Future fast lens available on the M43 system?

[eleison]

Hi All,

I just noticed that Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 was just announced and people are all amazed about this. This got me thinking. This newly release Panasonic lens is only equivalent to a pedestrian 24-70mm F5.6 full frame lens. Coming from a 7d, I'm not impressed.

Why didn't Panasonic make a faster lens? Perhaps a 12-35mm F1.4. That would be as fast as a F2.8 on a full frame and have similar Depth of Field. Is the GH1/2 sensor so small that its virtually impossible to make really fast lens? Heck, there's a few F1.4 canon lenses made for the full frame and Apsc sized sensors - doesn't seem to be a big deal for the manufacturers to make. To have the same depth of field on a gh1/2, the M43 lens has to be at least as wide as f0.7; I don't think there are any lenses with a wider aperture than the voigtlander f.95 -- and even at its widest, the voigtlander has haze.

Is the M43 just a stop gap? Will it ever be physically able to compete with the APSC/full frame sensors (especially DOF). I want to buy more equipment for the m43 system, but if its a dead end system -- then perhaps, i will not buy so much stuff and wait for the apsc/full frame manufactures to get their act together. It seems that it would be able easier for companies to create a APSC/full frame camera with all the benefits of the M43 system (resolution, sharpness, colors, etc), than a M43 system with all the benefits of the APSC/full frame camera.

Heck, everyone gets a tizzy for the voigtlander f.96 -- but on the APSC/full frame sensors; this lens would be aprox equivalent to F2. - nothing that people should bust a nut over. In addition, the F2 in the APSC/fullframe world would be a lot cheaper. Heck, the canon 50mm, F1.8 is only around $100. The voigtlander F.95 is over a thousand and has worst optics...

Am I wrong about all of this? By the way, I did just buy an gh2 and I am waiting for an adapter from ebay so I'm not trying to put down the M43 system -- just trying to be realistic.

 

[mcbob]

It's only equivalent to a 24-70/5.6 in terms of DOF characteristics. It's approx. equivalent to a 24-70/2.8 in terms of FOV and light handling. That means you can get proper exposure and actually retain a useable depth of focus, so you're not constantly hunting or having your interviewee go blurry if they lean in forward slightly.

Ultra fast zooms get obscenely large quickly. Compare the weight of the Olympus 14-35/2.0 vs. the ~12oz of this new X lens, for instance. Faster cine-zooms are available... and you're not going to be dangling those unsupported too easily.

m43 has some of the fastest professional lenses available in the Voigtlander 17.5 and 25 f0.95 (and can also use various ultra-expensive ultra-fast 50's in things like Leica M mount - or just about any other lens). Yes, their DOF is the same as a full-frame f2... which is just about perfect in practical use. Try a 50/0.95 on a full frame wide open sometime and see if you can keep anything that moves at all in focus for more than two seconds.

Personally, I don't think there's any better system for things like travel and documentary... you can get exposure AND focus, can easily blur backgrounds when needed, and all in a size far easier to tote than the equivalent speed and range in full frame or APS-C lenses.

 

[Gabel]

You're seeing it the wrong way. The aperture you're looking at here is only based around DoF. So while the DoF of the 12-35 is equivalent to that of a 5.6, it's still a 2.8 light wise.

There's a very good reason they didn't make it an F1.4. Because that is REALLY hard to build.
Zooms and wideangles (this is both) requires many elements, meaning a lot of light loss and larger elements for a bigger opening, costing more and so on. So to get it to be a 1.4 it would not only have to be a lot bigger, it would cost A LOT more. A 2.8 zoom is standard for a fast zoom, most ones that are faster costs a lot more.
Primes are much easier to build, that's why you see many fast primes.

But last... You're one of those guys who's obsessed with short DoF, right? You'd love to shoot at 1.4 on a 5D?
Urgh.
This is something the DSLR generation has brought something that I can not stand. Sorry.

Professionally, you rarely want to go below 2.8, with the prefered aperture for cinema is 4 or 5.6.
At that aperture you get proper depth of field, making sure the actors are always in focus, the lens performs better and so on.
Trust me, get out there and do some jobs as a focus puller and come back to me saying you want that short DoF after having to pull of a crane shot... Please do.

But really, a 2.8 is a decently fast zoom. An aperture is always the same and will always give the same amount of light, while the DoF might change... But we're cinematographers! Full frame for us isn't a 5D. For a long time the standard was academy film, which is equivalent to GH2 in size. It's only lately it's gone over to Super-35 (or APS-C sized).

 

[stoneinapond]

Heck, the canon 50mm, F1.8 is only around $100. The voigtlander F.95 is over a thousand and has worst optics...

Am I wrong about all of this?

Have you actually used any of the Voigt's?

You've certainly got that wrong.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

"Professionally, you rarely want to go below 2.8, with the prefered aperture for cinema is 4 or 5.6."

This ^

I have 50 1.4 and on occasion we'll go wide open or close, but actually pretty rare to go below 2.8 and 70% of our shooting is in the 4 to 5.6 range.

 

[eleison]

You're seeing it the wrong way. The aperture you're looking at here is only based around DoF. So while the DoF of the 12-35 is equivalent to that of a 5.6, it's still a 2.8 light wise.

There's a very good reason they didn't make it an F1.4. Because that is REALLY hard to build.
Zooms and wideangles (this is both) requires many elements, meaning a lot of light loss and larger elements for a bigger opening, costing more and so on. So to get it to be a 1.4 it would not only have to be a lot bigger, it would cost A LOT more. A 2.8 zoom is standard for a fast zoom, most ones that are faster costs a lot more.
Primes are much easier to build, that's why you see many fast primes.

But last... You're one of those guys who's obsessed with short DoF, right? You'd love to shoot at 1.4 on a 5D?
Urgh.
This is something the DSLR generation has brought something that I can not stand. Sorry.

Professionally, you rarely want to go below 2.8, with the prefered aperture for cinema is 4 or 5.6.
At that aperture you get proper depth of field, making sure the actors are always in focus, the lens performs better and so on.
Trust me, get out there and do some jobs as a focus puller and come back to me saying you want that short DoF after having to pull of a crane shot... Please do.

But really, a 2.8 is a decently fast zoom. An aperture is always the same and will always give the same amount of light, while the DoF might change... But we're cinematographers! Full frame for us isn't a 5D. For a long time the standard was academy film, which is equivalent to GH2 in size. It's only lately it's gone over to Super-35 (or APS-C sized).

Okay, I get it. It is a physical limitation. If people want to have a shallow depth of field, its going to be difficult on the gh2. I'm fine with that I guess. Heck, I would love to have a f2.8 APSC equivalent zoom in the GH2 mount. Sadly, that doesn't really exist. Kinda sucks because I have a 7d and my tamron 17-50mm f2.8 pretty much stays on my camera 75% of the time. Just like the canon, equivalent 17-55mm f2.8, its IMHO, the perfect walk around focal length range and f-stop. Yeah, the a f1.4 on a 5d2 is crazy shallow, but a f1.4 on a APSC is not too bad -- the f2.8 would be great.

Wow, coming from a image (dslr) backgroup , IMHO, it looks like there will always be issues with DOF on the M43 format. I'm not a DOF addict, but sometimes its nice to blur out the people in the background who are doing things they shouldn't (i.e., picking their nose, etc). Oh, well, looks like the GH2 will be a stop gap camera until the other manufacturers get their act together. Geeze, 2lbs for a Olympus 14-35/2.0 @ $2,300.. man... thats rough. In any case, maybe I'm just thinking of it all wrong. After all, at the end of the day, all camera's are "stop gap" until the next, whiz bang camera comes out. hahaha.. thanks for all the info though ;-) I'll just start to appreciate all the other benefits of the gh2 (sharpness, bit rate, etc.)..

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Hi All,

I just noticed that Panasonic 12-35mm F2.8 was just announced and people are all amazed about this. This got me thinking. This newly release Panasonic lens is only equivalent to a pedestrian 24-70mm F5.6 full frame lens. Coming from a 7d, I'm not impressed.

Why didn't Panasonic make a faster lens?

F2.8 is F2.8, and it is especially good if it is a constant F2.8 on a zoom... I did a quick check on the Canon site, and there's a 24-70mm f/2.8 zoom for about $1400, and a II version for about $2200 MSRP.

I didn't find a price indication of what this lens may be, but from the site, it seems that Panasonic only has a couple of lenses over $1K, and if this one is a constant aperture lens, perhaps it'll be in the $1K
range... but I'll bet it will still be cheaper than the older version of the Canon lens.

As for the Holy Grail of Paper Thin DoF... When I first arrived on Planet DVXUSER many people where madly putting on adapters on to their SD video camera to get the thinest of DoF, and still wondering why the did not get that 'cinematic' look... The video DSLR revolution has not changed that sort of attitude among some. However there are many more who are now really looking at 'film' and understanding that shallow DoF is only a small number of shots, and that f/4-f5.6 are often fine. The biggest cinematic look is in lighting... and talent in front of the camera... relative to what the viewer perceives... and of course the telnet behind the camera to make the image happen...

Oh, yeah, the other item that has come to the fore is the Holy Grail of One Photon Image Formation... shooting with wide open 'fast' lenses, at inconceivablely high ISO values...

And then wonder why their efforts still don't produce 'cinematic' quality...

And heck, if one does want phenomenally fast lens... one can with an adapter find any number of solutions...

Personally I'm looking for a 500mm F/1.4 Panasonic Lumix offering... because I want to go into the business of spying on celebs and selling their back porch midnight escapades to the gossip rags...

Panasonic has really let me down in my future cash cow potential...

 

[Barry_Green]

If people want to have a shallow depth of field, its going to be difficult on the gh2.

Well, it would require a really fast lens. At the same field of view and same aperture, the smaller sensor is going to require a wider lens, and therefore deeper DOF. But if you substitute a really fast lens (like the Voigtlander f/0.95) then you can get super-shallow DOF even on the smaller sensor.

The f/2.8 lens is going to perform exactly the same, in terms of light and sensitivity, as a 2.8 lens on any other camera.

Heck, I would love to have a f2.8 APSC equivalent zoom in the GH2 mount. Sadly, that doesn't really exist.

Well, it does though. The 12-35 f/2.8 is pretty much a 14.4-42 f/2.8 on the Canon. Or you could go with the 14-54 lens, that would be almost exactly the same as your Tamron on your Canon. It would be a half-stop deeper DOF, but that's not any big deal.

Wow, coming from a image (dslr) backgroup , IMHO, it looks like there will always be issues with DOF on the M43 format.

Any smaller sensor will always show deeper DOF at the equivalent field of view and equivalent f-stop. But compared to your 7D, it's not much of a difference at all. Your APS-C sensor is a little bigger than the GH2, but not much. The relative crop factor between the two of them is only 1.2, and that means the GH2 would only need to open up a half f-stop in order to equalize the DOF between the two.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Okay, I get it. It is a physical limitation. If people want to have a shallow depth of field, its going to be difficult on the gh2.

Absolutely NOT. Forget the "numbers", Depth Of Field (zone of acceptable sharpness) is a "visual thing". With the GH2 management of lens choice, composition, camera to subject distance, subject to background elements distance, and aperture for desired effect is just as easily achieved with the GH2 as it is with the 7D. Any differences will be slight and noticed only by those who obsess over the "numbers".

I'll use mostly primes when working video, and not wanting to go exotic prices for exotic optics, two of the primes I've chosen for the GH2 are the Lumix 20mm f1.7 and the Olympus Zuiko 45mm f1.8

With the Canon 60D I get essentially the same kind of perspectives with the EF 28mm f1.8 and the original metal barrel EF 50mm f1.8

You want a "fast" zoom, that would be one heckuva convenience but I don't want to pay for what it would cost. So I'll work with affordable optics that will do it.

Wow, coming from a image (dslr) backgroup , IMHO, it looks like there will always be issues with DOF on the M43 format.

I come from a film photography background that goes back to when most cameras didn't even have a meter in them. I've never had "issues" with Depth Of Field in ANY format from 4x5 sheet film to 120 medium format, full frame film 35, and APS-C sensors. Nor with my GH2s. Selection of optics that will do what you want and understanding of the craft take care of all that.

 

[gonzo_entertainment]

Typically you would want shallow DOF in tight shots, close ups, medium close ups, etc... not in wide shots. The longer lens you'd be using for those, even on a crop sensor, should give you fairly shallow DOF, even at 2.8

 

[eleison]

Well, it would require a really fast lens. At the same field of view and same aperture, the smaller sensor is going to require a wider lens, and therefore deeper DOF. But if you substitute a really fast lens (like the Voigtlander f/0.95) then you can get super-shallow DOF even on the smaller sensor.

The f/2.8 lens is going to perform exactly the same, in terms of light and sensitivity, as a 2.8 lens on any other camera.


Well, it does though. The 12-35 f/2.8 is pretty much a 14.4-42 f/2.8 on the Canon. Or you could go with the 14-54 lens, that would be almost exactly the same as your Tamron on your Canon. It would be a half-stop deeper DOF, but that's not any big deal.


Any smaller sensor will always show deeper DOF at the equivalent field of view and equivalent f-stop. But compared to your 7D, it's not much of a difference at all. Your APS-C sensor is a little bigger than the GH2, but not much. The relative crop factor between the two of them is only 1.2, and that means the GH2 would only need to open up a half f-stop in order to equalize the DOF between the two.

Thanks Barry. My EF adapter just came in the mail. So happy I know, DOF isn't the end all, and apparently to most m43 people its no big deal - perhaps I am overstating this issue. However, I love the DOF of the 7d. If the GH2 isn't too far off like you are saying it isn't, than I'll be more than happy Seriously, when someone/things in the background ruin a shot or a clip, it just so annoying. When everyone is smiling and happy, but then someone in the background is inadvertently checking their watch or doing something that ruins the moment -- i shake my head.

In a controlled environment where people are told to do things (etc., on a paid shoot)-- I'm sure DOF doesn't matter that much. Heck, if the background is too "busy"/"distracting" -- can't get that shallow dof of field to blur it out; just move the whole group to another location (or increase the distance of the group from the background). There are so many things that can be done in a controlled environment to mitigate the issue and hopefully, at the end of the day, to tell a good story.

On the other hand, there are people like me. I cannot control the environment. I basically, take pictures and videos for myself and sometimes for my friends. That's about it. Its a hobby. Most of the time, I cannot don't control the environment. If someone in the frame is doing something that doesn't contribute to the image or clip I am shooting without shallow DOF, I'm pretty much SOL. If I'm taking videos or images of my friends wedding, and there is something in the background -- like beat up cars, or ugly people -- well, unless I inconvenience them by telling them to move, those objects are going to be in the images or clips FOREVER.. No one wants ugly people in their collection of images and video hahahah

Oh, well, thanks for you input though.. Time to mess around with the gh2 and the adapter; I also have a efs sigma 30 F1.4, and I cannot wait to see how well it works on the gh2.

 

[Kholi]

As far as fast glass, I've FINALLY had time to spend with a Voigt 25/0.95 and my mind's blown at how applicable the wide open aperture is on M4/3. The speed is freakin' insane.

Half the time you can walk around under street lamps shooting 320 ISO, and still not have everything falling in and out of focus.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

If I'm taking videos or images of my friends wedding, and there is something in the background -- like beat up cars, or ugly people -- well, unless I inconvenience them by telling them to move, those objects are going to be in the images or clips FOREVER.. No one wants ugly people in their collection of images and video hahahah

Shot weddings for years. Shot digital weddings for less years but sufficient to say 'years'... Typical F-stop was between 5.6/8. Of course we had 'flash' to support dark situations... but even then the only reason to 'open up' was because of the light level...

In almost any case where there's an 'ugly person' at a wedding... a change of 15 degrees, that is about two steps to one side or another, and ey wala... ulgy person gone...

The Wife shot/shoots portrature for years... usually at f/8 with flash if studio, or shutter speed adjustment if location...

One thing we both hate... a blurry nose tip, even if the eyes are sharp... on a good day I may accept blur on the back edge of a 'big hair' shot...even then... probably not... but definitely no fuzzy ears either...

Yeah, I've heard the advice... if there's a trashcan in the background of a venue shallower DoF will throw it out of focus... my question if course is... 'What the hell are you doing with the wedding couple in front of a trash can???"...

 

[eleison]

Shot weddings for years. Shot digital weddings for less years but sufficient to say 'years'... Typical F-stop was between 5.6/8. Of course we had 'flash' to support dark situations... but even then the only reason to 'open up' was because of the light level...

In almost any case where there's an 'ugly person' at a wedding... a change of 15 degrees, that is about two steps to one side or another, and ey wala... ulgy person gone...

Good point.. but if you could open up wide, you wouldn't need to adjust composition. Especially, if you think you found the perfect composition.

The Wife shot/shoots portrature for years... usually at f/8 with flash if studio, or shutter speed adjustment if location...

Yeah, but I'm assuming you would use a photographic backdrop. Heck, I think its pretty common to use lower apertures (f/8, f/11, etc) with backgrounds and flash photography in a studio environment.

One thing we both hate... a blurry nose tip, even if the eyes are sharp... on a good day I may accept blur on the back edge of a 'big hair' shot...even then... probably not... but definitely no fuzzy ears either...

Yeah, I've heard the advice... if there's a trashcan in the background of a venue shallower DoF will throw it out of focus... my question if course is... 'What the hell are you doing with the wedding couple in front of a trash can???"...

The following pictures show how things in the background can ruin a picture. They may not be trash cans, but a shallower DoF would have helped.. ok, perhaps not for the last picture, but who knows hahahahah. Yeah, I know where you are coming from. There are things we can do to avoid these types of pictures -- but at the end of the day, I'm lazy. Shallow DoF is only ONE tool that we can be use... but IMHO, it sure is a nice tool to have.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

Yeah, but I'm assuming you would use a photographic backdrop. Heck, I think its pretty common to use lower apertures (f/8, f/11, etc) with backgrounds and flash photography in a studio environment.

Her specialty was 'environmental portraits' so no, deeper focus was part of her 'look'. The Wife and I both look to Arnold Newman for 'inspiration', and here's an example of one of his portraits. (I could give more, but this one gives the idea bout deep focus which follows his style..).

The following pictures show how things in the background can ruin a picture. They may not be trash cans, but a shallower DoF would have helped.. ok, perhaps not for the last picture, but who knows hahahahah. Yeah, I know where you are coming from. There are things we can do to avoid these types of pictures -- but at the end of the day, I'm lazy. Shallow DoF is only ONE tool that we can be use... but IMHO, it sure is a nice tool to have.


Images deleted for the sake of aesthetics...

Well... there are just some shots one would let go... however, in the modern 'digital' age, I'd probably think about post-processing some images to 'remove' some jackass who just won't get out of the frame...

I personally would be hard pressed to grant the label of 'professional' to the shooters of either of these examples...

 

[mcbob]

If you're truly lazy, no lens in the world will make you a better photographer. Just buy whatever's cheap because your images will be at best mediocre regardless of how much you spend on gear.

Sorry for the sourpuss truth of it.

 

[Gabel]

Okay, I get it. It is a physical limitation. If people want to have a shallow depth of field, its going to be difficult on the gh2.

No it isn't. It's just that people tend to use shorter lenses to get shallower DoF... Try using some longer lenses and blocking things farther away. Here's a shot from a feature I'm shooting in China (on a GH2) where you have some nice depth with a 50 (at 4.5) on:

And sometimes you want more separation. Then you what you do is slap on a longer lens. These two shots was done with a 150 (at 5.6):

But wide-angle does not look flat. It's just that there you have to block out and work more with environment.

Depth comes not from shallow DoF, it comes from framing and blocking. Create real depth and you get depth in camera.
[/QUOTE]

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

No it isn't. It's just that people tend to use shorter lenses to get shallower DoF... Try using some longer lenses and blocking things farther away. Here's a shot from a feature I'm shooting in China (on a GH2) where you have some nice depth with a 50 (at 4.5) on:

The ancient rule of thumb was double the 'normal length' lens for the 'portrait' lens... so on a GH-1/2 that would be about 50mm... and there are a number of choices for 1.4/1.8/2.0/2.8 lenses in that class, because that was the 'standard lens' for film film still SLR's...

 

[Gabel]

The ancient rule of thumb was double the 'normal length' lens for the 'portrait' lens... so on a GH-1/2 that would be about 50mm... and there are a number of choices for 1.4/1.8/2.0/2.8 lenses in that class, because that was the 'standard lens' for film film still SLR's...

Exactly. It's also the easiest lens to build, requiring few elements, thus allowing great speed at a small cost.

 

[abelniteroad]

Shallow DOF is cool until you realize how hard can be keep focused the subject.