GH3 Disadvantages of using old glass with an adapter

Stab said:
Is the difference between the modern Panny lenses and the old FD 85 mm too large to intercut them?
Click to expand...

I've been using the Panasonic 14-140 and Canon FD's for over 2 years. Every time I get to color correcting, I cringe. Admittedly, I'm not the most brilliant color corrector. I re-adjust white balance, match the contrast as best I can with curves, but beyond that, I've just stopped trying to match them. The FD's always have this redness to them, most apparent in skin tones. It's most unflattering with people with light skin. But actually, what makes it stand out is cutting back to the Panasonic. That's what makes it look worse. I've tried messing with the red curve, but again, can never make it look right or even improve it that I just stopped trying.

My favorite color profile so far has been the Voigtlander 25mm. But sine my needs are triple-fold, (good zoom ranges, fastest glass available, good range of primes) I have to triple dip between Canon FD, Voigtlander, and Panasonic/Olympus.

If only Voigtlander would release a 75 or 85mm f/1.2 or faster lense, I'd drop Canon FD with the quickness.

-----------

One thing that would be awesome is if these older lenses would be put under modern lens tests to see how they really compare on a technical level. I wish I had time to learn how to do this and also the time to actually do it..
 
Fresno Bob said:
Everyone does that I follow. I rarely put any new glass on my camera.
I have the SLR Magic 12mm, and I honestly don't know what people see in it. The results are like a CCTV lens. It will be sold soon!
Click to expand...
Comparing the SLR Magic to a CCTV lens that's harsh, I enjoy the lens. Here's a photo I took with it at night without any lighting (other than from the exhibits) for example: http://www.flickr.com/photos/kascarade/8108978951/in/photostream

If you think it's that bad I've got plenty of decent manual vintage glass I'd consider a swap for.

8108978951_a616ce2f0c_z.jpg
 
Just shot a doc with Lumix 25 1.4, 14-140, Vivitar 28 F2 and Canon 50 1.8. A lot of color correction involved. Honestly, I thought the Canon lenses would look great but they were actually too soft and "mushy". I thought the Panny lenses would be too sharp but with a diffusion filter the footage looks awesome and held up well to extensive CC... BTW Stab I agree with you about the Canon cams. We used the 7D with the GH2 and the 7d didn't hold up in post.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Not necessarily true. Ultimately, your cinematography gives the look to your images, not just the lens. I have seen footage shot on older lenses look very contemporary. It also depends on what you mean by old. 1930's lenses or 70's, 80's and 90's?
Click to expand...

Judging how the OP mentioned Canon FD glass and older I would assume we are talking 80s and older. Every single vintage lens I have used in no way shape or form compares to modern glass. They give you a very very different look. Yes you're DP and Art design can make anything look like anything, but in general older lenses do not resemble the look of modern sharp high contrast glass. I'm more than sure we can find a vintage expensive glass that may be better than most new lenses, but all of the older lenses are usually mute in color and low contrast.

Personally I sold most of my older lenses and remain with only a select few. Using sharp Panasonic lenses does not cut well with older glass....
 
J.F.R. said:
Personally I sold most of my older lenses and remain with only a select few. Using sharp Panasonic lenses does not cut well with older glass....
Click to expand...
Thing to keep in mind about Panasonic lenses is that they may add artificial sharpening.
 
In terms of good photo lenses for video, Zeiss would probably be at the top of my list. The quality is simply unbeatable. Everyone should own a Zeiss 28mm 2.8 and have it has part of their kit.

Sharp, excellent color, good for anything really. Doesn't have a "vintage" look, or an overly clinical, clean or digitally sharpened look like the lumix lenses give you. They're compact, very solid and imo the best you can get without investing in actual cinema lenses like the CP primes.
 
Bear in mind that in a field of optics nothing new has been discovered or worked out since 70'-ties. Everything that is happening now in a field of "optics" is just a software (like CA or barrel distortion correction) and electronic (AF etc.). Todays lenses are mostly built of plastic (even its "glass" in many cases) and will never survive as many years as old vintage lenses (when treated properly). Personally my favorite lenses are pretty old Pentax lenses, even old Takumar with some Zeiss. They are fast, tack sharp, precisely built, much cheaper and give a great look & feel (love its bokeh and color rendition). I can't find any disadvantages when using them. Even if they are "bulky and heavy" - it allows me to have much more stable shots.
The only feature I would be missing is AF Tracking Mode, what - as we know - has been crippled out from final version of GH2...
 
Last edited:
Stab, I've never shot with Canons myself, but from what I've seen it seems like even using old glass your GH2/3 footage will come out sharper than what comes out of a Canon with sharp new glass. I could be completely wrong though since I haven't tested it.

As for whether the FD lenses require an optical adapter on the GH2/3, no they don't. That has to do with the flange focal distances of the different lens mounts. See this wikipedia article for a better understanding: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Flange_focal_distance. The way you can read that table is that any mount can generally handle most of the lenses with mounts that are down the list from it, in other words, anything with a longer flange focal distance than its native lenses, as long as a mechanical adapter exists (which it probably does). If it's very tight, like 1mm or 2mm difference, it may also be too tight to fit an adapter in there.

So, looking at Micro Four Thirds, it should generally be able to handle any of the mounts that are listed below it on that chart, but generally not the ones that are listed above it. Same thing with any other mount, like EF. Anything with a longer flange distance is probably ok, anything with a shorter flange distance is probably not ok. I say generally and probably because there may be exceptions, like, for instance, the fact that some C-mount lenses actually work with Micro Four Thirds mounts, even though C-mount flange distance is shorter than MFT flange distance. So the chart is a starting point. You can research specific mount combinations and specific lenses after that.

Another thing. For mount adapters, in order to avoid the looseness/wobblyness that some have mentioned, it's generally a good idea to get the highest quality, best reviewed ones in order to get a good, solid mount. Quality and manufacturing tolerances matter here.

One final note: one disadvantage of some lenses (not necessarily just the old ones) that I haven't seen mentioned here is that the current crop of DSLRs can be quite prone to rolling shutter jello. What this may mean is that some lenses, particularly longer ones, may not be recommended for hanheld video work on these DSLRs if they don't have image stabilization. As an example, in my own experience the 25mm f/1.4 Panasonic/Leica was a problem in this scenario and I returned it because of it. The IS lenses like the 14-140, 12-35, 35-100, etc should be ok. If you don't do handheld video you don't have to worry though. I have never seen it mentioned, but I suppose that it's possible that this could be a lens-specific issue, i.e. maybe a vintage 24mm lens would not have nearly the same trouble as the modern 25mm. I have also not tested this.
 
Thanks for all the replies until now.

I shoot planned (small) productions, but always come prepared with rigs, tripods and sliders so Image Stabilization is not so important. Thanks anyway.

I liked shooting with my 60D, but seeing the footage back on my 2560x1440 monitor was always a letdown. Wide shots are covered in moiré and simply have no HD 'look' due to lack of detail.
I will make the change to the GH3 to get full HD. I like wide shots with lots of detail in them and was never able to make those due to camera limitations. In my opinion there is no 'too sharp' image. Whenever I watch a recent Hollywood title, I'm amazed about how freaking sharp the image is and how beautiful it is.

I know that the GH3 is no real match yet for that kind of detail, but its a big step in the right direction coming from the soft Canon's.

Because of low budget, I was considering the FD primes but the problem is that everyone has such different opinions. Some say here 'tack sharp' while others mention they are soft...

I'm strongly leaping towards buying the following setup now: (as soon as i've sold the 60d kit)

-Gh3
-20 mm 1.7 pancake
-Olympus 45 mm 1.8

And then, maybe, depending on your opinion:
- Canon FD 35 mm 2.0
- Canon FD 85 mm 1.8

In the future maybe add a wider lens, 14mm samyang or better.

The problem about these investments is that the Panny/Olympus lenses are bound to the M4/3 format. I'm also not sure if the 'look' of the lenses are too different to be able to use them in the same shoot.

Does someone have other recommendations or ideas?
 
Fresno Bob said:
Everyone does that I follow. I rarely put any new glass on my camera.
I have the SLR Magic 12mm, and I honestly don't know what people see in it. The results are like a CCTV lens. It will be sold soon!
Click to expand...
Thinking about it now I did this entire local interview on the SLR Magic 12mm and I have no issue with it, the Nokton for example would have had many of the same issues with flare:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGcMZh2YDYs
 
Last edited:
Stab said:
Because of low budget, I was considering the FD primes but the problem is that everyone has such different opinions. Some say here 'tack sharp' while others mention they are soft...

I'm strongly leaping towards buying the following setup now: (as soon as i've sold the 60d kit)

-Gh3
-20 mm 1.7 pancake
-Olympus 45 mm 1.8

And then, maybe, depending on your opinion:
- Canon FD 35 mm 2.0
- Canon FD 85 mm 1.8

In the future maybe add a wider lens, 14mm samyang or better.

The problem about these investments is that the Panny/Olympus lenses are bound to the M4/3 format. I'm also not sure if the 'look' of the lenses are too different to be able to use them in the same shoot.

Does someone have other recommendations or ideas?
Click to expand...
Do watch and read plenty of video-specific reviews or video shot on those lenses that you're considering, and other possibilities, like vintage Nikon, Pentax, Minolta, and Olympus lenses. Search for them on youtube, vimeo, etc. Hopefully you will be able to actually see the answers to your questions there. If you buy the m43 lenses, you can always sell them if you later move away from m43. Some folks in this thread have mentioned that it's difficult to match FD and modern m43 lenses.
 
Not sure about old glass looking vintage. I have a friend who also has a GH2 and uses lomo lenses and it doesn't look vintage. But not the anamorphic ones.
 
ATL Media Group said:
I have several and none of them do what you say... wait... I think you are putting them on wrong. If I recall, if you put them on wrong they will lock your Iris open!
Click to expand...

haha, yup, sure will, I mount my FD lens, then stop it down all the way, then I use the iris ring on the adapter to control the apature, this way I can get in-between f stops, and without clicks on the lens. It's esentially like having your lens declicked, without having your lens declicked:)

But if you adapter DOES NOT have the little metal post that sticks up to push the pin on the lens open, you will have to make a little wedge to hold that pin in an open position, to change the iris. Not sure if that made sense:)
 
Stab said:
...I'm strongly leaping towards buying the following setup now: (as soon as i've sold the 60d kit)

-Gh3
-20 mm 1.7 pancake
-Olympus 45 mm 1.8

And then, maybe, depending on your opinion:
- Canon FD 35 mm 2.0
- Canon FD 85 mm 1.8

In the future maybe add a wider lens, 14mm samyang or better.

The problem about these investments is that the Panny/Olympus lenses are bound to the M4/3 format. I'm also not sure if the 'look' of the lenses are too different to be able to use them in the same shoot.

Does someone have other recommendations or ideas?
Click to expand...

Stab - I rhink you're on the right track. But, at the wide end, I would get the Oly 12mm f2.0 instead of the Panny 20mm f1.7 because of the 20mm's loud autofocus.

And, if you're concerned about being bound to M43, I would get old Nikon glass (which can be adapted to almost anything), instead of Canon FDs, which are almost impossible to adapt to modern Canon EOS cameras.

If I could afford it, I would buy old Voigtlanders or Zeiss - but Nikkors are a lot more budget friendly.

Cheers and hope that is helpful,

Bill
 
I have no idea what's your budget, but in terms of bang for the buck it's hard to beat the Rokinon Cine lenses. They look pretty good through the glass, have cine style mechanics, fully manual as it should be and while they are not near to more expensive cine glass in terms of construction and mechanics, they are light years better to shoot than plain still lenses IMO.
 
Adding on to that, Rokinon is/will be making these in focal lengths conducive to m43 sensor use: 8mm, 14, 24, 35, and 85.
 
Yep, very good focal length selection for the M4/3 format. Throw a 50mm and an over 100mm in there and you have a very complete set. For the price there's nothing out there that can really match the cost/benefit ratio.
If I had not gone with the Zeiss CP.2's I would most likely get a set of Rokinon Cines, as besides these the next step up is considerably more expensive.
Heck, I'm still tempted to get a Rokinon set anyway. Just not sure the style difference is that big to justify it. Maybe I should get me a set of Lomos instead as I feel that would be a bigger departure from the CP.2's in terms of style and looks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top