Already tired of the Voigtlander 25mm? Want a zoom lens now..
- Thread starter raatid
- Start date
Actually if you're talking about full frame equivalents unless your speedbooster totally negates the 2x crop factor or 2.3x crop factor (when shooting 4K UHD), your focal lengths are incorrect. The m43 speedbooster on a GH4 shooting 4K UHD makes for a 1.6x crop factor so your 35mm Nikon glass turns into a 57mm full frame equivalent and not 25mm. Then when shooting 1080p with the m43 speedbooster it makes for a 1.42x crop factor so the 35mm turns into a 50mm. Looking at your set of Nikon primes it is actually severely lacking in any medium-wide or wide focal lengths. There is nothing wider than 50mm or 57mm which is already pretty tight IMO.
Last edited:
combatentropy
Veteran
Good! Glad you're happy.
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who like 35mm as their normal lens and those who like 50mm. Because of the 2x crop factor of Four Thirds cameras, your new 17.5mm on a GH camera is equivalent to a 35mm lens, and your old 25mm was like a 50mm. (I'm pretty sure you already know this.)
I like 50mm, but it seems most people like 35mm, maybe because the slightly wide angle makes their images in a way more dynamic. It seems most people like wide angle lenses in general, maybe for that dynamic feel. I personally despise them. I like 50mm and telephoto, because I think it makes people look more dignified. Wide angles, to me, make people look silly and undignified. So it's a choice between dynamic and dignified.
You like how I took your post and made it all about me, and how I made all these assumptions and generalizations that may have nothing to do with your choice?
There are two kinds of people in the world, those who like 35mm as their normal lens and those who like 50mm. Because of the 2x crop factor of Four Thirds cameras, your new 17.5mm on a GH camera is equivalent to a 35mm lens, and your old 25mm was like a 50mm. (I'm pretty sure you already know this.)
I like 50mm, but it seems most people like 35mm, maybe because the slightly wide angle makes their images in a way more dynamic. It seems most people like wide angle lenses in general, maybe for that dynamic feel. I personally despise them. I like 50mm and telephoto, because I think it makes people look more dignified. Wide angles, to me, make people look silly and undignified. So it's a choice between dynamic and dignified.
You like how I took your post and made it all about me, and how I made all these assumptions and generalizations that may have nothing to do with your choice?
Bern Caughey
Veteran
How do you rectify the statement above with your previous thread (linked below)?
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?328602-Roman-Polanski-quot-It-s-simple-quot
PS It's always important to note format when discussing focal lengths. In this thread your discussing FOV equivalents for 135 Film Format & in the Polanski thread you drop the equivalence calculations while discussing S35. We both know what your saying but it confuses many others, and not just neophytes, as I know several Directors with this affliction.
Last edited:
Sangye
Member
Wrong -- a Speedbooster does make a 35mm lens as wide as a 25mm lens on a GH4, as long as the 35mm was designed for an APS-C or larger sensor (e.g. no vignetting). Who is talking about full frame? If you insist, both are full frame equivalent to 62mm in UHD mode.
I wish people would stop with the crop factor nonsense, it's unnecessarily confusing and creates a prejudice against smaller format sensors. Do you think people shooting Super-16 were worried about crop factors?
Anyway, back to the OP question -- I loved my Voigtlander 25mm, but I also eventually felt overly limited by it, and switched to a Sigma 18-35 with a Speedbooster in its place. At 35mm it's the same FOV, and very similar DOF, but with the flexibility of going wider as well. But I do think that I learned more about framing and maybe even about cinematography in general during the two years that I practically had the 25mm Voigtlander glued to my old GH2, than the rest of my time learning and working combined.
I've never owned a lens wider than 17mm on APS-C (equivalent to 11.5mm on a GH4). I agree with the person who said that longer focal lengths make people look more dignified, but there is definitely a time and place for ultra-wides: landscape scenery, aerial work, steadicam work, indoor establishing shots, etc. Just yesterday, I finally bid on a wider lens on eBay -- the Cine version of the Rokinon 10mm f/2.8. On a Speedbooster it'll be equivalent to a 7.2mm f/2, which is very wide. I plan to use it on a 3-axis gimbal, and a little further down the road, on an octocopter.
Last edited:
I'm an not wrong I'm just speaking in full frame terms. You wanna know who is talking about full frame? The OP was. He referred to his Nikon glass as 35mm which is only a true 35mm on full frame, you cannot simply quote a full frame equivalent focal length and then when adapted to a smaller sensor with a focal reducer and mis quote the focal length as if the sensor change never happened. The correct way was to have said his 70mm Nikon glass (35 x 2 if you wanna talk in the super 16 or m43 world) turns into a 50mm on his GH4 with speedbooster.
While crop factors are not something to live and die by they still are important to know. I mean he just physically can never get a shot wider than 57mm full frame equivalent I guess that's great if all you shoot are wildlife and sports but for myself that really is too tight for narrative or general work even if didn't know about crop factors to affect my bias.
Whether you like it or not all lenses state their focal length as full frame equivalents so we're technically always talking full frame.
Last edited:
David W. Jones
Veteran
No sorry, you are mistaken.
Most Still Photo and DSLR lenses use the FF 35mm Still Photo format as their standard but Cine lenses live in their own world, one that uses Super35 as their format standard.
I agree that SpeedBoosters are not a good match for wide-angle perspectives on any format, but for anything from "normal" to super-telephoto perspective they are a great tool to have in your kit.
As a rule of thumb, I would say that... "Native glass will always be the best Wide Angle fit for Any format"
Sangye
Member
I'm sorry, but this is still not correct. 35mm is an absolute measurement of focal length, it is not relative to sensor size, and there is no such thing as "false" 35mm as opposed to "true" 35mm. Lenses of a particular focal length don't know, much less care, what camera bodies are downstream of them, or whether there is a focal reducer sitting in between. A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens on a 5D mark III, on a C300, on a GH4, and on a GH4 with Speedbooster. You can speak of the mated Lens/focal reducer pair as having its own focal length, but that's only because you are effectively transforming a lens into something new by adding more glass. And in this example, mating a 35mm lens with a 0.72x focal reducer does in fact effectively create a 25mm lens. This has nothing to do with abstract concepts of crop factor, it's optical physics.
How you choose to cope with the complexities of one lens having different fields of view when mounted on different camera bodies is up to you, but don't confuse this "full frame equivalence" newspeak with any kind of established convention, and don't tell people on a forum that they are wrong when you clearly don't understand this basic principle.
To be clear, professional cinematographers shooting on S35 never give a second thought about the fact that "full frame" 35mm is 33% larger than their format, or let that affect how they speak about the absolute measurement of focal length on their lenses. Same goes for S-16 shooters, and larger formats.
In fact, if you insist on thinking about things in terms of crop factors, I would submit that no one is shooting without a crop factor. Every lens has a slightly different image circle size, and full frame lenses cast image circles that always extend a little beyond the edges of a full frame sensor. Therefore, you might go from a 1.002x crop factor on one lens / camera body combination, to a 1.07x crop factor on another, to a 1.14x crop factor on yet another. It would be insane to think about it in these terms, though.
This also is not true... most don't. The only ones that do, that I know of, are consumer camcorders and camera phones.
combatentropy
Veteran
Stick to the facts, guys. You can say, "focal length is a physical measurement of the lens without regard to field of view", without also adding a personal zinger like, "you clearly don't know what you're talking about."
Speaking clearly about focal lengths is a Hard Problem. I have a hard time picturing an angle of view unless I translate into 135 terms. In 135 (full frame) I think:
28mm: wide
35mm: kinda wide, photojournalist feeling, candid photo, etc.
50mm: normal lens
85mm: mild telephoto, maybe portrait
100mm: portrait-esque
150-300mm: pretty flat, like in sports and wildlife photography
I think a lot of people are that way.
We could all convert to talking about angle of view, like, "I prefer a 45° lens for this situation." But none of us are very used to that. Besides, it has its own problem. By 45°, do you mean horizontal, vertical, or diagonal angle of view?
The funny thing is, this is not really a problem. Usually the writer's meaning is clear by the context, and everyone knows what he's talking about. Very often though, someone feels the need to say something like this: "I understand what you were meaning, but we have to take care for new people happening upon this forum," or "A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens." Hair-splitting technical argument and personal attacks ensue. The thread fills up with a lot of arguing back and forth about being clear with your terms, when actually no one was confused until just then.
Speaking clearly about focal lengths is a Hard Problem. I have a hard time picturing an angle of view unless I translate into 135 terms. In 135 (full frame) I think:
28mm: wide
35mm: kinda wide, photojournalist feeling, candid photo, etc.
50mm: normal lens
85mm: mild telephoto, maybe portrait
100mm: portrait-esque
150-300mm: pretty flat, like in sports and wildlife photography
I think a lot of people are that way.
We could all convert to talking about angle of view, like, "I prefer a 45° lens for this situation." But none of us are very used to that. Besides, it has its own problem. By 45°, do you mean horizontal, vertical, or diagonal angle of view?
The funny thing is, this is not really a problem. Usually the writer's meaning is clear by the context, and everyone knows what he's talking about. Very often though, someone feels the need to say something like this: "I understand what you were meaning, but we have to take care for new people happening upon this forum," or "A 35mm lens is a 35mm lens is a 35mm lens." Hair-splitting technical argument and personal attacks ensue. The thread fills up with a lot of arguing back and forth about being clear with your terms, when actually no one was confused until just then.
DPStewart
Veteran
Good way to sum up.
I'll add that I judge lenses entirely on how good a bag it comes with. ;-)
David W. Jones
Veteran
Bern Caughey
Veteran
I'm part of the Camera Guild & constantly confused by this babble.
A 50 is a 50 is a 50. There's a reason the mantra persists.
@combatentropy Im very pleased with the 35mm (17.5mm Voigtlander).
I of course love also telephoto lens (I mean who doesn't ??) they make your images look pretty/cinematic, but I have to say the 35mm is more versatile if your not too close to your subject it takes good portraits, closer it have this dynamic/fisheye look and for my purpose (run n gun) I can get more in the frame. A part from that the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 is incredible, I never felt like that when I got the 25mm f/0.95..
Yesterday I was filming a stageshow (I'll add the link when the editing is done) and I used the x2 zoom in the GH2 (I had only one lens) and trust me it works !
@David W. Jones "The lens cap makes the lens.
it got me on the Voigtlander !
I of course love also telephoto lens (I mean who doesn't ??) they make your images look pretty/cinematic, but I have to say the 35mm is more versatile if your not too close to your subject it takes good portraits, closer it have this dynamic/fisheye look and for my purpose (run n gun) I can get more in the frame. A part from that the Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95 is incredible, I never felt like that when I got the 25mm f/0.95..
Yesterday I was filming a stageshow (I'll add the link when the editing is done) and I used the x2 zoom in the GH2 (I had only one lens) and trust me it works !
@David W. Jones "The lens cap makes the lens.
it got me on the Voigtlander !
Last edited:
Monthes pass since I've bought the 17.5 Voigtlander and as combatentropy said a telephoto lens makes better looking pictures, somehow I'm coming back to my 25mm Voigtlander. I'm using it more and more, keeping the 17.5mm for my run n gun work. I'm working on a little fiction and I started to work with the 17.5mm and as I started edit I recognized that longer focal will cut it better. I have now my eyes on the 42.5mm !
Last edited:
Hello Everybody,
As @combatentropy said a telephoto lens makes better looking pictures. I said on my previous post that I came back to the 25mm, but I am looking for a longer focal now. I'm getting ready to complete the trilogy f0.95 by getting the 42.5mm. Anybody knows another lense who can compete with the Voigtlander? It don't look so.. Maybe a zoom lens 35-100mm f2.8 (expensive and not fast..). What are your suggestions? Thx
As @combatentropy said a telephoto lens makes better looking pictures. I said on my previous post that I came back to the 25mm, but I am looking for a longer focal now. I'm getting ready to complete the trilogy f0.95 by getting the 42.5mm. Anybody knows another lense who can compete with the Voigtlander? It don't look so.. Maybe a zoom lens 35-100mm f2.8 (expensive and not fast..). What are your suggestions? Thx
combatentropy
Veteran
Maybe an old 50mm