Legacy long telephoto lenses on GH4 (4K video mode)

[Maest]

I am thinking to try vintage (legacy) long telephoto lenses for shooting in UHD with GH4.
I will shoot b-roll static shots rather then pans, whatever motives I can capture around seashore (birds, crabs, people, boats, clouds, waves...).


Idea is not to use metabones SB but go with dumb adapters (with lens built-it iris control) so that I don't lose the benefitt of crop factor (200mm with dumb adapter in GH4 UHD video mode is ~440mm equivalent in FF terms).


My concerns are:
-What would be more usefull focal lenth (in responce to vibration, stability of a tripod...) 200 or 300 or 400mm lens?
I've been browsing ebay and I can see quite a few affordable 200-300mm range lenses.
I assume longer then that can not be properly handled by travel tripod and low cost fluid heads? Right?
Longest I use so far is lumix 14-140/4-5.8 and strange enough, sometimes just doesn't feel long enough and yet, jittery image when camera in on tripod on a windy day (its always windy on a seashore) makes me wanna throw my equipment in the water out of frustration.


Second concern is image quality and matching with my other optics (panasonic m43 native lenses, and eventualy nikon mount sigma 18-35 and tokina 11-16). I hope UHD video is more forgiving then proper m43/FF photography when legacy lenses are used. Correct?
I was thinking in getting M42/nikkor/FD lenses.
Seems like it all depends on a the individual piece, same model is both praised and cursed at the same timeby different users.


My guess is that in these focal lenths (200-300mm), AF doesn't offer much benefits, and manual focusing,even though challenging, can be useful if one is carefull and skilled? No?


Anybody with experience in this field??Any recomnedations in terms of legacy prime lenses that I should look for?

 

[JeffD7K]

I've used a Nikon 300mm AFS f4 with OM and Gx8 cameras. You will need to spend at least $800-1000 on a tripod head setup. Best to just get the Pan-Leica 100-400mm - amazing lens and AF is great.
You can then use a fairly small tripod (think CF Manfrotto 055 & something like a 501 head) IMHO.

 

[Mark Williams]

I use the Olympus 75-300mm and it does pretty good for $450. I researched vintage glass to go cheap and the results I found were disappointing. If you have the money then the Panasonic 100-400 is the way to go $1800. For the subjects you are shooting auto focus would be desirable. Vintage glass will not do that.
[h=1][/h]

 

[JeffD7K]

I also have the 75-300 II and for the price it is an amazing lens....Better than the Pany 100-300 I think for focus speed.

 

[Maest]

Hey Guys, thank you so much for your fast responses!!! Even though you ruined it for me


I was hoping that my "brilliant plot" would work but it seems that it doesn't


I fully trust your opinion but I don't think I can apply your solutions. I have catch-22 to overcome:
I don't want to invest in m43 because Pan/Oly didn't convinced me I should, and my shooting/creative style wants to eliminate millers, sachtlers and other tripods that demand extra sherpas to carry them on location!
My goal is to minimize my equipment, stress and budget and to maximase pleasure and joy of shooting! And 200/300mm Supartakumars or Ai-s would fitt to that nicely if it would work! Alas, now it turns out it will not...
(Are they realy so inferior opticly to modern glass?)


Now, if I opt to spend some cash, it will definatly not be m43, so how do I go about if I decide to invest in modern Nikon/Canon 70-300 range and use the IS when dumb adapters don't allow it?


I do think that in photography AF is a blessing!
But when videograph lets say a seagull walking along shore, I believe there are mor chance to keep him in focus with 300/4 manual lens then with GH4 AF focus tracking function. Am I wrong?

 

[Mark Williams]

"I believe there are mor chance to keep him in focus with 300/4 manual lens then with GH4 AF focus tracking function. Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Buy used gear to spend as little as possible. I bought my 75-300 used in like new condition from a forum member here. If I change to another camera format I will just sell my gear to recoup the cost. There are probably few people that go as "light" gear wise and cost wise as I do.

 

[deltoidjohn]

Long lenses and cheap tripods do not mix very well. Especially if you're talking vintage lenses without IS.

Vintage lenses were great when m4/3rds first came out because we were shooting 1080p and there were fewer native options, but these days with 4K they're often not sharp enough - even more so because you are using a ~2.3x center crop and effectively zooming in on the flaws of the lens.

 

[Mark Williams]

I use a Benro S6 tripod and head. I think I paid $300. It is plenty sturdy with the Olympus 75-300.

 

[Joshua Cadmium]

I've had good results with the Tamron Adaptall 2 80-200mm f2.8 (http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/30A.html). I've used it with no problems on a cheap tripod, when balancing it on it's tripod foot with the camera hanging off the back.

The only issue is that it's a push pull zoom, so zooming while filming is either completely out or is not going to look great.

 

[Maest]

@Mark


Are you saying that AF of GH4 with m43 lens is working better then MF when long telephoto is used? Hard to believe with AF performace on my GH4....If rack focusing on a subject at these distances (30-50ft), I have a feeling GH4 AF performance is useless...


Yes, I agree, NEVER BUY NEW lenses, unless there is obviously something wrong with the used copy you would opt for! Its wrong to encourage the retailers that their mark up prices are OK for their new products )))
(Used 12-35/2.8 <650$ in my case> when brought to check up/clean up service can still cost less then new one in the store (and brand new can still be dirty and a lemon copy and it takes time to figure out if something is malfunctioning with it too).


I use Benro too (enforced with heavy backpack attached on center column with my weird rig and it seems that 200/300mm would be a limit for 2.4 crop static shot (pan is probably impossible; for pans you probably have to go miller/libec etc...which in my case I am not willing to do!).


@Joshua
, how do you find Tamron image/optics wise in regard what DeltoidJohn is saying? Is is soft (when stoped down to F4?) and not resolving enough resolution in 4K? Zooming while shooting wIth DSLR lenses...hmmmm....I admire anybody who does it and gets acceptable result.


I wish that m43 lenses are worth of investment for me. But it seems that neither panasonic not olympus is willing to make camera that makes it competitive on the market. Which might be said for lenses too
I jumped on GH4 and m43 not because its so much better then others but because is less worse than others. And relativelyvless expensive for what it offers. With next cycle of 4K cameras (new 5D and new Sonys; which will also lower C300 prices) I expect m43 users to abandon the ship very fast. Me first!
(Unless GH5 is realy significantly upgraded, but according to rummors, thats not gonna be the case).


Anybody used Nikkor Ai-s telephotos on GH4?

 

[Bruce Foreman]

@Mark

Are you saying that AF of GH4 with m43 lens is working better then MF when long telephoto is used? Hard to believe with AF performace on my GH4....If rack focusing on a subject at these distances (30-50ft), I have a feeling GH4 AF performance is useless...

Whoa there, Pardner! Need to lose a bit of your attitude.

Mark knows what he is talking about and backs it up in his work. Take a look at his various projects shot with the GH4 and the lenses he uses...Outstanding technical quality all the way. Here's a link to one on this site (click on vimeo to see many others):

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?344556-Nature-Video&highlight=mark+williams

Yes, I agree, NEVER BUY NEW lenses, unless there is obviously something wrong with the used copy you would opt for! Its wrong to encourage the retailers that their mark up prices are OK for their new products )))
(Used 12-35/2.8 <650$ in my case> when brought to check up/clean up service can still cost less then new one in the store (and brand new can still be dirty and a lemon copy and it takes time to figure out if something is malfunctioning with it too).

I've purchased a lot of used m4/3 lenses, a couple from this site and several from mu-43.com. Not a problem with any of them, most looked brand new and all have been good performers.

I use Benro too (enforced with heavy backpack attached on center column with my weird rig and it seems that 200/300mm would be a limit for 2.4 crop static shot (pan is probably impossible; for pans you probably have to go miller/libec etc...which in my case I am not willing to do!).

I use carbon fiber sticks from Velbon (weighted down similar to what you do) with a Manfrotto 501 head. Max focal length I have at present is 200mm but pans with drag properly adjusted are no real problem for me.

I expect m43 users to abandon the ship very fast. Me first!

You can speak for yourself, not for me. I've got the GH4, G7, and GX7 bodies and a fair inventory of both primes and zooms in M4/3s. Used to work with Canon 7D, 60D, T3i and a few "L" series lenses. In terms of image quality, sharpness, etc. I've given up nothing going with Panasonic and Olympus lenses; I'm professionally experienced enough to make the best of what's in my hands at any given moment. I'll be staying with the smaller lighter, less costly gear for the forseeable future.

Anybody used Nikkor Ai-s telephotos on GH4?

Now for my reasons for not going vintage lenses much. I've been a "sharpness nut" all my career, worked in medium format as much as possible (Hasselblad, Mamiya RB-67, and 70mm) until digital took over. When I saw Bruce Dale's "Summer Morning" shot with a pre-production stock GH2, the stunning sharpness and detail in that caused me to dump my Canon gear and go m4/3.

https://vimeo.com/14725884

I've got Nikon F to m4/3s adapters and borrowed a few Nikon F, AI, and AI-s lenses to try out (I even have a few left over from my Nikon days). They are somewhat soft (even stopped down) compared to my m4/3 primes especially. I keep a couple of 50mm (one F and one AI-s), a 24mm, and a 135mm on hand with a focal reducer for when I want to emulate an older less sharp kind of cinematic look. But I just don't use them much at all.

For nature, wildlife, and documentary stuff I'd do as much like Mark Williams does as I could.

 

[Maest]

Appologies to Mark and to you Bruce if you felt that I am demonstrating harsh attitude towards Mark or anybody else.
I especiely didn't wanted to question anyobody's expertise and quality of work!
Maybe its my english or whatever, but anyhow I don't want anybody to feel attacked, so please tak my appologies!


I was simply inquiring about Mark's statement if he could clarify it:
Is it realy possible to shoot a bird or a human, moving, with AF rack focusing on GH4 (just to make sure we are on a same page here, I am talking VIDEO not PHOTO shooting)?
On my GH4 camera, AF hunts so much that rack focusing is useless in rack focusing in video! if one wants to do it propertly, it has to do it in MF mode.
I never shot 200mm rack focusing, but knowing how GH4 AF works, I assume its easier to track a subject manualy (from lets say seagull moving moderate speed from 50ft to 60ft distance).
I would like to know how Mark or anybody else does it with AF and is that where I was wrong (Mark just said "yes you're wrong!" And then went on to elaborate on used lenses market! Which is preaching to the choir in a way since I prefer used leses market myself


Thanks for the info, I am glad to hear 200mm paning is possible with low end fluid heads and no drawvacks. So much the better for all of us!


I switched from canon to m43 for similar reason like yours. But then I realized that I need wide angles and low light, and especialy superior photography which sadly m43 desn not offer!
We can go to fruitless argument here but if one wants to be fair, one has to admitt that m43 photo capabilities are simply not au pair with FF systems. Maybe the fact that Canon 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.8 cost a third of their m43 cunterparts (25/1.4 and 42.5/1.2 panaleicas) has something to do with me regreting been in m43 now when I shoot portraits. And like myself, I know several lumixerians who are waiting for GH5 to see in which direction they will go, because all the rummors are, our expectations will not be met by GH5 so we'll have to switch over to something else!


But I am glad that you are happy with it and that you don't miss anything. Even better, if we get disapponted in m43 system, there will be more used inexpensive m43 lenses for sale on a market for you

 

[Mark Williams]

Yes the GH4 continuous autofocus hunts some but it is superior in my experience to manual focusing. With a lot of practice I can make due with it in most situations. Now Canon AF in the new cameras is beautifully implemented and Panasonic would be wise to copy in the GH5. For photos I agree that the GH4 is inferior to full frame with good glass. For me it is all about trade offs of weight, image quality and price. That is why I use the m4/3. It kind of sounds like you need to go back to Canon gear.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Appologies to Mark and to you Bruce if you felt that I am demonstrating harsh attitude towards Mark or anybody else.

Actually my reply should not have been so "confrontive". This is after all, just a discussion.

I was simply inquiring about Mark's statement if he could clarify it:
Is it realy possible to shoot a bird or a human, moving, with AF rack focusing on GH4 (just to make sure we are on a same page here, I am talking VIDEO not PHOTO shooting)?
On my GH4 camera, AF hunts so much that rack focusing is useless in rack focusing in video! if one wants to do it propertly, it has to do it in MF mode.

I think I've had more luck rack focusing using the LCD touchscreen. I usually try to avoid having to "refocus" using the shutter button half press while actually recording unless I'm prepared to use a "cutaway" in the edit process.

I never shot 200mm rack focusing, but knowing how GH4 AF works, I assume its easier to track a subject manualy (from lets say seagull moving moderate speed from 50ft to 60ft distance).
I would like to know how Mark or anybody else does it with AF

Modern "focus by wire" design on lenses makes manual focus tracking really hard to do accurately (I had the same problem with most of my Canon EF lenses), I guess that's why Mark feels AF works better for him with the m4/3s lenses. This is where the appeal of using vintage lenses comes in, the focusing ring directly drives the lens focus and gives you good "tactile" feedback in the process.

Thanks for the info, I am glad to hear 200mm paning is possible with low end fluid heads and no drawbacks.

It does take frequent practice on my part to keep the "feel" for doing it, but it can work.

I switched from canon to m43 for similar reason like yours. But then I realized that I need wide angles and low light, and especialy superior photography which sadly m43 desn not offer!
We can go to fruitless argument here but if one wants to be fair, one has to admitt that m43 photo capabilities are simply not au pair with FF systems. Maybe the fact that Canon 50mm/1.4 and 85mm/1.8 cost a third of their m43 poo pooerparts (25/1.4 and 42.5/1.2 panaleicas) has something to do with me regreting been in m43 now when I shoot portraits. And like myself, I know several lumixerians who are waiting for GH5 to see in which direction they will go, because all the rummors are, our expectations will not be met by GH5 so we'll have to switch over to something else!

I'm a retired still professional photographer, at 72 (6 years ago) I made the switch to m4/3s to get away from "lugging" heavier gear around, my back still thanks me! I found that (for me) any shortcomings in image look of Panasonic Lumix stills compared to APS-C sensor formats was easily taken care of with about 30 seconds in PhotoShop. Full frame does make it easier but some of my colleagues were getting 16x20 and 30x40 inch prints from 6 MP sensor gear in 2000 when that was what we had to work with. Those prints could not be told apart from ones made from 6x7cm color negatives.

So we make the most of what we have.

But I am glad that you are happy with it and that you don't miss anything. Even better, if we get disapponted in m43 system, there will be more used inexpensive m43 lenses for sale on a market for you

I've been picking up "bargains" in used m4/3s lenses for a long time. What I have now was acquired over a 6 year period, not all at once. For portrait my most used lenses are the Panasonic 42.5mm f1.8 (fast enough but still very light) and the Olympus 75mm f1.8 (that one COST! But I just HAD to have it - still found "open box" special on it).

Hope you found this reply a bit more helpful.