Invest in m4/3rd lenses or plunge into the PL world?

A

Andor

Active member
I have a few Canon FD's and the 20mm pancake / 14-140 zoom. At first I was eyeballing the Scarlet or some other camera all together, but honestly... Nothing seems more attractive than the GH2 I already have!

So, I figure it's time to invest in lenses!

Pros for PL:
-Possibly better quality? (I've never tested one on my GH2, so I won't judge the image til I see it myself).
-Definitely useable on future camera options.
-Makes me worth more to clients

Pros for m4/3rd:
-There's basically like two lenses I could add (0.95 and the other zoom)
-The cost of one of those lenses would be the cost of the mount for PL alone...
-Less of a loss if I trash it on accident (unlikely if you see how I baby them)
-Could spend the money on other things

I'm strictly narrative, if that affects anything. I'm also positive I'll eventually own a RED or similar camera with a PL mount that I would use PL lenses on.
 
A camera is never an investment. The camera will depreciate rapidly. Not to say we shouldn't buy them, they are such amazing creatures of the light. Consider legacy primes for a serious boost in IQ.
 
Got a Nikkor 35mm 2.0 and a Nikkor 55mm 2.8 macro. plus my cheap 20mm 1.7 m4/3 pancake. I'm ready.
I'm now looking in wider lens, and for this I may have to go the m4/3 road as extra wide lens are not so common in old lens.
 
My thoughts when starting to invest in PL mount glass... Start with something that will deliver the most bang for the buck right out of the gate. Something like the Red 17-50 zoom would cover a lot of ground, with the Duclos 11-16 to cover the wide end of things. Once you have your bread and butter covered, then you can start to pick primes as needed.
 
Here are some pro and cons but it really comes down to what you are going to be doing with it.

CON:
I personally think the PL glass on a DSLR is a mistake unless you have a real good reason to do it. Yes the best glass in the world in a PL mount but you will probably not be getting that. 200K+ in glass on a GH2 is just silly.

PL mount lens are big, take longer to set up and are expensive. If you are running without an AC. I would get some zeiss ZF's and be done with it, maybe a nikon 17-24, 24-70, 70-200mm....... ect

Pl costs money to maintain, do you have a lens tech around?

PRO:
PL hold value. Also If you do have a AC they will be happy. Maybe you can make money from rentals. You can get something fun like round front anamorphic's and make some cash on the side renting them out. I hear that the Duclos is also a popular rental. The red 17-50mm not-so-much.

PL mount lens are an investment that can pay you back with some planing.
 
I've honestly never looked at Nikon glass. Is there a way to get it to work natively with the GH2 (as that + cheapness is what makes m4/3rd attractive).

I appreciate all the input! Does anyone know a good guide to learning about PL lenses? I'm still considering them since I know they're future proofing.
 
Andor said:
I've honestly never looked at Nikon glass. Is there a way to get it to work natively with the GH2 (as that + cheapness is what makes m4/3rd attractive).
I appreciate all the input! Does anyone know a good guide to learning about PL lenses? I'm still considering them since I know they're future proofing.
Click to expand...
There is no native lens except for m4/3 lens. You need an adapter. I would advise not to do the same stupid thing than me and go with a good quality adapter as the cheap ones simply don't work and degrades your lens quality. Also all Nikon or any adapter lens will become manual on the gh2. Only micro four thirds and four thirds+adapter will do autofocus and iris and OIS.

el3nd1l said:
Why Nikon and not Canon FD, for example? Wider choice of lenses?
Click to expand...
Because you can mount Nikon lens on your canon body with an adapter, you can't mount your canon lens on a nikon. Making nikon the most future proof solution. Canon FDs are good too though, but you are stuck if you want to buy a Nikon body.
 
Phenixone said:
There is no native lens except for m4/3 lens. You need an adapter. I would advise not to do the same stupid thing than me and go with a good quality adapter as the cheap ones simply don't work and degrades your lens quality. Also all Nikon or any adapter lens will become manual on the gh2. Only micro four thirds and four thirds+adapter will do autofocus and iris and OIS.


Because you can mount Nikon lens on your canon body with an adapter, you can't mount your canon lens on a nikon. Making nikon the most future proof solution. Canon FDs are good too though, but you are stuck if you want to buy a Nikon body.
Click to expand...

Isn't it so that you can't mount FD lenses on any modern Canon camera(5D,7D,T2i)?
 
You can't mount the FD lenses on a modern (EF mount) Canon without additional glass between them, or loss of infinity focus.

The same restrictions would exist for mounting Canon lenses on a Nikon camera, or any other mounting situation that goes in reverse with respect to flange distance.

Any of them would mount on m4/3 rather easily, but the wide angles can get expensive, as they would be extremely wide-angle on the 35mm cams, such that the vast majority of them are fisheyes.

When comparing to EF lenses, the Nikon lenses also have the advantage of mechanical iris control, such that there are m4/3 adaptors that provide a ring to manually set the aperture/iris on the Nikon lenses which don't have their own, something which can't readily be done on the EF lenses.
 
So my final conclusion is: Invest in a good Nikon adapter, get some old manual Nikon lens for 25mm and up and buy some m3/4 lens for wider.

I personally have the following from wide to tele:
m4/3 - 12mm F1.6 Noktor - SLR Magic - (not yet, but will get it when it rolls out)
m4/3 - 20mm F1.7 pancake - Panasonic - (so tiny and sharp)
Nikon - 35mm F2.0 Nikkor - Nikon AI-s - (also look for the F1.4 version but more expensive)
Nikon - 55mm F2.8 macro Nikkor - Nikon - (already owned it)
m4/3 - 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 HD Zoom - Panasonic - (I use it for outdoor and tele with OIS)
 
Last edited:
This is my curent line up and what is on my buy list.

Tonkina 11-16mm f2.8
Panasonic 20mm f1.7
Zeiss ZF 35mm F2
Zeiss ZF 50mm F1.4
Zeiss ZF 85mm F1.4 - (getting this one soon)
Nikon 105mm F1.8 - (also on my buy list)
 
@Phenixone
YES and no...... I guess it depends.

The first thing I will say is pre-hack I could not tell the deference in any modern lens they all looked the same to me with only minor deferences if you pixel peeped. Today I can start seeing some IQ issues but at the end of the day its still very minor and really the diference between nikon ai-s and zeiss zf is not that huge. Hell I have a $20 FED lens that @ f5.6 look almost as good as my ZF lenes.

In the case of the 35mm F2, it is better then the ai-s f2 and just a little better then the nikon 35mm f1.8G. Wide open the ZF is a true winner and at f2.8 its amazing.

In the case of the 50mm F1.4 it only gets better at F4 wide open they are very similar.

The special sause with zeiss is micro contrast and now with the hack we can resolve it.....sometimes...... Its what gives zeiss that 3d pop when you have your subject razor sharp and you have just the right amount of shallow DOF. Something like shooting about a f4 if your subject is 2 meters from you. (on the 50mm zf)

Now we are talking about video here, but for photos the deference is huge. A lot of people prefer the more neutral look of nikon. Check out samples on flicker.

In conclusion its worth it for me because I am starting to do more photography and I like the zeiss look. If you are expecting a huge IQ increase in your video you will be disappointed at least for now. Maybe on a sony F3 the deference would there....... I don't know. So YMMV.
 
el3nd1l said:
Why Nikon and not Canon FD, for example? Wider choice of lenses?
Click to expand...

Lens to lens Nikons are going to run higher than Canon FD, there is still a lot of demand on MF Nikons from Nikon based still photographers. The Canon FDs won't work on current Canon EF mount without either an optical-adapter or in some cases special mount modifications (there are people out there that can do it). I can't imagine anyone with a Nikon still camera would buy anything but Nikon lenses so I won't even go there. But. . .in terms of IQ: Nikon and Canon were just as competitive in the 60s, 70s and 80s as they are now, focal length to focal length there is a Canon FD that will generally match or exceed a Nikon. You can put together a hell of a good set of Canon FD primes for $500.
 
I think that PL lenses are rentals and they are super cheap when considering what they cost to buy. I agree with what others have said about the Nikon glass and I do like those Zeiss lenses too. I also think that investing in micro 4/3 lenses is a great deal cause the cameras will be around for a while to come, and then if and when you decide to change cameras you can sell the lenses.

I've already bought and flipped a few lenses and I've made money on all of them, except some 16mm lenses that I lost some cash on, but not too much. I do also think that the micro 4/3ds offer amazing bang for your buck on the wide range as I picked up the 12mm 1.6... WHICH, is actually in T-stops and there's no Fstop clicks. I think it will give that Duclos 11-16 a run for it's money..... at a fraction of the price. I like the Tokina version but it's more expensive and I only ever used it at 11 or 12 anyway...

I also agree that the FD lenses are a great option on the GH2. I bought a 50mm 1.4 for 50 bucks in mint condition. Then I got a 35mm F2 for 80 bucks and an 85mm 1.8 for like 70 bucks. Hard to beat that and the adapters that i bought work really well.... Incredibly well.

I also advise buying adapters for each lens. Switching and mounting them all is a PITA. Then go out and buy some micro 4/3 mounting caps for 3 bucks a piece and you are golden... Already adapted and ready to go!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top