I hope that Olympus continues with other lenses in this line. A 17mm f/2.0 with the same build quality would be the next lens I would like to see.
Dear Panasonic : An Open Letter
- Thread starter LuckyStudio 13
- Start date
I hope that Olympus continues with other lenses in this line. A 17mm f/2.0 with the same build quality would be the next lens I would like to see.
It is precisly because I am a photographer as well that I don't want to be locked into lenses that I cannot use on my 5DI for stills, or on a possible successor for cine.
Hence, although I am atracted by the GH2's undoubted quality, the absence of a good, reasonably fast (Say f/2.8) wide that I can use on both that holds me back.
Currently the shortest fl lens that I have is 20mm, which is barely wide at all on m4/3, though tolerably wide on "C" crop.
Before you say it, yes I do know about the Samyang 14mm, but it has too many faults to be considered, and the Canon 14 f/2.8 is way out of my currant budget. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, while an undoubtedly fine lens would again lock me into a crop format.
Hence, although I am atracted by the GH2's undoubted quality, the absence of a good, reasonably fast (Say f/2.8) wide that I can use on both that holds me back.
Currently the shortest fl lens that I have is 20mm, which is barely wide at all on m4/3, though tolerably wide on "C" crop.
Before you say it, yes I do know about the Samyang 14mm, but it has too many faults to be considered, and the Canon 14 f/2.8 is way out of my currant budget. The Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, while an undoubtedly fine lens would again lock me into a crop format.
You are asking for a lens to do an impossible task. Wide on m4/3 is the Olympus 12mm f/2.0, but there is no way a lens of this focal length will ever cover the Full Frame 35mm still photo format. ( even if it were possible the cost would be well in to Leica pricing territory ) ...And this lens would be close to a full-frame fish-eye for the FF 35mm still photo format
Yes, there is plenty of cross-over for FF 35mm still photo lenses to be used on m4/3 cameras, but you are going to have to live with buying m4/3 wide angle lenses because there is no alternative, and I doubt one will ever exist.
Myself, I am standardizing on Nikon AI-S lenses, but am happy to buy m4/3 specialty lenses like the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95 and the Olympus 12mm f/2.0 because they are the best lens solutions for the format.
Danielvilliers
Veteran
My argument was on the fact that people have been saying that the m43 was smaller than S35 and that it is like a big problem. If you look at the 1.6 Canon and the m43, the difference is not as big. But then people started to exaggerate the comparison towards 35mm photo lens, but these are inappropriate. All the professional Cine pl lens you see would not fill the full frame cameras (except the zeiss primes because they are repackage photo primes). So when you see those astronomical expensive pro cine lens like the Angenieux zoom etc.. The field of view of cinematography is just different to the photo world and photographers should understand that. One reason could be that you can pan in video, the second is the field of view distortion of those super wide lens that are ok for photo but awkward in motion (object would seem to accelerate when they are at the edge of the frame, etc. ) So lets be realistic, if we have to say that the m43 is smaller it is compared to S35 not full frame and so not that much. Yes there is a certain merging with the photo/video because of the dslr, but you can't expect that they will be fully interchangeable. If tomorrow you have to work with a film crew and their workflow with cinema lens what would be better, the Canon 5d or the m43 camera. It could also be a future apsc Canon model but not a full frame one.
I understand very well the difference between focal length and image circle.
Understand, I have photographed with formats from a 2/3" Olly digicam up to and including a 10x8 monorail plate camera, so am not locked into a "35mm equivalent" mind-set. A 90mm (For example) would be a nice portrait lens on my 5D, but a very useful wide angle on my MPP Microtechnical, but the covering power is very different, my 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon is a serious piece of glass.
The widest rectilinear* lens for (Let's call it 135 format**) is the 12mm f/5.6 Voightlander, but it's a bit slow. I *think* the widest lens for 135 ever made was a 6mm Nikon fish-eye with a slightly unbelievable 220 degree field of view.
Coming back to the discussion in hand, probably the wide-end for a lens to cover both formats (M4/3 and 135) would be around the 14mm mark, giving a super-wide for 135, and a usefully moderate wide on m4/3. I seem to remember that Leica do an R-mount 15mm, but cannot remember if it will mount on EOS.
* It can be argued that for very wide lenses the fish-eye gives a more accurate geometrical representation than rectilinear
** "135" is the technical designation for the 35mm stills frame size, so I use it to avoid "FF" still vs cine confusion
Understand, I have photographed with formats from a 2/3" Olly digicam up to and including a 10x8 monorail plate camera, so am not locked into a "35mm equivalent" mind-set. A 90mm (For example) would be a nice portrait lens on my 5D, but a very useful wide angle on my MPP Microtechnical, but the covering power is very different, my 90mm f/5.6 Super-Angulon is a serious piece of glass.
The widest rectilinear* lens for (Let's call it 135 format**) is the 12mm f/5.6 Voightlander, but it's a bit slow. I *think* the widest lens for 135 ever made was a 6mm Nikon fish-eye with a slightly unbelievable 220 degree field of view.
Coming back to the discussion in hand, probably the wide-end for a lens to cover both formats (M4/3 and 135) would be around the 14mm mark, giving a super-wide for 135, and a usefully moderate wide on m4/3. I seem to remember that Leica do an R-mount 15mm, but cannot remember if it will mount on EOS.
* It can be argued that for very wide lenses the fish-eye gives a more accurate geometrical representation than rectilinear
** "135" is the technical designation for the 35mm stills frame size, so I use it to avoid "FF" still vs cine confusion
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Boy, the fan boys get testy don't they.
I am not now, have not been in the past, nor will be in the future, a "fan-boy".
But if anyone implies that as a photographer, I am so thick as to relate everything to the 36x24mm 35mm format, then expect a hot retort.
Oh, yes, I've also used 1/3" video (HVX) so my lens experiance ranges from 1/3" coverage to 10x8", wider than most on this forum, though "f64manray" may equal it.
Now, that's as hot as I intend to get.
But if anyone implies that as a photographer, I am so thick as to relate everything to the 36x24mm 35mm format, then expect a hot retort.
Oh, yes, I've also used 1/3" video (HVX) so my lens experiance ranges from 1/3" coverage to 10x8", wider than most on this forum, though "f64manray" may equal it.
Now, that's as hot as I intend to get.
For the record: I was a studio photographer for 10 years and shot with Nikon 35mm, Mamiya RZ67, Sinar P2 4x5, Sinar P2 8x10, and a ToyoField 8x10. The widest 8x10 lens I've shot with was a 165mm f/8.0 Super-Angulon. And the largest large format camera I've shot with was the Polaroid 20x24 inch camera using 50,000 watts of Speedotron Black-Line power packs. ( I could see the bones in my hands when the flash went off )
I would still argue that you are not going to find a single 35mm Full Frame Still Photo lens that is going to be an effective wide-angle for the m4/3 format. Most of us ( especially me ) are looking for fast and wide lenses, so that we can get away with minimal light and grain, and to my knowledge there are no fast and wide lenses that will work for both formats. Anything wider than a 24mm f/1.4 FF still photo lens is going to be way too slow for the m4/3 format ( Olympus made a 21mm f/2.0 for the OM system in the 80's ), and anything fast and wide in the m4/3 range of lenses won't cover FF 35mm still photo format.
For "normal" to telephoto ( i.e. 24mm or longer FF 35mm lenses ) no problem, but any lens that would be considered wide on the m4/3 format is just going to be way too slow to be acceptable. I would rather spend the $750 for an Olympus 12mm f/2.0 lens, and be happy that I have a fast and wide dedicated m4/3 lens to work with. ( I hope Olympus continues this line with other lenses, especially with one that equates to a Full Frame Still Photo 35mm lens, which some refer to as a "wide normal" lens )
The point of my asperity was the cine-snobbery that writes off photographers as know-nothings.
BTW TheDingo, what was that beast of a Polaroid like to work with? I've seen pics of it, but never encountered one "in the flesh" as it were.
I'm still thinking about a GH2 but it will probably be a stop-gap (All cameras are stop-gaps to some extent) until I see what comes of Canon's C-DSLR and whether I can afford one.
I may have to take the line of keeping my currant line of lenses for normal-long, while getting a m4/3 lens for wide, though TBH my funds are so thin ATM that it gives me pause.
BTW TheDingo, what was that beast of a Polaroid like to work with? I've seen pics of it, but never encountered one "in the flesh" as it were.
I'm still thinking about a GH2 but it will probably be a stop-gap (All cameras are stop-gaps to some extent) until I see what comes of Canon's C-DSLR and whether I can afford one.
I may have to take the line of keeping my currant line of lenses for normal-long, while getting a m4/3 lens for wide, though TBH my funds are so thin ATM that it gives me pause.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
A fan boy reacts to....
Someone says your camera of choice is a very good camera with a lot of strengths, but it also has areas where it's not as strong and while a good camera may not be the right camera for everybody.
With...
An extremely defensive posture where they accuse anyone who might voice reasons why they prefer another camera for their specific needs as a know nothing who just doesn't appreciate their camera of choice is the greatest advance in camera technology since the invention of the SLR.
Someone says your camera of choice is a very good camera with a lot of strengths, but it also has areas where it's not as strong and while a good camera may not be the right camera for everybody.
With...
An extremely defensive posture where they accuse anyone who might voice reasons why they prefer another camera for their specific needs as a know nothing who just doesn't appreciate their camera of choice is the greatest advance in camera technology since the invention of the SLR.
It was a horrible beast of a camera, that looked like something from 1902. A completely ridiculous camera, with a bellows that extends past 5 feet. I don't remember what lenses we were using, but they were ancient and very slow. The image on the ground glass was so dim that we used a 1K fresnel from 5 feet away as our focusing light. ...But the Polaroid 20x24 prints were just breath taking, and because Polaroid uses metalic dyes in their process, the prints are supposed to be archival. I was part of a project where the Polaroid camera came to Toronto for a few days, and we had very limited number of shots we could take, so you really had to make each one count. Polaroid supplied a technician to handle the processing and to help us use the camera.
I am expecting Canon to price this body in the $6,000 - 8,000 range, which I would be a little nervous to invest in, especially if it's another 8-bit DSLR camera like all the rest. ( I am expecting somebody, maybe a Panasonic AF-200, to produce an affordable 10-bit large sensor camera in the $8,000 or less price range, hopefully within the next year )
If it's that high, then yes It's out of my range and I'll look elsewhere. I was thinking a 1Dx body w/o all the shutter / mirror / pentaprism gubbins using an EVF. I really don't give a tuppeny cuss what make of camera I use so long as it gets the job done. When I bought my 550D it was at a price I could afford for a learning tool, and before the GH2 was released At the time all the new GH1s were, I believe "locked".
When I've finished this wretched short that's dragged on for far too long (For many interlocking reasons) and don't have to worry about matching shots taken from a 550D and GH2 (Or whatever) I'll be free to consider my options, which may include an NEX5. See I'll even consider Sony:happy:
Again, if I buy m4/3, or even general crop-frame lenses (EG the very nice Tokina 11-16) I'll be locking myself into a specific range of cameras, so constraining my options, something I'm reluctant to do. Who was it said on these boards "Buy cameras, but invest in lenses"? Very true, hence I want my lenses to have a long life and most ATM are Leica R not Canon.
Now, I think I've de-railed this thread enough, so can we get back to the open letter to Panny?
When I've finished this wretched short that's dragged on for far too long (For many interlocking reasons) and don't have to worry about matching shots taken from a 550D and GH2 (Or whatever) I'll be free to consider my options, which may include an NEX5. See I'll even consider Sony:happy:
Again, if I buy m4/3, or even general crop-frame lenses (EG the very nice Tokina 11-16) I'll be locking myself into a specific range of cameras, so constraining my options, something I'm reluctant to do. Who was it said on these boards "Buy cameras, but invest in lenses"? Very true, hence I want my lenses to have a long life and most ATM are Leica R not Canon.
Now, I think I've de-railed this thread enough, so can we get back to the open letter to Panny?
With the exception of the Canon 5D MK2 and the Nikon D3 Full Frame Still Photo cameras, any lens that covers the APC-S sensor size ( i.e. Super 35 ) will work with almost every large sensor video camera on the market.
So by buying lenses that cover the APS-C / Super 35 format you are not locked in to anything.
...Because I can't afford to own PL mount lenses, I am standardizing on Nikon AI-S lenses with manual aperture and focus, and am happy to buy a few high performance m4/3 lenses to fill the gaps. ( the GH-2 camera suits me now, but that might change in a year or two )
Well, I still have a 5D MkI that I use for stills, so that to some extent influences my decisions, (And why I won't buy Canon EF-S lenses) heck I may even buy a 5DIII, I just like the FF sensor for stills.
One thing I have picked up from reading these forums is that the Tokina will cover a 44mm image circle at the 16mm end, so maybe... Perhaps in Nikon mount for which I can get an adaptor to allow iris control.
Anyway, higher on my shopping list is mid-size Glidecam, so I have some time to consider my options
One thing I have picked up from reading these forums is that the Tokina will cover a 44mm image circle at the 16mm end, so maybe... Perhaps in Nikon mount for which I can get an adaptor to allow iris control.
Anyway, higher on my shopping list is mid-size Glidecam, so I have some time to consider my options
Let me remind everybody that the "C" DSLR doesn't actually exist and the mockup that was displayed at the Canon event was basically a 1D-X with a C slapped on top. But if you're looking for a new Canon camera released in 2012 and priced at the $6-8k range, you don't have to look any further than...the 1D-X.
Jimmy Moss
Well-known member
This ^^^^
But I still think the Ikonoskop is the best thing going right now... and if the Euro collapses us Americans should be able to snap one up for 7k or less.
http://www.ikonoskop.com/dii/footage/
Whats up Gonzo?