similar cinematic results.



Lighting.


Indeed.

[Kholi]

Wow, this as turned into a good discussion. Thanks everyone for your input. To respond to some of the comments/questions...

I would prefer a zoom lens, but I haven't seen any at f/1.2 or f/1.4. The best I've seen is f/2 and that was pretty expensive. I figured I could get a few primes at f/1.2 or f/1.4 for when I really need better low light capability. The 24mm f/2.8 was a thought to get something wide and better with low light than the stock GH1 lens. I would definitely prefer an f/1.2 or f/1.4 over the f/2.8, but they're out of the budget range I'm trying to keep for this.

I think the Kit Lens will suffice for most people, especially if you plan on lighting.

[qupte]
The crop factor of the GH1 is definitely an issue. I don't like the distortion on those real wide lenses getting below 20mm. The 20mm lens is an option though. I usually don't shoot wide shots. I don't really shoot masters either. I may use a master-type shot to establish quickly, and maybe revisit within a scene as necessary, but typically stick to medium and close-up shots.[/quote]

It's definitely less an issue than what's being projected. Hunter Richards has the same math going. It's definitely not 2x in Video Mode. It's good for us!

[Mike@AF]

However, if you're doing a lot of daylight work, don't count out even cheaper, slower zooms. I say it alot, but one of my favorite lenses is my Contax Zeiss 28-70/3.4~5.6 zoom.

Do you see a big difference between the kit lens and your Contax Zeiss? I was thinking the main idea of a replacement zoom lens would be to get a significantly faster one than the kit lens. To me that's at least a 2.8 and I'd certainly prefer constant.

On the zoom lens I was looking at the Nikon AF-S 28-70D ED f/2.8 constant, which has now been taken off the Nikon website. Problem is it's a $1500 lens.


It's definitely less an issue than what's being projected. Hunter Richards has the same math going. It's definitely not 2x in Video Mode. It's good for us!

Okay, so it's like this then (for video)...

20 = ~28
24 = ~35
28 = ~40
35 = ~50
50 = ~70
85 = ~120
135 = ~190

For me I think the ones to get are:

~28 (20mm lens)
~35 (24mm lens)
~50 (35mm lens)
~70 (50mm lens)
And then ~120 (85mm lens) would be nice.

I don't know if ~190 would be something I'd want or need. I'm talking only low light use here. If I need the telephoto it would probably be in situations where there's a lot of light and then I could just use the kit lens.

What do you guys think are the best lenses to get at those focal lengths on a modest budget, assuming I really want f/1.2 or f/1.4?

[Mike@AF]

I also agree that at a decent wide zoom, and a decent short tele zoom would be good. In fact, it would speed up shooting a ton, probably save money in the long run, and be easier to deal with than running around with a bag full of primes.

I agree and would prefer a zoom or two. But I'd be stuck at 2.8 at best and have found with my HVX200 that 2.8 sometimes isn't enough in real low light situations where I can't light or light well, especially outdoors at night. I know I can shoot at a higher ISO, but I don't like noise in my picture, which is partly why I'm probably going to get rid of the HVX200. I'd rather add noise/grain if I want to and not be forced to have it there.

So do any fast zooms exist that you'd recommend? Anything faster than 2.8? I'm not aware of any 1.2 or 1.4 zooms and imagine if they're out there that they're super expensive.

[Martti Ekstrand]

I got Canon FD lenses for now and they do have a old style quality to them. OK for me as I love that look.

20mm - f/2.8
28mm - f/2.0
35mm f/2.0
50mm f/1.4

I mount them with a ciecio7 FD adapter that's sold over eBay. I got them from second hand retailers here in Sweden and with the adapter the whole enchilada was around $900. I'm looking for a 85 and 100mm.

The one lens I'm drooling over is the Olympus 4/3 14-35 - f/2.0 which would be a perfect base lens but it costs more than the GH1...

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/zuiko_digital_ed_14_35mm_f2_0_swd_review/

To mount it a Panasonic's 4/3 to m4/3 adapter is needed and perhaps some support rails as it's big and weighs twice as much as the GH1 kit lens.

Almost forgot, there's this thread about the Voigtländer prime lenses

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174251

[yslee]

Hi guys, are you certain it's not 2x in video? Because while the sensor is larger than a standard 4/3 sensor, I'm certain the imaging circle created by a 4/3 lens isn't going to give you that much more slack to make it a 1.5x FOV crop from 2x.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

Just to add about Nikons: Nikkors are great, but due to the fact that the F-mount hasn't changed (and most high-end Nikons meter with the old lenses even), Nikkors will carry a price premium over something like say, the Canon FD lenses. Since Canon switched to the EF mount sometime in the late '80s, you can get the FD lenses for cheap.

I shoot with Nikons mostly, and while I don't chase the latest and greatest, I think I might try some of my lenses once I've got the time... I have a few I'm itching to try!

On Nikkor lenses: Due to the old retrofocus design the Nikkor 20/2.8 is *not* a happy camper on digital. I had mine, worked great on film, not so happy on digital, so I sold it. The funny 30mm equivalent field of view didn't help. Probably costs US$300 even for the AI-s edition second hand.

The 35/2 however is a much better lens. I've got the AF version, but I think the 35/2 AI-s shouldn't be too expensive. US$250 second hand?

A 50/1.8 is cheap. Plenty on the market too, and good optics too.

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is awesome; it's sharp and has very little aberrations, but there's no aperture ring. Isn't it a problem to be shooting at f/2.8 ALL the time?

On noise: I don't know about video, but the current crop of DSLRs are amazing. I shoot at ISO 3200 on my D300 without fear. The GH1 is a little worse, but goes to ISO 1600 nicely. The larger sensor on the GH1 is going to be way better than the HVX200 in terms of noise quantity.

[dvbrother]

The crop factor is about 1.4x actually. It's not an actual 4:3 sensor, it's 16:9 and the movie mode uses that. So a 24mm is actually somewhere around 32mm/35mm range.



Really? You may be right! I never thought about the fact that the 16:9 setting uses more width of the sensor. Hmmm. If that's true, that's very good news for wide angle purposes.

However, I just checked the specs on the GH1 sensor. It says 17.3 mm wide. If a full frame 35mm sensor is 36mm wide, then by my math, the crop factor is approximately 2x.

Now I don't know what to think.

[dvbrother]

Okay, this is getting off topic, but I'm now intrigued that the 16:9 setting has a less than 2x crop factor. After a bit of websurfing, I see this is a topic of discussion with bit of a controversy. I found a GH1 sensor diagram here:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/109862835/original.jpg

which I don't think is official, but it shows the sensor width is actually more like 18.8mm. While that makes the field of view a bit wider, the crop factor ends up being more like 1.9x, and not 1.4x. Now that I think of it, if it WERE 1.4x, that would make the sensor larger than APS-C, which it certainly isn't.
Thoughts?

[yslee]

That's essentially what I was saying. In fact because you lop off vertical resolution I'm certain it's back to 2.0x

[Kholi]

Hey sorry about the confusion guys. I do this often. I keep forgetting that "35mm" isn't "Academy" LoL.

So when I say 1.6 - 1.4 I'm talking comparing it to S35 or Academy FOV, not Photographic 35mm. That is, the standard for cinematic acquisition is not Full Frame, it's Academy and that's what I go by since I'm not a photographer, but shoot moving images for a living.

So yeah, in comparison to Full Frame it's 2x. right. Full Frame isn't the standard for motion picture, so when comparing it to RED it's more like 1.4x, which is close enough for me!

Sorry again about the confusion! Sometimes I even confuse myself.

[daveswan]

But they're comparing still photo formats, where stills photo rules apply.
BTW do look a t Voightlander primes, in either M or L39 mount. They're very good for the money, not up to Leica M, but not as expensive either.
Oh, and another BTW, I was shooting FF stills with a leitz 21 f/4 Super Angulon, and its drawing is ruler straight, right to the edges, so wide doesn't always mean distortion, it depends on how much you're willing to pay (£400 in this case)
Dave

[PerroneFord]

BTW, I was shooting FF stills with a leitz 21 f/4 Super Angulon, and its drawing is ruler straight, right to the edges, so wide doesn't always mean distortion, it depends on how much you're willing to pay (£400 in this case)
Dave


I think I said that right out of the gate. But you aren't going to find too many "wider-than-20mm" lenses that are essentially distortion free for US$100! :) Add a zero or two and you're there.

[Kholi]

But they're comparing still photo formats, where stills photo rules apply.



Sorry, i thought we were talking about cinema/commercial application, as that's what Mike of Ascentia shoots. My bad. If we're talking about the GH-1 as a still camera or for still useage then yeah, if you're used to Full Frame photograph the 2x crop will disturb you.

If we're talking Cinematic and Commercial Acqisition and you've been shooting at Academy FOV (RED, Film, etc) then the slight crop factor will barely effect you I believe.

All cleared up.

[OPHERBA]

Hi Kholi,

I have the Tokina 11-16 since the happy D90 days...
I will buy the Novoflex adapter tomorrow for my other Nikon lenses, but how would you use the Tokina on the GH1 and control the aperture?

Thanks,

Johnnie

[Kholi]

Qtip sticks cut to size for certain apetures and jammed into the iris pin.

Until someone drills a hole in a nikon mount and adds a set screw that can open the apeture that's what I'm doing.

[Mike@AF]

Okay, so let me see if I get this right... if I want to shoot video with the GH1 and am using some Nikon, Canon, Tokina, Voightlander, or other similar lenses then it's approximately a 2x crop factor? So a 20mm becomes approximately a 40mm FOV? Is there anything out there (similar to a focal reducer) that will squeeze the image circle by about .5 or .6 to better fit the sensor? Could be a great accessory for 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras.

I like the look of Canon glass as well. I ordered the Nikon adapter because I read in another thread that you can use Nikon glass on a Canon body, but can't use Canon glass on a Nikon body. I'd like to get lenses that I can use with other camera bodies in case I change/upgrade to something else later. I'd hate to buy a bunch of Canon lenses I can't use with a Nikon camera in case I end up with a Nikon down the road. But this does make me question if that statement in the other thread was accurate? I'm referring to post #8 in this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=173325 If it's not accurate, then I'll take a serious look at the Canon FD's. And could FD lenses work on a newer Canon body?

As far as the Voightlander lenses go, the thread discussing them has discussion of smearing or distortion in the corners. I want to stay away from those kinds of issues.

[Mike@AF]

Uh, wow, I need to read better. I just noticed in that thread that Anthonybsd said that doesn't apply to FD lenses. Now I'm going to look at Canon FD. Any opinions on the various FD lenses?

[PerroneFord]

And could FD lenses work on a newer Canon body?



Canon has taken every opportunity to abandon their lens mounts on pro and consumer cameras. I started with a Canon AE1 back in the day. Switched to a Canon T70 and all my lenses became obsolete. Switched to a Canon EOS10s and all my lenses became obsolete again... That was the LAST time. The next camera I bought was a Nikon F4s. Which was able to use any Nikon SLR lens ever produced (with a couple of notable exceptions).

Nikon has worked very hard to keep it's pro bodies backward compatile. Canon just seems not to care. I cannot support that kind of corporate thinking.

[wilhelmson]

Due to Canon FD's short(ish) flange-to-focal-plane distance they are difficult to adapt to most cameras. If you want to use them on a new Canon EOS camera body you either need an adapter with some glass in it, which means you lose some light, some FOV, and some resolution, or you get an adapter without glass but lose the ability to focus them to infinity, effectively turning them into macro lenses.

[Mike@AF]

Some good info there. Sounds like one needs to be careful when it comes to investing in Canon glass.

Can you focus to infinity with the FD lenses on the GH1?

[OPHERBA]

Thanks Kholi, I guess I am not brave enough...

[Kholi]

Okay, so let me see if I get this right... if I want to shoot video with the GH1 and am using some Nikon, Canon, Tokina, Voightlander, or other similar lenses then it's approximately a 2x crop factor? So a 20mm becomes approximately a 40mm FOV? Is there anything out there (similar to a focal reducer) that will squeeze the image circle by about .5 or .6 to better fit the sensor? Could be a great accessory for 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras.



Right. If you're looking for Full Frame FOV comparisons think old school movies that were shot Vistavision.

So a 20mm does become a 40mm.

If you're trying to figure out what it looks like on a 35mm Film Camera or RED @ 4K, it's more like a 28 or so.

Focal reducers I'm not sure about. It's funny though, soon none of the light gathering stuff will matter because sensor technology will improve and a 2.8 will be the new 1.2.

[Mike@AF]

It's funny though, soon none of the light gathering stuff will matter because sensor technology will improve and a 2.8 will be the new 1.2.

That would be the day. Then the 1.2 would show us things even our eyes can't see!

I've been looking at the Canon FD lenses on eBay. Apparently smaller than 50mm lenses faster than f/2.8 are pretty rare. And then 50mm and higher there's nothing faster than f1.4. Does this sound right or should I just wait longer for those faster lenses to show up?

If so, it seems to me I'd need to go Nikon for under 50mm to get the aperture I want. Then have Canons for 50mm and above. I don't have a lot of experience with mixing lenses. Should I have issues getting the look to match?

[Martti Ekstrand]

This wiki article has a list of all FD lenses so you know what you can look for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_lens_mount

[yslee]

D'oh. Should've expected that talk was on S35.

The FD lenses should have a 35/2 and a 24/1.4L. The 24/1.4 won't be cheap though. See: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/canon/fdresources/fdlenses/index.htm

Still photography lenses rarely have lenses faster than f/1.4. Off the top of my head I can think of the few 50mm f/0.95 range finder glass, the Canon EF 50/1.0L, the 85/1.2L, various old Canon 50/1.2, Nikkor 50/1.2, Nikkor-Noct 58/1.2, the new Voightlander Nokton 50/1.1.

[Mike@AF]

This wiki article has a list of all FD lenses so you know what you can look for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_FD_lens_mount

Excellent link! Wikipedia rules!


The FD lenses should have a 35/2 and a 24/1.4L. The 24/1.4 won't be cheap though. See: http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography...nses/index.htm

Still photography lenses rarely have lenses faster than f/1.4. Off the top of my head I can think of the few 50mm f/0.95 range finder glass, the Canon EF 50/1.0L, the 85/1.2L, various old Canon 50/1.2, Nikkor 50/1.2, Nikkor-Noct 58/1.2, the new Voightlander Nokton 50/1.1.

Thanks! I'll take a look at those. Any opinions on the Nikkor 50/1.2 vs Canon 50/1.4?

[Kholi]

Yeah. Lol sorry. My bad.

Don't forget the leica f1s and f2s. Also the contax zeiss 85/1.2 and the rokkor 50 1.2s.

Ideally I'd like to have a 24 to 30mm 1.2 myself.

[Martti Ekstrand]

The 24/1.4 won't be cheap though.

I've seen that one on eBay for more than the new Olympus 14-35 mm f/2.0 I mentioned earlier but think that was a mint condition collectors item.

[Mike@AF]

I think budget is keeping me away from the Contax Zeiss, and especially away from the Leica. No Rokkor lenses on eBay that I could see. Seems like it's Nikon and Canon for me. If I could I'd just get a set of Zeiss ZF's but that's definitely not in the cards.

Any issues with shooting Nikon wide and Canon normal to tele in the same scene?

[djkarn105]

you probably want to take a look at this thread from the 35mm adapter forum:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=51963

[Kholi]

I think budget is keeping me away from the Contax Zeiss, and especially away from the Leica. No Rokkor lenses on eBay that I could see. Seems like it's Nikon and Canon for me. If I could I'd just get a set of Zeiss ZF's but that's definitely not in the cards.

Any issues with shooting Nikon wide and Canon normal to tele in the same scene?

Admittedly I was hawk eyeing the infAmous 58/1.2 rokkor and the 50/1.2

didn't get the 58 but got the 50.

[Mike@AF]

After going through the Nikon and Canon offerings, here's where I'm at now:

Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 SSC or Sigma 20mm f/1.8
Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 SSC or Nikon 24mm f/2
Canon FD 35mm f/2 SSC or Nikon 35mm f/1.4
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC or Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 SSC

This combination would give me FOV of ~40mm, ~48mm, ~70mm, ~100mm, and ~170mm. So it looks like with these choices I'll go over my hopeful budget. It's probably worth it though.

I saw the Sigma 20mm listed, but know nothing about it. Does anyone have any opinions on that lens?

Any opinions on the performance of the Canon vs Nikon at 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm?

Would a 28mm be a better choice than a 24mm?

How big a difference would there be between SSC lenses and non-SSC lenses for video?

[Mike@AF]

Admittedly I was hawk eyeing the infAmous 58/1.2 rokkor and the 50/1.2

didn't get the 58 but got the 50.

There's plenty of Rokkor 50mm 1.4 but no 1.2. Big difference? How does the 1.2 and 1.4 compare to the Canon or Nikon 1.4?

[Kholi]

After going through the Nikon and Canon offerings, here's where I'm at now:

Canon FD 20mm f/2.8 SSC or Sigma 20mm f/1.8
Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 SSC or Nikon 24mm f/2
Canon FD 35mm f/2 SSC or Nikon 35mm f/1.4
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC or Nikon 50mm f/1.4
Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 SSC

This combination would give me FOV of ~40mm, ~48mm, ~70mm, ~100mm, and ~170mm. So it looks like with these choices I'll go over my hopeful budget. It's probably worth it though.

I saw the Sigma 20mm listed, but know nothing about it. Does anyone have any opinions on that lens?

Any opinions on the performance of the Canon vs Nikon at 24mm, 35mm, and 50mm?

Would a 28mm be a better choice than a 24mm?

How big a difference would there be between SSC lenses and non-SSC lenses for video?

Sigma 20/1.8's all over the place. They're about 400 - 500. I actually missed one going for less, I feel stupid for not pulling the trigger.

There's also a 24 and 28, the 28/1.8 is what I'm going after next and probably the 30/1.4 just for testing.

Here's my thought on your lens selection: If you're getting a 20, the next step up is a 28 or 35. Take the money from the 24 and buy a fast(er) 28 or 35. 50mm is okay in this situation.

[Mike@AF]

Sigma 20/1.8's all over the place. They're about 400 - 500. I actually missed one going for less, I feel stupid for not pulling the trigger.

There's also a 24 and 28, the 28/1.8 is what I'm going after next and probably the 30/1.4 just for testing.

Here's my thought on your lens selection: If you're getting a 20, the next step up is a 28 or 35. Take the money from the 24 and buy a fast(er) 28 or 35. 50mm is okay in this situation.

So the Sigma is good? How does it compare to the Canon 20? I like the idea of the Sigma because of the 1.8, but I want to make sure it's a good lens.

Then I need to decide between Canon or Nikon glass for the 28, 35, and 50.

EDIT: Actually, looking at the 28 offerings from Canon and Nikon, I think I'll cut the difference and go with 24, 35, 50, 85. The 24 is faster than the 20 and the 28.

2nd EDIT: Well, here's what I'm going for.

Sigma 20mm f/1.8
Canon FD 24mm f/1.4 SSC
Nikon 35mm f/1.4
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC
Canon FD 85mm f/1.8 SSC

I'll get the 20 and the 24. I'd like the option of having the 20/1.8 just in case I'm in a situation where I need the wide focal length and can't or don't want to light as much. Could be good for a night time indoor shoot and I have a film I want to shoot that calls for some interesting dark indoor shooting. I figure better safe than sorry. If I end up not needing it I'll sell it. If I end up needing a 28 then I'll get one of those later.

If anyone has any additional input I'm all ears. Thanks for the help!

[Kholi]

The sigmas and romkors have really good reputations. I can't deny that's probably due to price as well but I've seen flickr pages with really nice lowlight examples. I'm excited to try them with the gh1 and mkii.

Your lens selection is looking like the standard cineprime package. That's the way to go for sure.

Which Kurosawa film was shot with only two lenses again? Can't remember.

[Mike@AF]

I wasn't aware one of his films was shot with only 2 lenses. I do know Seven Samurai was almost exclusively or was exclusively tele lenses, so maybe that one. I actually did a google search and through a brief browse through the results didn't find the answer. I did find this interesting site though: http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/kurosawa1.html

[Martti Ekstrand]

FWIW the main reason I ended up getting Canon FDs is that the 2nd hand market here in Sweden is sucked bone dry of Nikons since last year - guess 5DmkII owners got their dirty mittens on all of them before the manual firmware release. If I could find that FD 24mm f/1.4 I'd be a very happy camper. The Sigma 20mm f/1.8 sounds like a very good option on the wide end.

[yslee]

Sigma has mediocre to good optics (I have one of their teles) but the build quality can be questionable regardless of optics. The Zen finish has a reputation of peeling.

Actually the Voigtlander 50/1.1 might be interesting. Maybe I'll see if I can get an adapter and play with my friend's copy. Hah!

[gmoe]

Good luck trying to find a canon 24mm f/1.4 very rare these days... I think the sigma 20mm will have vignetting because the 24mm from what I've found on the G1 forums has slight vignetting. Will test in September when my gh1 comes in :(

[SpecialEdFX]

I've noticed using a Letus with either HVX, Z7U or EX3 that Nikon and Canon primes have much more of a different look than when you run film behind either of the two's respective cameras. Videos online from Nikkor and FD on the GH1 seem to be almost as drastic as the a formentioned video cameras. I'm seeing Canons as an all purpose, crisp good lens. Nikons are giving a marbled, western-y, low contrast vibe. On our show we've opted for Canon only, but I wanted to see if any y'all have noticed any characteristics between the two.....

[SpecialEdFX]

oh, and I know there's vibrating marbled glass in the Letus.... accounted for in comparison.

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

Look at Nikon "E" series lenses if you are on a budget. Good glass. More plastic on the housing = cheaper lens. But the quality is close enough that some lens afficiados argue some "E" series lenses to be superioer to their more expensive Nikon equivalents.
Don't worry about low light too too much with the GH1, remember it's a whole different ball of wax than HD cams with 35mm adapters on the front where you lose soooo much light then have to compensate for it later. 1.8's which are much more affordable should be fine for anything you'd be crazy not to light anyway.
Remember the reduced angle of view is only reduced angle of view - not an "equivalent" as it's so often inaccurately described. A 25mm lens is not a 50mm lens "equivalent" on the GH1, as most say. The lens retains the native properties of the lens. 25mm at F1.8 10 feet away does not suddenly have the same DOF as 50mm at F1.8 at 10 feet away. Only the field of view changes, which basically means you have to stand 1.33 times further back than you would normally to get the same frame with that lens. So to fit everything in your frame with your 50mm you have to stand 1.33 times further back (13 feet vs 10, 1.3 feet vs 1) to get the same angle of view / everything in the frame as we've been accustomed to with our 35 mm adapters.

You mentioned barrell distortion with extremely wide lenses. That's not as much of an issue due to the reduced angle of view, because that area of the lens is cropped out.

I wouldn't worry about a wide angle lens. I'd use the stock lens. F4 is pretty sensitive with some ISO tweaking which is good up to 800. Extreme wide angles aren't that shallow anyway, so I don't see spending LOTS of money for a fast wide angle when the kit lens starts at 14mm, and you could never afford anything faster that wide anyway. Would cost thousands of dollars. Anyway - wide stuff is deep focus anyway so just go with the kit lens. AT LEAST try it. If you're having low light issues and need wide angle for indoors, then see what you can afford.

But personally, I may use the kit lens for 14 - 35, then I have a 50mm 1.8, 85 mm 1.8, 135 mm 2.0. I do have a 2.8 wide angle which was not too expensive which I will bust out for really low light. Again - with this camera a 2.8 lens will be tons more sensitive than a fast lens with an adapter and probably even more sensitive than a bare HVX.

[Kholi]

Here's my glass collection

ZOOMS

11-16/2.8 Tokina (Nikon)
17-35/2.8~4 Tamron Zoom (Nikon)
18-50/2.8 DC EX Sigma Zoom (Nikon)
28-70/3.4~5.6 Contax Zeiss Vario Sonnar (Contax)
100-300/5 Vivitar (Nikon - Cheap as hell, great for exterior shots but needs serious color match)

PRIMARY PRIMES

28/2.8 Contax Zeiss
35/2.8 Contax Zeiss
50/1.4 Contax Zess
85/1.4 Contax Zeiss
135/2.8 Contax Zeiss
180/2.8 Contax Zeiss

LOL THIS IS FUNNY PRIMES

100/2.8 Nikon Nikkor Macro
90/2.5 Vivitar VMC Series 1 Macro
25/2.5 Vivitar
135/2.5 Macro (forgot what this cheap thing was, but it's fun and random)

ABOUT TO ADD THESE

Sigma 20/1.8
Sigma 28/1.8
Rokkor 50/1.2 (just purchased it)
C/Y Zeiss 28/2
C/Y Zeiss 35/1.4
C/Y Zeiss 135/2
C/YZeiss 100-300/3.4 zoom

I've been looking at the FD collection and I like the look the glass gives, I think I'm gonna start up that collection soon.

[Mike@AF]

Good luck trying to find a canon 24mm f/1.4 very rare these days... I think the sigma 20mm will have vignetting because the 24mm from what I've found on the G1 forums has slight vignetting.
And expensive. I'm doing a little rethinking on my lens choices again. I wish there was just a faster version of the kit lens and then I'd just go with that.


I've noticed using a Letus with either HVX, Z7U or EX3 that Nikon and Canon primes have much more of a different look than when you run film behind either of the two's respective cameras. Videos online from Nikkor and FD on the GH1 seem to be almost as drastic as the a formentioned video cameras. I'm seeing Canons as an all purpose, crisp good lens. Nikons are giving a marbled, western-y, low contrast vibe. On our show we've opted for Canon only, but I wanted to see if any y'all have noticed any characteristics between the two.....

Thanks for the input. I've been concerned about the Nikon and Canon matching and have been contemplating with going all Canon. I like the look of both and possibly prefer the Canon. Plus, the Canon FD's seem to be a little less expensive.


Look at Nikon "E" series lenses if you are on a budget. Good glass. More plastic on the housing = cheaper lens. But the quality is close enough that some lens afficiados argue some "E" series lenses to be superioer to their more expensive Nikon equivalents.
This is good news. I look at those too. How can I tell an E series from another series just by looking at it? Is there an E on the lens?

And for the sake of saving page space I won't quote the rest, but want to say thanks for continued insightful input Jack. The f/1.8's and above definitely seem cheaper, so I may go with mostly those to start with and see how it goes. Maybe go with a 50/1.4 though just in case I need something with better low light performance.

I understand the FOV vs equivalent. I was typing it as equivalent FOV and we should probably be typing it as something else. Maybe something like 50mm(0.5x FOV) f/2.8 for a 50mm f/2.8 lens on a camera with a 2x crop factor like the GH1. The 0.5x FOV tells us the FOV is approximately half the typical FOV of that lens.

I started searching for the lenses I listed and realized the 24mm lens I listed was super expensive. Not sure how I made that mistake. So I have to rethink my lens choices for the 20-28mm range. But if f/2.8 will work well I may be able to stick with the focal lengths I was aiming for. I started looking at f/2 even. If 2.8 is going to be that good, then I could also look at some zooms instead of primes. I wish I had the camera so I can test out the kit lens and see what I can do with it. But I also don't want to not have the lenses ready to go once the camera arrives. There's some stuff I want to start shooting right away once it arrives.


Here's my glass collection
That's a lot of lenses! I'm guessing the Contax Zeiss are your faves? Where do you typically buy your lenses, and do you tend to buy used or new?

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

They say "E" or "E Series" on them and they say "Nikon" instead of "Nikkor".
Here's an article comparing the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 to the Nikon 28mm 2.8 E Series, saying that the optics are equally sharp, but the "E" series has a fragile plastic feel (so just don't drop it).
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/28mmf28.htm
Basically I just search eBay for Nikon E Series to find them.

[Kholi]

[QUOTE-gmoe]

That's a lot of lenses! I'm guessing the Contax Zeiss are your faves? Where do you typically buy your lenses, and do you tend to buy used or new?


Always buy used myself. Just look for a balance between cost and condition. The Contax Zeiss are definitely my favorite lenses. I was turned unto them officially by Willis (who has an ungodly collection of C/Y Zeiss primes) and just love 'em to death.

If you've ever shot footage on an adapter with a 17-35/2.8 ED Nikon or the 80-200/2.8 ED, that kind of sharp and smooth images is what every contax zeiss lens produces. The collection is massive, as well.

That said, I'm still going to get a set of super-fast primes for lowlight work.

One thing to remember if you're mixing glass: color balance, contrast, etc will change between lenses and sometimes even between lenses within the same family.

Do tests and find out how to correct either in camera with custom profiles so that they all match across the board or in post. Just doing a white balance may not do the trick!

A lil' heads up.

[Mike@AF]

They say "E" or "E Series" on them and they say "Nikon" instead of "Nikkor".
Here's an article comparing the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 to the Nikon 28mm 2.8 E Series, saying that the optics are equally sharp, but the "E" series has a fragile plastic feel (so just don't drop it).
http://mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/28mmnikkor/28mmf28.htm
Basically I just search eBay for Nikon E Series to find them.

The plastic doesn't bother me because I'm very careful with my equipment. I've never dropped, bumped, or knocked anything. I'll take a look at those vs. the Canon FD's.

[Mike@AF]

Always buy used myself. Just look for a balance between cost and condition. The Contax Zeiss are definitely my favorite lenses. I was turned unto them officially by Willis (who has an ungodly collection of C/Y Zeiss primes) and just love 'em to death.


How do the Contax Zeiss compare to the Zeiss ZF Primes? Looking at the used prices for the Contax Zeiss it seems if I were to go that route I may as well go with the ZF's. Are they somewhere between ZF and Ultra Primes?



One thing to remember if you're mixing glass: color balance, contrast, etc will change between lenses and sometimes even between lenses within the same family.

Do tests and find out how to correct either in camera with custom profiles so that they all match across the board or in post. Just doing a white balance may not do the trick!

A lil' heads up.


Exactly why I was concerned about mixing Nikon with Canon. Thanks for the info Kholi.

[gmoe]

sniff sniff.. I wish I didn't sell my Contax Zeiss set... They are wonderfully sharp and correctly rotate the right way when using a follow focus.. (sigh) I may have to build that kit back up again...

In my book they are better than the Nikon Zeiss--

[Mike@AF]

Why do you think they're better?

[Mike@AF]

Alright, this throws a major wrench in things. I'm one of those crazy guys that can't make up his mind and keeps changing his decision. But I say crazy not stupid.

So knowing how much better the Zeiss lenses are, I'm now thinking of going with Zeiss ZF. I'd buy a couple lenses now and a couple later. Probably start with the 50 and 85 at f/1.4. Then get the 28 and 35 at f/2. All total I'm probably looking at 5-6x my budget, so you may be wondering what I'm thinking. Well, the GH1 to me is an interim solution.

Ultimately I want a Red Scarlet S35 or Epic S35 and I'm thinking the Zeiss glass would be better suited for the Red cameras than the Nikon or Canon. I do like both the Nikon and the Canon but I've been pouring through comparisons of the lenses for the last several hours and I'm 100% sure I like the Zeiss ZF better than the Nikon and Canon, and to me it's very noticeable.

So it makes sense to not invest money in glass that ultimately I'd sell just to upgrade anyways. And if the GH1 kit lens is that good and as Jack says low light won't be as big an issue as I think, then why not start building the lens kit I really want.

Here's the question: Should I really be looking at Contax over the ZF? I looked all over the net for a comparison of the Contax vs the ZF and couldn't find anything. There's comparisons between the Nikon and ZF. The ZF seem to get a lot of flack for being manufactured by Cosina in Japan instead of Zeiss in Germany. That doesn't bother me though, because they're made to Zeiss' specs and each lens is tested. And I can also see the difference in comparisons. On Reduser.net all the talk is about how good the ZF are. No one seems unhappy with them or has anything negative to say. There isn't much talk about the Contax, except for how to mount them on the Red One, which may be a concern initially with the Scarlet or Epic. So how much of a difference is there between the Contax Zeiss and the Zeiss ZF? And what are those differences?

[Kholi]

A) The two things that will stick with you from now on: Great tripod w/fluid head setup and glass. You're on the right track.

B) It's incredibly noticable. I remember when I first noticed it, someone I know was shooting a war project and Willis jumped in later on. The first half of the project was shot with Nikon Nikkor Primes (not the infamous zooms) and the second have Zeiss Contax. The SECOND I saw the Zeiss C/Y shots my mouth dropped. And this was on the LETUS EXTREME. If you notice it there, you'll definitely notice it anywhere else. That's what sold me on Zeiss Contax.

C) I agree. If you can afford it, and are willing to take your time collecting/amassing, there's no sense in not doing it right the first time. Although do not discount the value of older, softer glass, either. They have their uses.

Today, we shot with a really old Angenieux Zooms, the thing is massive and quite soft but the image was VERY pleasing. So it depends on your preference. I love the Zeiss look myself.

D) Zeiss Contax versus ZF? Well, I've read around that they're both equally matched. It comes down to build for the most part. Contax glass focuses the same way as Cinema Glass, ZF's focus the opposite way. Construction, etc.

Also, Zeiss Contax has a much more vast array of lenses than the current ZF offerings.

E) mounting on Scarlet will be much easier in the future. In fact, there are definitely EOS lens mounts being sold right now. The issue is that EOS mount owners generally want electronic lens control, one, and two people weren't really looking at Zeiss SLR glass in the first place. Not until others jumped in the water first.

I'm sure once someone shows up with some bad-ass footage shot with C/Y Zeiss lenses then people will jump ship.

One thing about the ZF's is that they'll probably sell faster in the future if you do decide to get rid of them, and the value will still be near-to-what you paid for them. For Contax, to ensure that you get your value back you'll need to invest in good copies of the fastest primes.

Notice how much the 21/2.8, 28/2, 35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 100/2's go for used on ebay.

[Mike@AF]

Great! Thanks for your input!

I've always liked the look of the Zeiss the most, so I think that's the right move. I think I'll go with the ZF. I rarely buy anything used, and with something this expensive I'd rather get used lenses that are as close to new shape as possible and that's the ZF. I'm sure I'd be completely happy with the Contax, but it would be much more difficult to find them in the shape that would please me.

So I may go pick up those 50 and 85 f/1.4 tomorrow. We'll see. If not tomorrow, very soon. Either way, those will give me the aperture I want for low light situations that the kit lens won't handle. Although I imagine I'll find myself forcing the Zeiss into use.

Did you de-click your lenses? I know the ZF clicks at 1/3 stop increments, so I'm not sure it's really necessary. I typically don't adjust aperture mid-shot.

I assume yours are geared as well? Did you do some kind of a zip gear or have it done professionally? Who did it? How much?

EDIT: You know, after we both get our GH1's we should do a Contax/ZF shootout. Would be interesting to finally see and know the difference definitively.

[Kholi]

It's a good idea to buy ZF if you need near to new quality. Especially for the 28/2 and 100/2, as if I remember right they're floating element designs. It'll be worth the money going ZF because of that.

Also, the choice to go 50 and 85 is a nice one. I personally would probably get something wide (28/2) and then either the 50 or 85. Mostly because if you get caught indoors without enough space, that 28/2 will be a life saver.

No de-clicking. The iris will slide right in between stops anyway so I never bothered. I personally don't think it's necessary at all.

Also, I'm not using a follow focus. I found that it was too cumbersome for this setup and I also personally prefer pulling focus off of the barrell unless forced to do otherwise. I remember when I got my 35mm Adapter setup and wanted an FF for so long. When I finally got one it only got used when other people used my camera.

If I had it myself, I was always pulling focus by hand. In fact!

http://www.vimeo.com/1093520 -- Letus Ultimate, Zeiss ZFs, HVX200A, Pulling by hand off the barrell.

Forgot I had that.

[Mike@AF]

Nice video and focus pulling.

I do plan on getting the 28 f/2. And the 35 f/2 as well. I wanted to start with the f/1.4 lenses though. Depending on what actually happens with the delivery of these cameras I might also have the 28 and 35 by then.

I have a follow focus for my HVX and I agree, probably don't need it for this setup. Hardly need it for the HVX. I'll try it without to start and see how it goes. I'll probably end up selling the follow focus to help pay for the lenses. I imagine when I finally get the Red I'll end up gearing them though.

[yslee]

I'd also agree on getting a 28 and a 50 first. Or a 35 and 85. Essentially make sure they're different enough. I'm not quite smitten with Zeiss/Leica that much myself though.

[noelsphoto]

M.ZUIKO DIGITAL 17mm 1:2.8 Pancake

I'm hoping this is good for $300

[yslee]

That's a focus-by-wire lens; since it's not optimised like the 14-140 kit is, it might pick up noise if you're using a mic mounted on the camera. Also I'm a little frustrated by the way the AF/MF works across the focus modes. It's not consistent in operation and tends to get in my way.

[Martti Ekstrand]

FWIW both Red Rock Micro and Letus sell the Zeiss ZF lenses in packages, Red Rock with a follow focus and gears in a Pelican case.

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.472981/it.A/id.326/.f

http://www.letusdirect.com/cart/zeiss-pro-bundle.html

[Kholi]

Y'know I really do want to try out some ZF lenses. I wish that there was at least a 135 in the mix but I guess they'll roll that out sooner or later..

Being able to own them would be a good way to judge how much I like them in comparison to Contax.

Hmmm.

[Mike@AF]

FWIW both Red Rock Micro and Letus sell the Zeiss ZF lenses in packages, Red Rock with a follow focus and gears in a Pelican case.

http://shopping.netsuite.com/s.nl/c.472981/it.A/id.326/.f

http://www.letusdirect.com/cart/zeiss-pro-bundle.html

Thanks I wasn't aware of that. I don't think the Red Rock package would work since it only has 3 of the 4 lenses I plan on getting. It would make the case useless or I'd have to get a new foam insert for it. I'm also not planning on a follow focus at first.

The Letus kit looks good, though. I'll have to keep that in consideration if I can't get good deals on used ones.


Being able to own them would be a good way to judge how much I like them in comparison to Contax.

Hmmm.

We can do a shootout when we get our GH1's.

[Kholi]

I think I'm gonna look into getting a set of ZF's as well. Might be a good thing.

[Mike@AF]

Then I look forward to hearing your opinion on Contax vs ZF.

[J Davis]

@Kholi, Would any Contax work on a GH1 ? And what mount would you use?

[Kholi]

Contax Yashica Zeiss will take EOS adapters from Ebay. Then you can use an EOS mount if you already have one. Or, you can just get a C/Y Adapter to Micro 4/3 to 4/3. That'll work.

Contax N I think you'd have to get an actual Contax N adapter but not sure who makes them.

[saaby]

I haven't seen them mentioned at all...but in the sills world I shoot Pentax. There are some great Pentax lenses out there. Their "Limited" line of primes, in particular, are very solidly built, and often compared to Leica. They're not Leica clones, and obviously they have different characteristics than Leica lenses, but still the same, they're fantastic.

"Back in the Day" Pentax was the most popular SLR manufacturer, and other companies (Like Sears) were manufacturing cameras using the Pentax PK mount. Now days Pentax owns very very very little market share. This means there's lots and lots of old lenses around. I have a 50mm/1.7 with Pentax's awesome Super Multi Coating. The lens was about $50 in "like new" condition.

Pentax Lens tests on the Pentax K-7 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/loafer/sets/72157621155255150/)

Added Bonus: Almost any Pentax lens ever made will work on any Pentax body, including their brand new K-7. As noted, old Canon lenses don't work on their dSLRs. Nikon has done a better job, but (depending on which Nikon body you use) there can still be some gotchas. Pentax have the best system for using old lenses on a new body, including a sensor-based image stabilization that will effectively turn that $50 fast-50 prime lens into a fast-50 image stabilized prime lens.

[Mike@AF]

Well, I just got back from making a purchase. Picked up Zeiss ZF 50mm and 85mm f/1.4's. Like new and flawless condition except for one needle-sized nick on the 50mm focus ring. Tested them using a friend's Nikon camera. Awesome lenses! Very pleased!

I've been looking for deals on the 28mm and 35mm f/2's but haven't seen any anywhere. I'll keep looking though.

The 85mm came with a Hoya Super HMC UV(0) filter. The 50mm came with a Hoya HMC UV(0) filter. If I'm putting a UV filter on each lens to protect them, should I really be concerned that they aren't all the same? Should I upgrade the 50mm filter to Super HMC?

Also, and Kholi you may be able to answer this best, should I have the UV filter attached to the lens directly and then attach a step-up ring to that or should I get them larger for the step-up ring and put on that with the rest of the filters I use? I'm probably going to go with the 82mm step-up like you recommended in another thread.

[yslee]

You should test if the HMC's coating is up to preventing flare and ghosting in your shoots.

Either way works for stepping up; I suspect the former seems more convenient if you want to keep the UV filter on at all times.

[Mike@AF]

I'll probably just upgrade it. Doesn't make sense not to put the better filter on a lens of this quality.

[yslee]

I suppose. Personally I'm still trying to get a Hoya HD filter for the kit lens. If it's good I'm going to start changing my filters over to Hoya HDs.

[Mike@AF]

Those HD filters only have the HMC coating, not the Super HMC coating. I'd have to look for it again, but I did find a chart that shows the Super HMC allows 2-3% more light through compared to the HMC. I do know the UV filters say no light loss, but I don't know how no light loss is possible. Maybe it's just not noticeable?

From what I read about the HD filters, it sounds like the real benefit to them is the dirt and smudge repelling and indestructibility of them. Otherwise I think the regular version with Super HMC would give better performance. I could be wrong, but that's what it seems.

The HD circular polarizer sounds awesome though. Only issue is there's no Super HMC version of it.

[yslee]

I'm pretty sure the coatings on the HD are better than the HMC; I just replaced the 62 HNC filter on the 14-140 with a HD filter and I took a little time to compare them. The HD filter appears to have the better coating. It reflected less light, and was a little more neutral. I can't tell light transmission differences though, without specialised equipment.

[Martti Ekstrand]

Considering how much ND one has to smack on the GH1 in daylight a light transmission loss of 3% ain't that much to worry about. I'm still wondering if it would be better to have a far red Hot mirror filter instead of UV.

[Kholi]

Martti, do you know where to get screw on Hot Mirrors? That's the ONLY thing I can't find but I think I should have.

[Martti Ekstrand]

Hehe, guess what. I linked to them in the thread where I asked if they might be a good thing to use on the GH1.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=177055

Better keep that topic in that thread. :)

[commanderspike]

I went for a Zeiss Distagon T* 28mm F2.8 Lens (Contax mount), seemed like a good alternative to the famous 28mm F2 variety - at an 8th of the price (£150).

Can't wait to see the resolving power of this beauty at F11. For stills photography in RAW mode, the resolution would be at the extreme end of what's possible with any digital camera right now, per pixel. GH1 is known to be very sharp in raw, and the Zeiss is a very very very sharp lens. Noticed in some footage from the GH1 that the Zeisss lenses - pretty much all of them - have a pretty special feel (high contrast, high detail, nice bokeh).

The rest of my collection is cheap and cheerful! That's the way I wanted to keep it...I'm pretty happy with the kits lens but keep getting tempted. Ooops!

Vivitar 24mm F2 (FD mount, £46 -- as close as I could get to a fast wide without ridiculously high prices)
Canon 50mm F1.4 & 2x extender (FD, £50)
Canon 135mm F2.8 (FD, a tenner!)
Canon 10-22mm EFS F3.5 (Stolen from family member :2vrolijk_08:)

[Kholi]

The 28/2.8 is an awesome lens. Congrats on the acquisition.

I've just pinned down a full set of Zeiss Zfs. Will have them soon. Although at the moment it only goes up to 100mm I can't wait to give these a full on run in production and play. I'll definitley be doing some light comparisons, especially between the cy zeiss 85/1.4 and zeiss ze 85/1.4.

Will report back with my findings for those interested in primary differences. Actually afraid I may like the ZFs more!

If so I'll probably keep the cy zooms and the telephoto primes until the zf line-up matures on the long end.

[J Davis]

@Mike
@Commander
@Kholi

which adapter way did you go for mounts for the zeiss? any links?


Contax Yashica Zeiss will take EOS adapters from Ebay. Then you can use an EOS mount if you already have one. Or, you can just get a C/Y Adapter to Micro 4/3 to 4/3. That'll work.

Contax N I think you'd have to get an actual Contax N adapter but not sure who makes them.

[Kholi]

The Zeiss Contax are yashica mount. Ebay Search: Contax Zeiss to Micro 4/3 adapter

To get Zeiss ZF's to work on EOS Ebay Member search: Roxsen

[Mike@AF]

I ordered my Nikon adapter from jinfinance.

[Mike@AF]

I've just pinned down a full set of Zeiss Zfs.

Which ones did you get? Where? I've had trouble locating good deals on these. I got a good deal on the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, but haven't found any used 28/2 or 35/2. Or did you opt for new?

[Kholi]

Which ones did you get? Where? I've had trouble locating good deals on these. I got a good deal on the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4, but haven't found any used 28/2 or 35/2. Or did you opt for new?

All of them new. But not exactly for a deal. I'll let you know when they come in.

Gots to figure out which set to keep.

[commanderspike]

Adapter: jinfinance one for me. I have their EFS and FD adapters - all alloys, no plastic, well made. There is a big premium for the Micro 4/3rds adapter over the standard 4/3rds adapter, i.e. Panasonic L1 to Contax lens which is £11, the M 4/3rds is £50 (new item I guess).

So... If you already have the Panasonic Micro 4/3rds to 4/3rds adapter for Olympus lenses, etc. would the Contax lenses work via the cheap L1 adapter connected to the Panasonic M 4/3rds to 4/3rds adapter?

PS... Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm 1.7 Lens.... any good for 80 quid?

I have also found TV lenses on eBay. Know nothing about their quality! CANON/AKAI 11.5-90mm F2.1 TV LENS - C MOUNT - worth a punt? I curious as to how they achieve that range at F2.1... but anyway... what do I know.

[yslee]

Tell me about it. The Nikon F to 4/3s adaptor is 1/3 the price of the 4/3s to m4/3s adapter.

There are plenty of examples of photos taken with the C Mount lenses on the G1. They all have very odd bokeh, which is in some circles sought after.

[commanderspike]

Radial bokeh like this? http://www.pbase.com/gummiebear/image/113659372/original.jpg

Psychedelic! :2vrolijk_08:

I am attracted to the C mount lens mentioned above (AKAI TV lens) because 11.5 = 21mm (35 equiv.) on the GH1, which is pretty damned wide, and F2.1 is pretty damned fast. What's the catch? Image quality is rubbish??

[Martti Ekstrand]

It will probably not cover the entire sensor so you get corner vignetting and has a softer look than modern lenses.


PS... Carl Zeiss Planar T* 50mm 1.7 Lens.... any good for 80 quid?

80 guid? You gotta be sh*tt*ng me - yes get it, unless previous owner let a herd of elephants stampede over it.

[snicky]

Can you tell me guys how much you would pay for FD 50/1.4, 28/2, 28/2.8 or 24/2? I have realized that the prices here in Poland (and in Germany as well) are awfully high :( Maybe I should try to buy lenses from UK or Asia instead.

[commanderspike]

Can you tell me guys how much you would pay for FD 50/1.4, 28/2, 28/2.8 or 24/2? I have realized that the prices here in Poland (and in Germany as well) were awfully high :( Maybe I should try to buy lenses from UK or Asia instead.

FD 28/2.0 = £60
FD 50/1.4 = £50
FD 24/2.0 = £50
FD 28/2.8 = £20

The F2.0s are not too common but eBay UK has a nice selection of FD lenses at the moment.

[Martti Ekstrand]

For those of you yearning for super wide angles take a look at the russian Zenitars

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260397915422

[commanderspike]

I once had a Zenitar 16mm fisheye on a Canon 30D.

They're great for the money, but worried how a fisheye might look with a 2x crop on the GH1 ><

Only 32mm equiv. and lots of distortion?

They can be had for £80-£120 region. They've actually gone up since a few years ago :2vrolijk_08:

Word of warning though... they may be small but they are HEAVY. Built like a Russian tank.

[upshot]

Radial bokeh like this? Psychedelic! :2vrolijk_08:

or superb...

switar 50/1.4
http://images46.fotki.com/v1516/photos/5/148595/7615954/P1140969-vi.jpg

kodak ektar 63/2
http://images41.fotki.com/v1305/photos/5/148595/7501476/P1140319-vi.jpg

[Kholi]

Wtf that Ektar looks magnificent.

[upshot]

Wtf that Ektar looks magnificent.

Don't front on the ektar line... Post war era the Europeans were passing up leica and zeiss for kodak glass. Meanwhile the US love affair with german glass was just beginning.

ektar 40/1.6
http://images49.fotki.com/v1508/photos/5/148595/7575026/P1140773-vi.jpg

[Jack Daniel Stanley]

They're great for the money, but worried how a fisheye might look with a 2x crop on the GH1 ><

Only 32mm equiv. and lots of distortion?
....

Since barrel distortion occurs at the edges of the lens you get less of it on the GH1. You're looking more in the middle of the lens where there is less distortion.

[snicky]

FD 28/2.0 = £60
FD 50/1.4 = £50
FD 24/2.0 = £50
FD 28/2.8 = £20


For nFD or S.S.C. versions?

[commanderspike]

nFD although you can spot the occasional S.S.C at a similar price, it's just that they seem to be a lot rarer.

[Kholi]

Don't front on the ektar line... Post war era the Europeans were passing up leica and zeiss for kodak glass. Meanwhile the US love affair with german glass was just beginning.

ektar 40/1.6
http://images49.fotki.com/v1508/photos/5/148595/7575026/P1140773-vi.jpg

Wtf that imge is cream, man. Where did you get that glass from?

[upshot]

Wtf that imge is cream, man. Where did you get that glass from?

Would you believe... the back of a truck in Kentucky?

You can find this stuff on fee-bay too.

[commanderspike]

http://cgi.ebay.com/Kodak-Cine-Ektar-Lens-40mm-f1-6-C-mount-for-16mm-Cam_W0QQitemZ270423533228QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH_Def aultDomain_0?hash=item3ef67fa6ac&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1234%7C 293%3A1%7C294%3A50

Grab that 40 1.6 while you can :)

With the benefit of hindsight I am gutted I missed these super fast Ektar wides:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Kodak-25mm-f1-4-Cine-Ektar-II-Lens-in-C-Mount-G1-E-P1_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ65Q3a13Q7c66Q3a2Q7c 39Q3a1Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2e m14QQhashZitem53db8eef16QQitemZ360165863190QQptZUK Q5fPhotographyQ5fVintagePhotographyQ5fVintagePhoto AccessoriesQQsalenotsupported

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Kodak-15mm-f2-5-Cine-Ektar-Lens-in-C-Mount-G1-E-P1_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trkparmsZ65Q3a13Q7c66Q3a2Q7c 39Q3a1Q7c293Q3a1Q7c294Q3a50QQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2e m14QQhashZitem53db8f116eQQitemZ360165871982QQptZUK Q5fPhotographyQ5fVintagePhotographyQ5fVintagePhoto AccessoriesQQsalenotsupported

[durangotang]

Thanks everyone who posted on this thread. I have decided against Canon FD's (I don't like the bokeh) and just ordered a Contax Zeiss Distagon 28mm f/2.8 and a Contax Zeiss Planar 50mm f/1.4 as my first two prime lenses to supplement the kit lens.

Kholi, I particulary appreciate your input and the thrift store video had my favorite look of all the ones I watched on Vimeo.

As soon as I get my GH1 I'll post some video for everyone to see.

Now does anyone here know about CineCity products? I am on a real tight budget and need to get a MatteBox and 4x4 ND filter set.

I saw this:
http://thecinecity.com/tcc/product.php?productid=80

But compared to other prices out there, it seems a little cheapo. Any ideas?

[Trankilstef]

I'm also tryin' to find a "wide" lens for my Panasonic GH1, especially FD lenses since I purchased an FD adapter on ebay.
Do you know Quantary lenses? I found the Quantary 24 mmf/2.5.
Do you think it will be a good lens, because it's cheaper than the Canon FD 24mm f2, or even f2.8!
What's the reputation of this lens manufacturer?

Thanx in advance! And thanx for this thread, it rocks!

[gmoe]

Quantary FD lenses are inferior to Canon FD lenses in the still camera world. For me, I'd go with the Canon. I have the Canon FD 24mm F/2 and it's a very good lens F/2.8 is also good but not as fast. Also, If you are planning on getting other Canon glass to match your footy. It would be best to stick with Canon. Having said that if you pick up this lens for like $50 then go for it and try it out.

[J Davis]

As far as fast wides go and the crop factor now working against us. Has anyone tried Nikon DX wides?

[Trankilstef]

Thanx Gmoe! Actually i found a quantary 24mm f/2.5 for 45$! I find it a cool price... I agree with you about the fact to stick to Canon, i'm gonna think twice... Because i already have a canon FD 50 mm 1.4, and I plan to purchase a 24mm, a 35mm and maybe later a 85mm.

[yslee]

Nikon DX wides suffer from the problem of being G lenses. In any case there isn't a really fast wide in the Nikon DX lineup. There's just the 10-24/3.5-45 and the 12-24/4. For F/2.8 you'll need the expensive and not very useful 14-24/2.8, which is not a DX lens.

Tokina has the 11-16/2.8, but it's also aperture ring-less. And that's about it for fast wides. Sigma has 10-20/3.5, but it's close enough to f/4 that I'd rather pick the smaller, light and wider Lumix 7-14/4.

[commanderspike]

The 28/2.8 is an awesome lens. Congrats on the acquisition.

I've just pinned down a full set of Zeiss Zfs. Will have them soon. Although at the moment it only goes up to 100mm I can't wait to give these a full on run in production and play. I'll definitley be doing some light comparisons, especially between the cy zeiss 85/1.4 and zeiss ze 85/1.4.

Will report back with my findings for those interested in primary differences. Actually afraid I may like the ZFs more!

If so I'll probably keep the cy zooms and the telephoto primes until the zf line-up matures on the long end.

Kholi, did you ever do the comparisons between the CY & ZE Zeiss lenses?

Have a chance to pick up a 85mm F1.4 T* (CY) but the coating has numerous scratches. However I don't think it makes a difference to image quality. Asking price is £200. The temptation...

[Simon Höfer]

You guys all got me onto the Contax band wagon! Especially Kholi, even though you are moving more towards the ZE or ZF Zeiss lenses.

I've got the 85 1.4 cy and am now looking for a wider lens. Probably the 28 2.8 as the 28 2 is too damned expensive. Man I learned alot about lens buying in the past 2 days. Went to about 20 2nd hand shops here in Hong Kong and looked at hundreds of lenses.

The most important thing:

You need to look at a lens in person.

So many things can be bad. Bad front, bad back, fungus, the mechanics can be bad. A floating element in the lens can be broken. Things which get easily lost in an image of off ebay.

Sold some lenses aswell. That's an adventure over here. You need to estimate the price of your lenses and then haggle alot :D

Always start with a higher price (or lower if you buy something) than go a little lower and wait for his answer. Look really undecided. When the buyer doesn't want to change his price anymore into your direction, try to walk away. When they see you are leaving they normally change their mind. Repeat until you are satisfied.

Talked alot with the owner of one shop selling only better lenses and luxury watches. He showed me some quite expensive c-mount lenses. 25mm f0.95. Those are so tiny lenses. They do make a nice image, even though there is some vignetting on this particular lens.

He told me with the rise of the micro 4/3 system the c mount lenses went up in price already and will go even higher in the future. He said other manufacturers might introduce the m4/3 system as well.

[D90GH1_eric]

Is there any distortion with the Nikon 20 or 24?

I have the 24/2.8 and used it on the GH1 and Yes it has distortion. All wide angle lenses show distortion to various degree. The Panasonic 20/1.7 is helped by software correction so it does not look that bad. The 24/2.8 also likes to flare so keep light source away from the lens. It is a very sharp and short lens though.

[tflak]

I find that the Leica 25mm 1.4 is relatively free of distortion and shows minimal breathing. It also can autofocus (although not during recording) using the DMW-MA1 adapter. And it's a great lens for stills.