Oh. However, I think I'm getting a Canon.
I own a Fotodiox EOS-m4/3 adapter and assumed that would work with the Canon version of the Rokinon lens too.
Buying Lenses Instead of GH3
- Thread starter ricland
- Start date
Oh. However, I think I'm getting a Canon.
I own a Fotodiox EOS-m4/3 adapter and assumed that would work with the Canon version of the Rokinon lens too.
Keep in mind that the Canon EF mount will not work with as many different cameras as the Nikon F mount version.
This may not matter now, but in the future you may have a problem using the Canon EF mount lens with some cameras.
It's also easier to sell a used Nikon F mount lens than an Canon EF mount lens for the same reason.
So, even if it came in micro 4/3s, in the long run I'd be better off buying a Nikon adapter and the Nikon version, huh?
Yes. Nikon F mount fits almost everything out there, where m4/3 would only work with m4/3 cameras.
If you are unsure about what lens to buy, then I would recommend that you start with a used Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AI-S lens and a Nikon F mount to Micro 4/3 adapter.
You can buy a Nikon 50mm lens on eBay for less than $200. It's a great interview lens, and good for medium close-ups with the GH2 camera. ( also easy to sell if you change your mind )
There's one other way to approach this. Get the pana 12-35 f/2.8. That's a great all-around zoom and with a bit of light, covers you for all interiors. You'll have a consistent look, you'll have stabilization, you'll have great detail. You can shoot your whole short on this one lens. Then, if you decide to get out of m4/3, sell it.
So you think in a head-to-head comparison to the Rokinon Cine 35mm 1.4 the 50mm 1.4 Nikon is about equal?
If so, I'll save myself $350 and get he used Nikon. In fact, there's now a brand new Canon: Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Standard & Medium Telephoto Lens for Canon SLR Cameras
for $359. Would that also be an equivalent to the Rokinon Cine 35mm 1.4?
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Standard-Medium-Telephoto-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCZ/ref=cm_cr_pr_pb_t
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
They aren't equal they are completely different focal lengths. The fact that you asked is a fast prime really better than a your kit zoom means to me that you should stick with the zoom. Pick up some cheap vintage lens (like the nikon above or canon FD lenses) and get out and shoot paying attention to your focal lengths and what apertures you find limit you. Also pay attention to how you shoot. Are you on a tripod? handheld? monopod? shoulder support? each one of those options limits the use of certain focal lengths (not really with tripod). Only experience can tell you what you need so get out and shoot.
Its very clear there is no need in upgrading your camera as you haven't even come close to what the one you have can do.
GrahamH
Well-known member
Sorry if this comes across as blunt ..... if you are unsure about the difference between a 35mm versus 85mm lens, and a f1.4 versus f3.5 lens, then what you need to buy first is an introductory book on photography or film-making! Then borrow a lens or two and shoot some practice footage to start figuring out what best suits the style you hope to shoot.
Yeah, I'm just starting out. But still unclear about why everyone is so excited about the Rokinon Cine 35mm 1.4. And obviously, I dont know how to compare it to the Nikon or Canon 1.4. The basic question is is it worth $550? Don't have time to take your suggestion and find out myself. I've got to shoot this short.
Huh?
I know the difference. That wasn't the question. The question is what's the difference between a Rokinon cine 35mm t1.5 and a nikon& canon 50mm 1.4? By this I mean besides the 20mm difference, is there anything else?
I asked the question because the price is about $200 more for the Rokinon and I don't understand why.
wgzn
Veteran
this is getting to be a long conversation and there is a lot of good info here. but here's the reality of whats going on.
1. a LOT of this comes down to taste and situational need. what works for one shooter, scene (or audience) is crap to the next
2. if you have to ask these questions, there is a pretty good chance youre not really going to understand the answers and you surely wont fully appreciate them in the field. if i were a new user, id do what oldcorpse suggested and get the lumix 12-35 2.8. its like a grand but it will cover most of your standard focal length needs, has the best light performance of any comparable lens AND being native m4/3 will give you access to all the modern conveniences of the camera (AF, OIS, etc..)
a hacked GH2 with a $1200 lens will be cheaper and i argue MORE useful to a new user than a GH3 with some cheapo native or even adapted prime. AND be less prone to moire issues to boot!
3. if you dont have real world experience to compare to, youre just listening to peoples random opinions. and what works for them may not work or be important to your uses. i say RENT! yes, rental costs money. but not a lot. and a LOT LESS then buying something that sounded good. but doesnt end up suiting your needs or taste.
http://www.lensrentals.com/
these guys are good, fast, affordable and have just about every popular lens you could want. as well as adapters to get things to work together
some will argue (myself included) that older, prime, adapted glass will likely result in a more "cinematic" look. BUT unless you know how to compose, light and move in a cinematic style. having more cinematic looking glass will be at worst a waste and at best a crutch.
i absolutely guaranty you that a $3000 zeiss CP will be of no more real value to an unexperienced new adopter than a $500 native m4/3 lens
1. a LOT of this comes down to taste and situational need. what works for one shooter, scene (or audience) is crap to the next
2. if you have to ask these questions, there is a pretty good chance youre not really going to understand the answers and you surely wont fully appreciate them in the field. if i were a new user, id do what oldcorpse suggested and get the lumix 12-35 2.8. its like a grand but it will cover most of your standard focal length needs, has the best light performance of any comparable lens AND being native m4/3 will give you access to all the modern conveniences of the camera (AF, OIS, etc..)
a hacked GH2 with a $1200 lens will be cheaper and i argue MORE useful to a new user than a GH3 with some cheapo native or even adapted prime. AND be less prone to moire issues to boot!
3. if you dont have real world experience to compare to, youre just listening to peoples random opinions. and what works for them may not work or be important to your uses. i say RENT! yes, rental costs money. but not a lot. and a LOT LESS then buying something that sounded good. but doesnt end up suiting your needs or taste.
http://www.lensrentals.com/
these guys are good, fast, affordable and have just about every popular lens you could want. as well as adapters to get things to work together
some will argue (myself included) that older, prime, adapted glass will likely result in a more "cinematic" look. BUT unless you know how to compose, light and move in a cinematic style. having more cinematic looking glass will be at worst a waste and at best a crutch.
i absolutely guaranty you that a $3000 zeiss CP will be of no more real value to an unexperienced new adopter than a $500 native m4/3 lens
Last edited:
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Why? When you need a wider FOV. Some of the older lenses don't have as good of coatings and lower contrast. Some like it more some less. The reason people like the Rok cine lenses is for the geared focus and step less aperture.
Your shooting a short? Have you shot blocked what focal lengths you will need? Take some time and a friend and run through creating the shots you want and write down the focal lengths you need and lighting plans. That will tell you what focal length and what speed of lens you need.
I agree with the others that the X zooms from panny will probably be the most fail safe route unless you are planning on a bunch of prime purchases and on m4/3 fast wides can be pricey.
How will you be supporting your camera and lens? This matters on what focal lengths you use.
You seem really green to this stuff so I must ask why are you rushing this project as opposed to taking the advice and spending more time shooting in different conditions. You will find out what you need and don't. Many of us have pissed away money on things we thought we needs but didn't. I know I have.
Your shooting a short? Have you shot blocked what focal lengths you will need? Take some time and a friend and run through creating the shots you want and write down the focal lengths you need and lighting plans. That will tell you what focal length and what speed of lens you need.
I agree with the others that the X zooms from panny will probably be the most fail safe route unless you are planning on a bunch of prime purchases and on m4/3 fast wides can be pricey.
How will you be supporting your camera and lens? This matters on what focal lengths you use.
You seem really green to this stuff so I must ask why are you rushing this project as opposed to taking the advice and spending more time shooting in different conditions. You will find out what you need and don't. Many of us have pissed away money on things we thought we needs but didn't. I know I have.
Like everybody else, I have a box-load of screenplays I've written over the years. That's eight. I've got actors and lots of equipment. Still can't tell by these comments whether the Rokinon is a good investment. the Panny at $1000 is out of the question.
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-CV35-...8&qid=1364481524&sr=8-2&keywords=rokinon+35mm
http://www.amazon.com/Rokinon-CV35-...8&qid=1364481524&sr=8-2&keywords=rokinon+35mm