••Fujinon TV Lens on GH-1...Don't Drool••

 
And are we sure that we have to adapt? I don't like AF myself with the ultra-plasticky build I don't usually keep µ4/3 lenses for very long. Just enough to test out their IQ a bit and then sell them off. I don't think I've ever noticed if any of them were parfocal or not. But recently I got an Oly 14-42 ED and with this thread in mind I tested for it. It's perfectly parfocal. At avery range even macro. So with that I have to ask; Has anyone actually tested the 14-140, the 40-200, the 14-150, or others?


BTW ekoe, none of those (except the Cosmicar 12.5 to 75mm) look even close to being able to be mounted on a µ4/3 without MAJOR surgery.
 
Last edited:
@ Tesselator... The kit zooms are fine unless you shoot video, or prefer the use of manual focus lenses. The issues with the kit zooms (besides being AF or manual focus by wire with no focus indication, infinity stop or aperture adjustment ring) is that the only zoom for m4/3 that is parfocal is the Panasonic 7-14mm/f4. Even with the 7-14/f4, it is not set up for video but rather for stills, so it will not zoom as smooth as a cine/video parfocal zoom. Also, the AF of these kit zooms looks awful when shooting video.

As I understand it, the Olympus 14-42 ED is not parfocal, but it is firmware corrected and may appear parfocal.

Most of those lenses I linked to (beside the two bayonet mount ones) should have no issue fitting with a c-mount to m4/3 adapter. But if there was an issue fitting within the adapter, it's not 'major surgery'
to turn a few millimeters off the rear diameter. I do this for GH2 ETC users on a regular basis. Even with the bayonet mounts, it's more involved than with the c-mounts but still not as major surgery as my other legacy lens to m4/3 modifications.

The most challenging part of the process for anyone looking to do this themselves will be the parfocal adjustment. This is a fine adjustment that will be noticeable if it is not performed correctly. It's entirely worth it to have it done right. The total cost of a parfocal zoom for GH2 does not have to be expensive if you don't spend too much on your initial zoom lens purchase. Do your research and find a 'decent' deal on a good condition, fully functional lens. You should reserve some funds to have the lens set-up properly by an experienced technician. I personally make an effort to match fees to client budget. I also try to provide advice for users to determine the right lens for their purposes.

Most stills shooters are not accustomed to parfocal zooms, but for filmmakers the proper collimation and adjustment of a parfocal zoom is an understood necessity and is acknowledged as best left to a lens service professional. If it's worth doing, it's worth having it done properly.
 
ekoe said:
@ Tesselator... The kit zooms are fine unless you shoot video, or prefer the use of manual focus lenses. The issues with the kit zooms (besides being AF or manual focus by wire with no focus indication, infinity stop or aperture adjustment ring) is that the only zoom for m4/3 that is parfocal is the Panasonic 7-14mm/f4. Even with the 7-14/f4, it is not set up for video but rather for stills, so it will not zoom as smooth as a cine/video parfocal zoom. Also, the AF of these kit zooms looks awful when shooting video.
Click to expand...

All true (I think) except for the zoom smoothness. All you need to remedy that is a cheap Chinese follow-focus kit - attached to the zoom ring.



As I understand it, the Olympus 14-42 ED is not parfocal, but it is firmware corrected and may appear parfocal.
Click to expand...

Many many modern AF lenses are but I was shooting this on a GH1 and not an Oly body so I'm going to assume that isn't the case here. <shrug> As additional evidence to that assumption super fast zooming needs no adjust time. From 14mm to 42mm in about 1/10 of a second lands at either end perfectly focused.

The only downside I can see in using this lens for video is the focus by wire attribute. And for a one-man operation with an external monitor that might actually even be a good thing. It's like automatic ease-in ease-out control curves.


Most of those lenses I linked to (beside the two bayonet mount ones) should have no issue fitting with a c-mount to m4/3 adapter.
Click to expand...

Ummm... no. :) Look again. No offense but I've tried just too many c-mount lenses. The number of zooms which can fit down inside that inset are minuscule. The µ4/3 throat is just too narrow. So unless you personally have actually had success with any of these I'll keep my previous assumptions. They look very incompatible.


But if there was an issue fitting within the adapter, it's not 'major surgery' to turn a few millimeters off the rear diameter.
Click to expand...

Not only is that exactly what I would call "major surgery", that's not even going to work for most c-mount lenses. C-mount's RD is 17.52mm while µ4/3 is 19.25 mm with the average butt-face having a material thickness of between 1.5mm and 2mm. Some high dollar professional lenses may be a little thicker and can be done this way but anything within the budgets we're talking here are a no go. At 1.5mm you're through the material long before the correct distance is achieved and with a 2mm material base you're down to 0.2mm of brass with about 0.07mm of chrome plating. Basically really soft tin-foil. :P On top of that it still does not fit down inside the throat inset so that 0.27mm of material is pulled down into the well when the lens is tightened into place. I have quite a little collection of mounts cracked (ripped) in this way. :)


Even with the bayonet mounts, it's more involved than with the c-mounts but still not as major surgery as my other legacy lens to m4/3 modifications.
Click to expand...

Almost all other lens mounts have adapters ready-made and commercially available so I'm not sure where this is coming from. ???


The most challenging part of the process for anyone looking to do this themselves will be the parfocal adjustment. This is a fine adjustment that will be noticeable if it is not performed correctly. It's entirely worth it to have it done right. The total cost of a parfocal zoom for GH2 does not have to be expensive if you don't spend too much on your initial zoom lens purchase. Do your research and find a 'decent' deal on a good condition, fully functional lens. You should reserve some funds to have the lens set-up properly by an experienced technician. I personally make an effort to match fees to client budget. I also try to provide advice for users to determine the right lens for their purposes.

Most stills shooters are not accustomed to parfocal zooms, but for filmmakers the proper collimation and adjustment of a parfocal zoom is an understood necessity and is acknowledged as best left to a lens service professional. If it's worth doing, it's worth having it done properly.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that could be. I'm not much of a camera technician. I'm a producer, production coordinator, TD, and a CG, matte, & concept artist (but retired now) - so there's lots of technical bits I dunno about. This sounds like yet another one. :D
 
Last edited:
roei z said:
i'm not so sure. can you upload a parfocal test?
but anyway they are slow as hell.
Click to expand...

Nya, I'm feeling way too lazy to upload any tests - you can take my word for it though - that would be respectful. :)

What do you mean by slow? You mean the 2 or 3 stops of aperture or the AF speed? Put it in MF with external pulling and the AF speed issue is gone and just get a better camera if ISO 800 and 1,600 are too noisy. I guess the GH2 or the OM-D will do. ;) Here's the OM-D's still at 25,600 ISO scaled and processed for noise removal:


OM-D_25600-ISO.jpg

1/500s f/13.0 ISO25600 50mm (35mm eq:100mm)
Equipment Make: OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model: E-M5
Maximum Lens Aperture: f/3.5

​

I can achieve about the same look with video in something like Fusion. And of course you won't actually need to use anything close to 25,600 ISO to make up for a 3.5 - 5.6 aperture. :) The results will still look tons and tons better than the 1/2-resolution video you're stuck (to get full coverage) with when adapting most C-mount lenses to your µ4/3. :D
 
Last edited:
Tesselator said:
Ummm... no.
smiley.gif
Look again. No offense but I've tried just too many c-mount lenses. The number of zooms which can fit down inside that inset are minuscule. The µ4/3 throat is just too narrow. So unless you personally have actually had success with any of these I'll keep my previous assumptions. They look very incompatible.
Click to expand...


No offence taken, Tesselator... I can report from first-hand professional experience there are many c-mount zooms that do in fact fit within the 37.2mm of a c-mount to m4/3 adapter. I can assure you all of those c-mount zooms I linked to would present little problem adapting to m4/3, for me anyway. The Computar 12.5-75/1.6 looks like it would require turning of a couple millimetres from the rear diameter, but this is really not a major procedure. It's just a slight modification to the c-mount retaining ring, an outer housing component. You're not 'opening up' the lens in any way. I think you'd be impressed by the true levels of lens 'surgery' I get up to here. :)


Tesselator said:
Not only is that exactly what I would call "major surgery", that's not even going to work for most c-mount lenses. C-mount's RD is 17.52mm while µ4/3 is 19.25 mm with the average butt-face having a material thickness of between 1.5mm and 2mm. Some high dollar professional lenses may be a little thicker and can be done this way but anything within the budgets we're talking here are a no go. At 1.5mm you're through the material long before the correct distance is achieved and with a 2mm material base you're down to 0.2mm of brass with about 0.07mm of chrome plating. Basically really soft tin-foil. :P On top of that it still does not fit down inside the throat inset so that 0.27mm of material is pulled down into the well when the lens is tightened into place. I have quite a little collection of mounts cracked (ripped) in this way.
smiley.gif
Click to expand...


All the work I do respects the integrity of the lens… you're right to point out the concern regarding thickness of the turned part. If the part needs to be turned below 1mm thickness in order to adapt properly, then I find a solution elsewhere on the lens, or I fabricate a new part. There are many examples of wide c-mount retaining rings that do not provide the adequate thickness needed to be removed, and these could be cut to such a meagre thickness by someone (not me) that it would crack or rip as you describe. But, fortunately there is often a solution to be found elsewhere. As an aside, that solution is never GLUE or EPOXY!!!




Tesselator said:
Almost all other lens mounts have adapters ready-made and commercially available so I'm not sure where this is coming from. ???
Click to expand...


Some clients are looking to adapt their previously owned B4 zooms for GH2 ETC, but like to avoid the expense of a B4 adapter which cost at least a few hundred dollars. What I do is remove the old bayonet mount for later possible retro-fit back to bayonet, and I fabricate the required components between the zoom and a sturdy m4/3 mount. This way, I'm able to deliver the entire adaptation, modification and parfocal adjustment for less than most B4-m4/3 adapters. Again, this is accomplished via mechanical solution, not by glue. If glue or epoxy were used, you could not retro-fit back to B4 or forward to any future system mount.


(I know you didn't mention glue or epoxy, Tesselator... but I feel I should mention it because I have noticed others promoting the use of superglue and epoxy to affix c-mounts to their zooms after removing the retaining ring. For numerous reasons, it is never acceptable to glue a lens mount. Period. Thanks for providing me the opportunity to rant about this 'modification' involving gluing mounts.)
 
Superglue? LOL! I can almost understand epoxy with cheap lenses but superglue? Heh...

But yeah, I'm more of a physical solutions guy myself as well:


665948.jpg

​

;)
 
It seems we have more in common than an interest in MacPros. I recognise that as the Sony 11-70/1.4. RIGHT?! :D
It would be cool to sit down sometime with your preferred sake, and I'll talk you through it.
 
Tesselator said:
Superglue? LOL! I can almost understand epoxy with cheap lenses but superglue? Heh... [/QOUTE]
Yes, believe it or not... someone is recommending the use of superglue (cyanoacrylate) to adapt lenses: http://vimeo.com/35958714

As you know, superglue is not particularly 'super' when gluing things other than flesh (which was its original intent). It's also prone to permanently fogging
nearby surfaces, such as rear elements and camera sensors...
Click to expand...
 
Hey that sounds like fun! You ever get over to Japan? If you do drop me a line 07064124865 and I'll show ya around.

Hehehe, super-glue the adapter? WTF? Well it's good for a laugh I guess!

You're right about it degassing and the fumes being very acidic - enough to permanently destroy lens surfaces. You got the lens model right too. Sony TV Zoom 11-70mm f/1.4 Macro with the motorization removed and the mount modified to seat perfectly in a C adapter. I have another where I chose to keep the motorization and fitted a power source to the bottom of the camera - like a vertical grip with the controls fitted in as well. It was kinda clunky but it worked.

If you wanna walk me through something tell me how to fit the Fujinon-TV-Z 10-100mm F/1.6 (Marcro) B-Mount to my µ4/3 in a nice way. :) I have both sides of the mount the camera acceptor (female) and the of course the lens's (male) mount.
 
Thanks!

With the Fujinon 10-100/1.6... since you already have the camera-side female mount, I'd recommend removing all excess material from the rear surface of that female mount. Then the rear of the female mount
can be attached to a robust m4/3 adapter. B4 mount ffd is 48mm, whereas m4/3 is 19.25mm. So, the overall flange-to-flange height of your custom B4 to m4/3 adapter should be 28.75mm. All the work you do must
be true and square, so it's best to measure and roughly draft it all on paper and take it to a machinist. The machinist can also advise a way to affix the female B4 and m4/3 mounts that does not involve glue or epoxy. :)

Afterward, the zoom should be collimated and adjusted by a lens service professional in order to hold sharp focus through the zoom.
 
This may answer a few questions.


I don't think this adapter is worth anywhere near $300 but whatever... IMHO it's worth between $50 and $75... maybe $85 on the far outside. $300 is just crazy for this. Maybe if it had interface ports for the power zoom and aperture control... then maybe... But still I'd price it at less than $200 even at that.
 
To wake a sleeping thread... The subject of powering the servos started to answer a few questions i have, can anyone help?

I have a J13x9B lens with the servo box. I was able to partially power it using this pin diagram, i'm assuming it's right for this servo box since i got this far:

Pin 1: +ve
Pin 2: -ve
Pin 3: Gnd
Pin 4: VTR
Pin 5: RET
Pin 6: ID/CO (Iris control)
Pin 7: IE/IND (Extender indication)
Pin 8: AT/RM (Iris remote selection)
Pin 9: AT/MA (Iris manual selection)
Pin 10: P.P
Pin 11: Z/IND (Zoom position indication)
Pin 12: F/IND (Focus position indication)

I have +ve and gnd hooked to power. The iris gear turns continuously when the auto/manual/remote 3-way switch is set to either auto or remote (i think "r" label means remote). When i switch to manual, i get nothing on any servo. I did make sure the zoom servo/manual switch is on servo.

If i also hook -ve to ground, the zoom servo spins for an instant, then stops, while the iris servo just keeps spinning.

Can anyone help me figure out how to get the zoom servos to spin in response to the rocker? I don't want to experiment much further than this without knowing since i can probably blow the servos like a few others unfortunately did.
 
Now works, zoom servo now moves in response to rocker being pressed in either direction. But it doesn't matter what direction i push the rocker, the gears turn only in one direction. Any ideas?
 
Ergonomically very hard to use unless you get all the rigging - which negates the point of having a DSLR. You may as well just get a video camera. I'm not a fan at all of loading up an easy to use, flexible DSLR just so you can zoom in and out. Canon, NIkon and Panasonic lenses will match DOF and keep it all simple. They look good, sure, but not worth the trouble IMO.
 
I don't understand this 'rigging negates the point of having a DSLR' nonesense.

Yes, the small form factor of DSLR's can be great but many people shoot with DSLR's because for the price, the images are generally much better than a similarly priced video camera.
 
Ok vtwiz - put your Fujinon on your DSLR and have a go at using it - on and off the tripod. Apart from the ability to zoom in and out - how's that ? How is it handheld ? Now add a EVF, cage and a shoulder rig which is what you need to use a TV lens properly and now have a go. I'm not even talking about the pictures, but overcomplicated set-ups. Look, if you want the abilty to zoom in and out as a priority, go for it. There's a lot of discussion about doing this but I don't see it as a practical alternative apart from shooting nice test footage in a park somewhere.
 
I have a rig with follow focus, DP4 EVF, shoulder pad, battery plate and top handle. When needed, I also mount an audio recorder to it. The rig is set up to go from in the shoulder to tripod mount without reconfiguring anything. The rig is always set up in the same way no matter what type of shooting I am doing and the only time the camera needs to leave the rig is when I mount it to the end of my lightweight jib . While the rig is more cumbersome than the camera on its own, it is far easier to use and adaptable to the situation. While I never zoom during a shot, I find it very convenient using a zoom lens as a lot of the time I just don't have the time for changing lenses. Having the one lens with large zoom range means that I don't have to keep repositioning things like the Matte Box and Follow focus every time I need to do a lens change (if using still lenses). Also, having a broadcast lens also gives me a step-less aperture ring where it should be (on the lens). I have a start stop trigger on the right handle and my left hand is free to focus, change focal length (zoom) and change aperture. The only time my hands need to go reaching for the actual camera are to change ISO and of course turn it in and off.
So while my rig is indeed bulkier and heavier than a DSLR on its own, it's actually far easier and more ergonomic to use.
Having started in the biz when Betacam was the format of choice, I suppose I'm not frightened of a larger and heavier camera. If you've never used one, believe me they are far easier to use than a DSLR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top