MattinSTL
Sound Modulator
I've started this thread and bailed on it several times... tempted to give my personal story with ebay, etc. through many FD lenses... here's my personal bottom line on experiences so far... I'll add to this as I get in more situations with the assorted lenses.
I've used this PERFORMANCE INFORMATION as a reference and found it to be valuable and accurate with my own experience. That might help you make a lens choice.
Here are the FD lenses I've got so far... I don't intend to keep them all, but I'll keep them until I test them and make a decision.
FD 20 2.8, like it, might change to "love it". Still deciding. I hadn't intended to keep this lens when I got it as part of a package deal (same box as 1.8 which included 100 macro plus 80-200 zoom, both of which I wanted)... one thing I've never read about the Panasonic 20 1.7 is that it's "blue"... there's no doubt in my mind it has a shift towards blue. It's a minor shift... and one that could be easily corrected, but for a given WB setting the FD 20 looks more red or even yellow, when contrasted with the pancake lens. I won't say if that's a good or bad thing, but the color difference is what made me stop and think about keeping the FD, even though I've got the pancake. Now the more I use it, the more I like it... actually I'm feeling this way about all the FD lenses, but I'd planned to sell this one... and now after using it a few times I'm thinking I may keep it. It definitely looks different then the pancake... if you don't have, or can't afford the pancake, this is a good option, except that it's over a full stop slower.
FD 50 1.8, not tested yet... but probably this weekend. Came as part of a package deal. Plan to sell later.
FD 50 1.4, LOVE IT. In other threads I've seen members speculate this to be a "gotta' have it" lens. I agree. The bang for the buck is perhaps the highest in this lens. Most recommended.
FD 50 3.5 Macro, LOVE IT. Again... a close second in bang for the buck. Crazy sharp... looks awesome used as a normal lens OR macro lens. I especially like the long focus travel in the macro lenses. It's really easy to hit focus no matter how you're using it. Highly recommended.
FD 35-70 3.5, good lens in this focal range, but didn't keep it as it's not as good or versatile as either of the 50's at 50... and too big/slow/expensive for just a 35. I actually returned this lens not for those reasons, but because the seller claimed "mint" and I paid a premium for that description. The lens arrived with a loose focus and a fleck of lint internally... dead center. Honestly, I couldn't see the lint in the results, but I wasn't keeping a lens that I could never sell for what I paid... because of the wrong description (there were even coating dots on the front and back element that couldn't be cleaned off). Anyway... in use, the lens looked good, but the 35-70 range didn't seem that useful to me. Actually, at 35 I think it could be, but 70 didn't seem that advantageous. The image never looked as good to me as it did through either of the 50mm, and because of that I'd move myself to get the frame I wanted, using the preferred lens... instead of utilizing the extra 20mm (40mm in reality) to get the shot. Also... the macro function on the lens is WAY WAY harder to use then it is on the macro-specific lenses. The zone of focus is comparatively tiny. I was glad that the seller didn't describe the lens well... because I won't be buying another one of those anyway. Not recommended for the GH13, but still a good lens. You may love it. I didn't... 70 is too close to 50 at the long end, and the 50's are too much better (and more versatile for either being good in low-light, or having true macro capability at the same f-stop) in real use. I'd find a way to make one of the 50's work before I'd go this route.
FD 80-200 4.0, like it, still testing. The one thing I've found about longer focal lengths on the GH13... is that it's of limited practicality. I thought this lens would be a good way to have long tele available... for the few times I will use it (at the longest lengths). Interesting point is that the zoom is all internal... the lens doesn't grow when focusing or zooming. Will test "breathing" due to that later.
FD 100 4.0 Macro, like it, may say "love it" later. This was one of two lenses that I bought a package deal for (including the 80-200). It's a great lens and I'm keeping it no matter what... but so far I actually enjoy using the macro 50 more. Once I get the quality macro shots that donjohannes has HERE I will probably change my opinion to "love it". Right now all I can say is that I love what it's capable of, but I haven't reached that potential for myself yet. Highly Recommended. Why? In light of what I just said? Because these macro lenses are all 2 lenses in one... and they have a huge zone of focus as you turn the barrel... once you start playing with manual lenses on your GH13 you'll realize what a big deal this is in the first 10 minutes.
FD 135 2.5, LOVE IT. This is another lens that can be had for cheap on ebay if you look or wait. People are not buying these at the inflated prices (that they're paying for the 50 1.4, for example, which seems to be in endless supply at about $60 for a good sample)... the 135 is long, probably too long most of the time, but it looks great... and at 2.5 is in the fast enough zone that I expect it to be one of a few "go-to" lenses for me. For example... if I want to get in as close as possible... I will have use this over the 80-200, or 200, unless there is plenty of light. If I'm indoors in available light, or outdoors in low light, and need tele, this will be it. It looks great... really nice image, and plenty sharp. Highly Recommended if you get a good deal on one.
FD 200 4.0, like it, but will probably sell it and keep the 80-200. 200mm on the GH13 is long... it's loooong. This could be good for certain situations, and I want to be able to take advantage of this when the time comes. (I have some venues where I will use this and post the results... illustrating the value in this length) but I don't expect to use this lens too much. What I need to determine for myself... is what is easier? To use EITHER a fixed 200 OR an 80-200 at 200... and maintain focus and/or jitter-free footage when panning. If I have the same experience with both lenses then I'll keep the zoom, but... there's no doubt that the fixed 200 looks good. I'd actually say that this is another really good bang for the buck lens. The one I got was pretty cheap... and I keep seeing them pretty cheap. ($40ish?) To get the 80-200 zoom you gotta' go nearly twice that $.
FD Adapters:
Simply put, the ciecio7 adapter is the best adapter as far as I can tell. I bought a Pixco adapter first. There are many adapters on ebay that are "pixco style"... and the ciecio7 adapter is clearly better. Definitely worth the extra cost... and frankly there are some sellers who push the pixco type for the same or more! My Pixco adapter was $30 shipped. I may keep it and just leave it on one of the FD lenses, but there's no doubt I like the ciecio7 adapter best. This one's a no-brainer. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
A quick note on Low Light and/or available light shooting:
To put this in terms new guys can grasp. ISO 800 on the GH13 is considered the top-end ISO for acceptable quality if you plan to put your video on a bigger screen... in another words, beyond the internet. At ISO 800 I find f/2.0 (or faster) to be necessary in many nighttime, or dark interior, available light situations. If you're only going to the net, ISO 1600 may be OK for you, and in that case f/2.8 is acceptably fast for many situations. That said... for the GH13, faster is always better because it's better to have more speed (light gathering) and not need it, then to need more light (lens speed) and not have it. An f/2.0 at ISO 800 = an f/2.8 at ISO 1600... or an f/1.4 at ISO 800 = an f/2.0 at ISO 1600, etc.
Finally... when buying on ebay:
I've got 3 "stinkers" that I paid via Paypal... and was able to return/refund. One of them, a "minty" 50 1.4 arrived with a non-functioning aperture, and the seller only responded once I opened an ebay buyer protection case. The other one was the 35-70... and the seller was very cool about the return and refund... and the last was another 50 1.4 listed in "excellent" condition... which arrived with a dried liquid flower-design in it... like some substance was spilled/squirted into the focus ring and made it into the internal elements. I will show that lens later... as the seller gave me the option of a refund of the lens price, minus shipping, to keep the lens... vs. sending it back for a FULL refund (which would have netted me the same refund after return shipping costs). On that note... a "refund" means you get what you initially paid, including shipping... you will NOT get your return shipping paid. I don't consider $10-12 a big deal... but after 3x of that... I do get sick of the issue. I'm mentioning it because you should know it's a possibility... and I suggest that you accept this and not be a jerk to a seller if this happens to you. Sh*t happens in life... if you get a lens that isn't what you expected, well, it's not like getting cancer... eat the $10 and try again. We're all very lucky to be enjoying this adventure in an age when video suddenly got amazing (for cheap). :thumbsup:
I've used this PERFORMANCE INFORMATION as a reference and found it to be valuable and accurate with my own experience. That might help you make a lens choice.
Here are the FD lenses I've got so far... I don't intend to keep them all, but I'll keep them until I test them and make a decision.
FD 20 2.8, like it, might change to "love it". Still deciding. I hadn't intended to keep this lens when I got it as part of a package deal (same box as 1.8 which included 100 macro plus 80-200 zoom, both of which I wanted)... one thing I've never read about the Panasonic 20 1.7 is that it's "blue"... there's no doubt in my mind it has a shift towards blue. It's a minor shift... and one that could be easily corrected, but for a given WB setting the FD 20 looks more red or even yellow, when contrasted with the pancake lens. I won't say if that's a good or bad thing, but the color difference is what made me stop and think about keeping the FD, even though I've got the pancake. Now the more I use it, the more I like it... actually I'm feeling this way about all the FD lenses, but I'd planned to sell this one... and now after using it a few times I'm thinking I may keep it. It definitely looks different then the pancake... if you don't have, or can't afford the pancake, this is a good option, except that it's over a full stop slower.
FD 50 1.8, not tested yet... but probably this weekend. Came as part of a package deal. Plan to sell later.
FD 50 1.4, LOVE IT. In other threads I've seen members speculate this to be a "gotta' have it" lens. I agree. The bang for the buck is perhaps the highest in this lens. Most recommended.
FD 50 3.5 Macro, LOVE IT. Again... a close second in bang for the buck. Crazy sharp... looks awesome used as a normal lens OR macro lens. I especially like the long focus travel in the macro lenses. It's really easy to hit focus no matter how you're using it. Highly recommended.
FD 35-70 3.5, good lens in this focal range, but didn't keep it as it's not as good or versatile as either of the 50's at 50... and too big/slow/expensive for just a 35. I actually returned this lens not for those reasons, but because the seller claimed "mint" and I paid a premium for that description. The lens arrived with a loose focus and a fleck of lint internally... dead center. Honestly, I couldn't see the lint in the results, but I wasn't keeping a lens that I could never sell for what I paid... because of the wrong description (there were even coating dots on the front and back element that couldn't be cleaned off). Anyway... in use, the lens looked good, but the 35-70 range didn't seem that useful to me. Actually, at 35 I think it could be, but 70 didn't seem that advantageous. The image never looked as good to me as it did through either of the 50mm, and because of that I'd move myself to get the frame I wanted, using the preferred lens... instead of utilizing the extra 20mm (40mm in reality) to get the shot. Also... the macro function on the lens is WAY WAY harder to use then it is on the macro-specific lenses. The zone of focus is comparatively tiny. I was glad that the seller didn't describe the lens well... because I won't be buying another one of those anyway. Not recommended for the GH13, but still a good lens. You may love it. I didn't... 70 is too close to 50 at the long end, and the 50's are too much better (and more versatile for either being good in low-light, or having true macro capability at the same f-stop) in real use. I'd find a way to make one of the 50's work before I'd go this route.
FD 80-200 4.0, like it, still testing. The one thing I've found about longer focal lengths on the GH13... is that it's of limited practicality. I thought this lens would be a good way to have long tele available... for the few times I will use it (at the longest lengths). Interesting point is that the zoom is all internal... the lens doesn't grow when focusing or zooming. Will test "breathing" due to that later.
FD 100 4.0 Macro, like it, may say "love it" later. This was one of two lenses that I bought a package deal for (including the 80-200). It's a great lens and I'm keeping it no matter what... but so far I actually enjoy using the macro 50 more. Once I get the quality macro shots that donjohannes has HERE I will probably change my opinion to "love it". Right now all I can say is that I love what it's capable of, but I haven't reached that potential for myself yet. Highly Recommended. Why? In light of what I just said? Because these macro lenses are all 2 lenses in one... and they have a huge zone of focus as you turn the barrel... once you start playing with manual lenses on your GH13 you'll realize what a big deal this is in the first 10 minutes.
FD 135 2.5, LOVE IT. This is another lens that can be had for cheap on ebay if you look or wait. People are not buying these at the inflated prices (that they're paying for the 50 1.4, for example, which seems to be in endless supply at about $60 for a good sample)... the 135 is long, probably too long most of the time, but it looks great... and at 2.5 is in the fast enough zone that I expect it to be one of a few "go-to" lenses for me. For example... if I want to get in as close as possible... I will have use this over the 80-200, or 200, unless there is plenty of light. If I'm indoors in available light, or outdoors in low light, and need tele, this will be it. It looks great... really nice image, and plenty sharp. Highly Recommended if you get a good deal on one.
FD 200 4.0, like it, but will probably sell it and keep the 80-200. 200mm on the GH13 is long... it's loooong. This could be good for certain situations, and I want to be able to take advantage of this when the time comes. (I have some venues where I will use this and post the results... illustrating the value in this length) but I don't expect to use this lens too much. What I need to determine for myself... is what is easier? To use EITHER a fixed 200 OR an 80-200 at 200... and maintain focus and/or jitter-free footage when panning. If I have the same experience with both lenses then I'll keep the zoom, but... there's no doubt that the fixed 200 looks good. I'd actually say that this is another really good bang for the buck lens. The one I got was pretty cheap... and I keep seeing them pretty cheap. ($40ish?) To get the 80-200 zoom you gotta' go nearly twice that $.
FD Adapters:
Simply put, the ciecio7 adapter is the best adapter as far as I can tell. I bought a Pixco adapter first. There are many adapters on ebay that are "pixco style"... and the ciecio7 adapter is clearly better. Definitely worth the extra cost... and frankly there are some sellers who push the pixco type for the same or more! My Pixco adapter was $30 shipped. I may keep it and just leave it on one of the FD lenses, but there's no doubt I like the ciecio7 adapter best. This one's a no-brainer. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED.
A quick note on Low Light and/or available light shooting:
To put this in terms new guys can grasp. ISO 800 on the GH13 is considered the top-end ISO for acceptable quality if you plan to put your video on a bigger screen... in another words, beyond the internet. At ISO 800 I find f/2.0 (or faster) to be necessary in many nighttime, or dark interior, available light situations. If you're only going to the net, ISO 1600 may be OK for you, and in that case f/2.8 is acceptably fast for many situations. That said... for the GH13, faster is always better because it's better to have more speed (light gathering) and not need it, then to need more light (lens speed) and not have it. An f/2.0 at ISO 800 = an f/2.8 at ISO 1600... or an f/1.4 at ISO 800 = an f/2.0 at ISO 1600, etc.
Finally... when buying on ebay:
I've got 3 "stinkers" that I paid via Paypal... and was able to return/refund. One of them, a "minty" 50 1.4 arrived with a non-functioning aperture, and the seller only responded once I opened an ebay buyer protection case. The other one was the 35-70... and the seller was very cool about the return and refund... and the last was another 50 1.4 listed in "excellent" condition... which arrived with a dried liquid flower-design in it... like some substance was spilled/squirted into the focus ring and made it into the internal elements. I will show that lens later... as the seller gave me the option of a refund of the lens price, minus shipping, to keep the lens... vs. sending it back for a FULL refund (which would have netted me the same refund after return shipping costs). On that note... a "refund" means you get what you initially paid, including shipping... you will NOT get your return shipping paid. I don't consider $10-12 a big deal... but after 3x of that... I do get sick of the issue. I'm mentioning it because you should know it's a possibility... and I suggest that you accept this and not be a jerk to a seller if this happens to you. Sh*t happens in life... if you get a lens that isn't what you expected, well, it's not like getting cancer... eat the $10 and try again. We're all very lucky to be enjoying this adventure in an age when video suddenly got amazing (for cheap). :thumbsup:
