GH3 Can I use Canon 17-55 2.8 with GH3?
- Thread starter denzlite
- Start date
Yes you can, you just have to buy the adapter for it. The thing to keep in mind is that unless you buy the (expensive) active/live adapter like this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/829759-REG/Redrock_Micro_8_090_0001_Live_Lens_MFT_Active.html , you won't be able to control the aperture (and autofocus won't work either regardless of the adapter).
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Or you can do what I do- keep a cheap Canon in your gear bag for aperture changes and use a regular-old ring mount.
I still keep a Canon DSLR around for stills (and the occasional magic lantern shoot) anyway, and share lenses between that and my micro43 cameras all the time. But even if you don't want to do that, you can pick up an inexpensive used rebel for a fraction of an adapter like that. A T2i is worth about $250, and an old pre-digital EOS body is easily less than $100.
As long as you don't need to change aperture while in the middle of shooting, I usually set it before I start shooting and go.
I still keep a Canon DSLR around for stills (and the occasional magic lantern shoot) anyway, and share lenses between that and my micro43 cameras all the time. But even if you don't want to do that, you can pick up an inexpensive used rebel for a fraction of an adapter like that. A T2i is worth about $250, and an old pre-digital EOS body is easily less than $100.
As long as you don't need to change aperture while in the middle of shooting, I usually set it before I start shooting and go.
dafreaking
Member
You'd rather get one of the better adaptors then use a Canon body to change the aperture. It's more practical.
Edit: Just saw the price of the RedRock adaptor. The Canon body seems like a cheap but inconvenient option or use one of the other adaptors that offer aperture control
Edit: Just saw the price of the RedRock adaptor. The Canon body seems like a cheap but inconvenient option or use one of the other adaptors that offer aperture control
Last edited:
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
Convenience is definitely worth a price. But not this price, IMO. Its like buying an overpriced soda in the vending machine in front of you when you have access to a supermarket next door. Sometimes it just isn't worth it!
Besides, Its not as bad as you think. I did it originally as a temporary fix when I started experimenting with m43 bodies, mostly because I wasn't sure if I wanted to invest in this mount and had plenty of Canon gear available. A couple of years later, I'm still here and still don't have the desire to spend that amount of money on an adapter. I mean, maybe if it were a speedbooster or something that added a feature I wouldn't have otherwise, but this is a steep price to pay for a relatively minor amount of added convenience. Last I checked, the going street price was more than the lenses I was adapting with it.
Honestly, how often do you really adjust the iris while filming? If your lighting changes, it doesn't even take 30 seconds to switch to another f-stop in between bodies. Most of the time I set the aperture before we start, and it doesn't change the entire session.
The problem is that very few offer aperture control, which is why the ones that do fetch such a premium. The less expensive ones fake it by adding aperture blades behind the lens, which doesn't look as good, is less precise and sometimes adds an extremely undesirable vignette. No thanks!
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
I sold the T3i, 7D, 60D bodies, sold the 17-40 f4L and 70-200 f4L, 3 EF primes, and 2 EF-S zooms. Converted to 3 GH2 bodies (now have 2 GH3 bodies and an Oly OMD E-M5 with a GX7 body on the way) as I began acquiring m4/3 glass. I haven't looked back.
The Canon stuff was very good but the GH2 video was sharper, and the color/IQ on the GH3's is better (IMO) and with the lenses I haven't given up a thing with 4 "fast" primes, a nicer ultrawide, and a couple of sharp telephoto zooms (one often described as "insanely sharp"). And it's all a lot lighter and smaller than I used to "haul around".
The 17-55mm is a great lens on the GH3. Not as super-crisp and electronic as the Lumix 12-35 can be. The 17-55 is pretty cinematic right out of the gate. The lack of aperture control is a bit of a pain, but for narrative work where you'd probably keep it at f2.8 anyway, it's great. It's been my main lens on several projects.
You've got more choices. One an adapter with aperture control-
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adap...395865042&sr=8-2&keywords=fotodiox+eos+to+m43
two....also an eos to m43 RJ focal reducer -
http://www.rjcamera.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/category&path=20_65_69
That would increase your available focal length choices, but limit you to not being able to change aperture.
http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Adap...395865042&sr=8-2&keywords=fotodiox+eos+to+m43
two....also an eos to m43 RJ focal reducer -
http://www.rjcamera.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/category&path=20_65_69
That would increase your available focal length choices, but limit you to not being able to change aperture.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
I would not use either of those!
The first one has its own aperture blades that exist BEHIND the lens, which is a bad idea for a few reasons (mainly, it can cause vignetting and lack of precise F-stop control, but also effects the bokeh quality because blades are a different shape than the ones in your lens). It's basically a fake solution.
The second one is a Speedbooster knock off. Speedboosters are great, but the knock offs not so much. I don't have experience with that exact one, but so far all the inexpensive copies I've seen horribly degrade the image in a very noticeable way. Usually adding another layer of glass is bad idea to any optics, but the glass in the Speedbooster is precision made from Caldwell, and is built to a high enough specification that it doesn't add any noticeble imperfections to the image, while actually sharpening and reducing things like chromatic aberration in the process.
I don't have to tell you that not all optics are created equal- I love the speedbooster concept, but right now they're the only one worth getting IMO. The others appear to be sourcing some no-name mimic factory in china to make the glass elements.
Since the OP is discussing using a rather expensive Canon-branded lens (and not a third party like Tamron for half the price), I think the quality that comes from authentic products (both in optics and aperture blades) mean something to them.
snowblindfilm
Carbonite Member
Except 12-35 doesn't have real manual focus. Even if you go to manual focus it's still servo driven and not repeatable. I did not test 35-100, but I would assume it's the same deal. Olympus 12-40 F2.8 has clutch mechanism, and actual manual focus with hard stops at both ends. So on that token 12-35 is not in the same range as Canon 17-55, as Canon also has real manual focus.
No offense...but go over to personal-view and read the rj thread. You might change your mind ! In fact there's a new test just posted ! And....yes...he can use your suggested solution of lugging around a rebel and removing the lens, replacing it on the rebel, changing the aperture, and then removing the lens from the rebel and replacing back on the panasonic. Seems like a rather cumbersome solution to me. I use the fotodiox on a 17-40 and it's just fine.
M. Gilden
Canon DSLR Moderator
No offense taken! I'd love to find an affordable alternative to the Metabones adapters! Got a link for that discussion? I was so turned off by the crummy quality of the Lens Turbo adapters that I stopped caring what else came out. If these really are different, I want to know!
As far as the Fotodiox- you might say its just fine, but the bottom line is that you are changing the look of your lens by using it. Sometimes it will vignette and you don't get absolute F-stop values, but it will certainly do the trick of restricting the circle of light entering the camera body. The problem is, if you buy a particular lens because you like the way it looks (say, a fancy L lens) you don't want to be changing that. Using external iris blades, whether you have noticed it or not, can change the look of your bokeh, and sometimes in a less than desirable way. Some people were really annoyed about that, as they bought one particular lens over another simply because they preferred the bokeh on it, which was lost with the external iris adapter.
I personally use a Fotodiox adapter as well, just the cheap one without blades for my Canon EOS gear. Old EOS bodies are ridiculously inexpensive - heck I picked one up for free from a photography student (35mm film one), and have considered removing the rest of the camera guys and making it a dedicated iris-setter!
As far as the Fotodiox- you might say its just fine, but the bottom line is that you are changing the look of your lens by using it. Sometimes it will vignette and you don't get absolute F-stop values, but it will certainly do the trick of restricting the circle of light entering the camera body. The problem is, if you buy a particular lens because you like the way it looks (say, a fancy L lens) you don't want to be changing that. Using external iris blades, whether you have noticed it or not, can change the look of your bokeh, and sometimes in a less than desirable way. Some people were really annoyed about that, as they bought one particular lens over another simply because they preferred the bokeh on it, which was lost with the external iris adapter.
I personally use a Fotodiox adapter as well, just the cheap one without blades for my Canon EOS gear. Old EOS bodies are ridiculously inexpensive - heck I picked one up for free from a photography student (35mm film one), and have considered removing the rest of the camera guys and making it a dedicated iris-setter!