Is anyone else perturbed by the lens situation on the AF100?

[Finnegan]

I've been shooting on a Canon 7D for a while now, and have been looking for every opportunity to switch camera systems. I've gotten to that point where I feel like the camera is fighting me on every project I shoot where it should be helping me. The AF100 has been top of the list for systems I'm considering, but I simply can't bring myself to buy one given that all of the investments I've made in glass (all Canon L-series lenses) are unusable until the Birger mount comes out, and even then it's hard to make myself spend $700 just for the ability to use lenses I already have.

How have some of you adapted to the lens situation on the AF100, particularly those of you coming from HDSLR shooting? I'm at my wits end using the 7D.

 

[ScottNelson]

There have been dozens of threads and hundreds of posts about the lens issue. I, for one, am willing to wait for the Birger so that I WILL have the ability to use lenses I already own. The demo's I've seen on this site tell me it's worth the wait.

edit: I must add... in the meantime I have found a new delight and creative awakening in using my existing Nikkor and Canon FD primes that, a while ago, seemed destined to spend the rest of their lives on the shelf.

 

[Erik Naso]

I have two L lenses and I like them a lot. 70-200 f4 and 17-40 f4. Also a fast 50mm. I just ISO down and shoot wide open. Most of the time your going for that shallow look so your in the range. However $700 isn't that much considering the investment one makes on Canon L glass.

 

[Shooter]

I am perturbed by those that use lenses entirely unsuited for motion picture work that require cumbersome work arounds!

This camera deserves cine style lenses because it is a production camera.

There are a few select still lenses that serve it very , very well...

...then there are the others.

Depends what you want...pay, need or how much you will compromise.

More lenses wil emerge but who knows what they will be and who they wil be aimed at. ( we all wait with bated breath).

I will never buy or mount "electronic" lenses to my AF102. I am well served by rentable cine lenses, my own Nikkors, my own Contax Zeiss's. (All manual / allconstant aperture)

 

[CineStill]

Maybe you could buy some second hand Nikons or FD Canons to get you by until you have the Birger mount and then sell them probably for about the same money that you paid for them? There are some nice manual focus 1980's or 1990's Lenses that can do a great job, but at a very reasonable price.

 

[David G. Smith]

Maybe you could buy some second hand Nikons or FD Canons to get you by until you have the Birger mount and then sell them probably for about the same money that you paid for them? There are some nice manual focus 1980's or 1990's Lenses that can do a great job, but at a very reasonable price.

I went with manual Nikons when I got a Canon HD-DSLR and now that I am preparing to order an AF-100 I am glad I did. The first order of business after getting the camera is to have the Nikons cinevized, to further future proof that modest investment in lenses. While the above mentioned Birger mount may be the answer for the use of auto everything electronic controlled modern Canon glass on the AF-100, this camera is not going to be the end all, be all of cameras to come down the pike in the future. I know that with a set of F-mount Nikon lenses, designed for full frame 35mm, I should be able to adapt them to just about any camera that should come out. It might be a good idea to get a set of manual Nikons for the AF-100 now, and, since your Canon L glass should still hold most of it's value, sell the Canons and begin building a set of modern cinema style lenses, like the Zeiss CPs, with a cross camera mount like a PL mount. While you are building your set of lenses, there is a plethora of available rental lenses available to use on the AF-100.

So, to answer the OP question, no, I am not perturbed by the lens situation on the AF-100. I am excited by it actually.

 

[lrtv]

The Birger mount is not just a mount. It is a really cheap wireless ff/remote (even if you have to put up more dollars to acctually get the remote). Since I don't own wireless ff, and those cost quite a few $, but I do own Canon L. Birger will fill a nice place for my Glidecam work and also on cranes/jib/dolly shots. For run and gun 1 man band it will likely be less important. But Canon L is still good glass, especially if you already own them.
For me Birger is deffo worth waiting for. Get the 14-140, or Olympus, for now and then sell that on ebay as Birger comes out.

 

[Steve R]

For those (like me) favoring Nikon lenses - keep in mind that Birger is saying they'll also have a Nikon version of their wonder-mount out in November.

 

[astigmatic]

I've never liked filming with the new Canon L's. But the birger definitely addresses all my gripes about them.. if indeed it works as claimed.

 

[Sumfun]

For those (like me) favoring Nikon lenses - keep in mind that Birger is saying they'll also have a Nikon version of their wonder-mount out in November.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting. Birger has a history of being late, and they never made the Nikon mount for the Red camera. (Although I have to say that the Canon mount they made is very nice).

 

[Alpha Beta Omega]

I had the same dilemma when I got the AF and after a while got a set of Olympus/Voigtländer lenses and I'm keeping my Canon/Zeiss for my 5DmkII.

 

[RJS]

I'm not sure why they are unusable...there is the kipon adapter with a built in iris and the adaptimax adapter.

 

[hscully]

No, I'm pretty excited about the lens possibilities, not perturbed at all! I'm using Nikon primes with a "dumb" adapter and an Olympus 11-22 to pick up the wides.

 

[David W. Jones]

I'm low dollar on the lenses using mainly manual Zeiss C/Y with a few EF mount lenses thrown in.
Now thinking about purchasing a PL mount adapter/w Cine zoom.

 

[Benjamin Eckstein]

I am perturbed by those that use lenses entirely unsuited for motion picture work that require cumbersome work arounds!

This camera deserves cine style lenses because it is a production camera.

I don't think this comment is really that appropriate. Certainly I can understand YOU being perturbed by using still lenses YOURSELF, but why should you care what other people use? My hunch is that the majority of people purchasing this camera (at least from pictures I've seen of people's rigs on this forum) are using lenses designed originally for stills cameras. I guess, what's it to you if it's a pain in the butt for us? I've been working with still lenses with this camera (the wonderful Olympus 14-35 and 35-100) and feel that the cost/function/image trade-offs are worth it for what I do/deliver/create. Many are creating great things with this camera using lenses that aren't designed with motion picture in mind.

 

[dop16mm]

One of the problems being the first out with a propriety system. 4/3 has never grown beyond panasonic and olympus, does not have the user base to develop mass market lenses. m4/3 is largely viewed as a consumer format, barely better than point and shoot, so most still users will never remove the lens that came on the camera.

The af100 and gh2 have to ship in enough numbers and the manufacturers have to see a big enough receptive market to develop the product.

There needs to be a roadmap from panasonic that they will stick with this chip size and mount for the foreseeable future in a range of products from consumer camcorders to avc - intra varicam. The format is small enough that they should be able to produce purpose built zooms that are smaller lighter faster cheaper than s35. Yes ziess will release the compact primes in m4/3, but the glass is built for double the image circle and sized and priced to matched.

For now pick your poison. If you have money to invest in lenses, the only true investment grade is PL cinema glass. High end manual still glass, has been a niche market for some time, and that is not likely to change.

For canon L users I feel your pain. Just because a lens is expensive doesn't make it right for every job. Rumor has it that a true 35mm video camera from canon is waiting for new lens designs. The company the makes them don't think current lenses are good enough to bank a new camera on.

The marketing plan for the af 100 clearly states to adapt whatever lens you want for the system for now. Appropriate electronic lenses may come in time, but there is no guarantee.

 

[nitsel]

I don't think this comment is really that appropriate. Certainly I can understand YOU being perturbed by using still lenses YOURSELF, but why should you care what other people use? My hunch is that the majority of people purchasing this camera (at least from pictures I've seen of people's rigs on this forum) are using lenses designed originally for stills cameras. I guess, what's it to you if it's a pain in the butt for us? I've been working with still lenses with this camera (the wonderful Olympus 14-35 and 35-100) and feel that the cost/function/image trade-offs are worth it for what I do/deliver/create. Many are creating great things with this camera using lenses that aren't designed with motion picture in mind.

+1

 

[TimTheFoolMan]

One of the problems being the first out with a propriety system. 4/3 has never grown beyond panasonic and olympus, does not have the user base to develop mass market lenses. m4/3 is largely viewed as a consumer format, barely better than point and shoot, so most still users will never remove the lens that came on the camera.

If you assume that the target market is cinema-style shooting, there are already adapters for every common lens type. If you're looking for ENG-style shooting, there are some lenses already available, and more to come, but that's not necessarily the sweet spot for this camera.

That this is a "proprietary system" or "consumer format" is, at this stage, completely irrelevant. I can put full cinema lenses on this camera, with shimmable mounts. The fact that this camera uses the m4/3 format is one of its biggest advantages (IMHO) and not a disadvantage. - Tim

 

[Barry_Green]

4/3 has never grown beyond panasonic and olympus, does not have the user base to develop mass market lenses.

Except that Zeiss, Cosina, Voigtlander, Samyang, Schneider, and I forget who else, have already joined, some are making lenses now, and others will be introducing them. And the toughest lens to find of all, is an m43 lens, the Voigtlander 25mm.

So far 4/3 and m4/3 bodies are only made by Panasonic and Olympus, true. But as for lenses, I don't think that was a fair characterization. Granted it's still early days, but it's coming. And, for that matter, there are more lens adapters and more flexibility with an m4/3 body than any other camera on the market. You can mount a wider variety of lenses on m4/3 than on anything else. Whether those various lenses are appropriate for cine use, is another question.

The marketing plan for the af 100 clearly states to adapt whatever lens you want for the system for now. Appropriate electronic lenses may come in time, but there is no guarantee.

Agreed, there is no guarantee. The Birger should go a long way towards satisfying those who want to use Canon and Nikon lenses, and Zeiss and Schneider have both said they are going to produce electronic lenses although no time frame was given.

 

[Barry_Green]

I don't think this comment is really that appropriate.

Shooter's comment may have come off harsh, but there is certainly some truth in it. Let me see if I can rephrase it in a way that wouldn't be deemed inappropriate...

Stills camera lenses were never designed to be used in a motion picture environment. There is a very good reason (in fact, there are dozens of reasons) why specific lenses were developed for cinema cameras. After all, there's a reason that cinema cameras don't use Nikon lenses and never have. (granted, you could always get a Nikon mount manufactured for some cinema cameras, heck, I even have one, but -- look through American Cinematographer and count the number of times someone's shot with Nikons on their "A" camera -- it's pretty much unheard of).

It's not that the lenses aren't sharp, because they are. It's that the lenses are designed around the task of taking still photographs, and aren't designed for the type of things that can happen in a motion shot. Cinema lenses are (usually) far better, far far better, at precise focus, at minimizing breathing during a shot, and at zooming cleanly and holding focus (on the cine zooms). SLR lenses don't have to do any of those things -- they autofocus at a beep, their focus rings are (usually) very short travel and mildly or moderately or even wildly miscalibrated, and cine zooms are typically horrible for use during a shot.

So, look -- it's not that we don't recognize that everyone wants to have cinema-style performance on a Nikon-sized budget. Everyone wants that. But the simple fact is -- stills lenses aren't well suited to that job. Case in point -- the Olympus lenses. Sharp as hell, beautiful glass, and clicky/clacky noisy nastiness when adjusting the aperture or zooming. Perfectly appropriate for shooting stills, and infuriating for shooting cinema -- at least for me, although others may find that they're perfectly happy with the price/performance/compromise ratios.

The Lumix lenses -- cheap, sharp, and some of them even have silent autofocus. But the iris response is simply *terrible*. Way too slow and imprecise, and it would bring tears of joy to some folks used to working with it if they were to try a genuine cinema lens with its seamless, slick as glass iris ring. I still have a complete set of 'em, as they're inexpensive, tiny, have electronic functions, and make my AF100 and GH2 more usable than using a set of cinema primes allow, but I recognize their shortcomings.

My hunch is that the majority of people purchasing this camera (at least from pictures I've seen of people's rigs on this forum) are using lenses designed originally for stills cameras.

I agree totally, and I don't see that changing any time soon. Cinema glass is usually inordinately more expensive, and the AF100 is a low-cost camera. People are going to use stills lenses with it.

I guess, what's it to you if it's a pain in the butt for us?

I think the frustration comes about when people are using a lens that's not designed for the job, and they blame the camera for it. If you don't like how a lens works with the camera, blame the lens. Simple. But not everybody does that, and it gets tedious having to repeat the same things over and over and over.

Now, with the Birger, it's possible that Canon stills lenses will be more suitable than most. Erik of Birger understands what a cinema shooter needs, and he's made products for other cinema cameras before. Maybe he will be able to get it right, and maybe the Canon lenses would prove to have adequate performance for cine-style usage with the Birger. We don't know the answers to that yet, although from those who saw the demo, it does look promising.

I've been saying for the last two years, the reason nobody had made a large-sensor video camera is able to be summed up in one word: lenses. There are no ENG-style lenses that will cover a large sensor, and whether many video camera users will admit it or not, that's really kind of what they want -- a lens that gives them all the ENG features and capabilities they've become used to. And it simply doesn't exist, at any price, from any manufacturer in the world. I think the AF100 exists primarily because the 14-140 *almost* does that job. When used with the AF100, it gives a reasonable facsimile of a video camera.

So now that a large-sensor video camera exists, what are people complaining about? Predictably -- lenses...


I just wish the AF100 had a windowed 720p mode, because I've got some inexpensive 16mm cinema lenses and an S16 zoom that would be totally price-appropriate and true cinema glass that would be ideal for use with the AF100. A $799 true cinema PL-mount 17.5-70 f/2.2 zoom lens, how many of you would want that? Raise your hands... oh, wow, I can't even see you anymore through the sea of hands! Well, that's what I just bought, brand new, for my S16 camera, but it vignettes on the sides of the frame on the AF100 because the AF100's sensor is just too big. A windowed 720p though, heck... that might be pretty sweet.

So -- give the manufacturers another month so we can see what they're doing at NAB. Maybe there will be some announcements, from Angeniuex and Fujinon and Zeiss and Schneider and others. You have to also factor in that historically, cinema lenses have sold in VERY low quantities. I just bought a Zeiss 22-154 cinema lens, and from what little research I have been able to do, there were apparently only about a hundred of them made in history. How many Arri BL4's were made? A thousand (wild guess)? Panasonic's selling more than a thousand AF100's every month. Between the AF100, and the NXCAM S35, and the F3, and the Red One and now Red Epic, the market for cinema glass has never been hotter. Cinema glass is more in demand now than ever before. And while PL is the safest bet, you can get a PL adapter for the AF100 for $199. (probably not a GOOD one, but ... hey, you can get one...)

I think PL is the way for cine-style shooters to go, because all of the current and proposed cine cameras can take PL glass natively or with a (relatively inexpensive) adapter. I've spent tens of thousands of dollars on PL glass for those reasons. There's nothing "magical" about the PL mount, but lenses that are designed for cinema use are made in PL mount, and lenses designed for stills use are made in Nikon, Canon, or m43 mount.

For those who are willing to soldier on with the compromises of using stills glass for cine use, go right ahead, just please focus in on where the shortcoming is and don't blame the camera for shortcomings in the glass. And if you want recommendations for stills glass that can be used well in a cinema environment, the Zeiss ZF's are pretty dang exquisite, especially if you de-click the iris ring. The Voigtlander 25mm is almost as good, only drawback there is that it apparently would be inordinately expensive to de-click the iris.

I've been working with still lenses with this camera (the wonderful Olympus 14-35 and 35-100) and feel that the cost/function/image trade-offs are worth it for what I do/deliver/create. Many are creating great things with this camera using lenses that aren't designed with motion picture in mind.

They certainly are, and I'm sure that will continue, especially when we're still in the throes of the recession, and I think that price-conscious customers who are choosing the AF100 instead of the Red One, are more likely to also seek out lower-cost lenses than a Red One shooter might be. As long as people understand what compromises they're making by choosing stills glass, and they find that they are willing to work around those compromises, then there's nothing wrong with that at all and I'm sure much tremendous work will be done with that combination.