Lens Noob Zone - Simply Questions and Answers

TheReverend

TheReverend

Well-known member
I have a strong feeling and impression that many of the fixed lens (HMC/DVX/HVX/HPX) users such as myself on this forum that have not been on the 35mm Adapter bandwagon are looking at the AF-100 as the next big step. I'm excited about the new world of creative possibilities and excellent picture quality.

But I like many don't know a darn thing about photography lenses, and it even gets more complicated as you look at adapting these lenses to micro4/3s.

This is NOT the place for random bantering about what lens you want, or are looking at, or prefer. This thread should be less about discussion, opinion and the theoretical, but simply questions that receive answers from those kind enough to give them!

This being said, for those of you with SPECIFIC QUESTIONS about a lens or adaptor or such, post it here! Hopefully those that know can come here and answer the question quickly and easily. I may possibly assemble info to common questions here in the OP for efficient use.
 
Last edited:
Question:
On a lens such as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8, how does Image Stabilization work with AF100? Would that be a desirable feature for shooting with the Af100?

Question:
Do autofocus lens features on non m4/3s lens work on the AF100?

Question:
If a lens doesn't have a manual aperture control, the only way make the lens aperture usable is to have an adapter that has aperture control, correct?
 
i would try to stay the best you can away from AF lenses. my main point is because AF should be used as little as possible in my opinion. given the motor in them for AF features on DSLR, the focus ring is not smooth, fluid and often the image may "jump" while you pull focus. it is not a pleasing feeling pulling focus with a cheap plastic ring. the focus throw also is way too short on AF lenses. if you zoomed in to say the 200mm you say, a few millimeters on the lens may move you a whole foot in your focal point (roughly), which will not look eye pleasing nor dramatic. And due to these motors needed in AF lenses, they are very expensive, basically paying for something you do not need. Manual nikon glass (AI or AIS) are great prices, just have to search for a good deal and good condition ones.

as for the aperture, yes, you need a manual ring on the lens, otherwise it is uncontrollable. which i prefer, again, more like a traditional film camera feel. if you are looking at this camera as video, wait for an adapter with sensors for other lenses.

my advice and opinion is if you are using this camera to move your image quality to a nice cinematic feel, i would not go AF. really cannot beat manual glass, i know i will stay away the best i can unless the situation may call for AF. hope this helps some, im sure many others here will give their insight.
 
danielc said:
i would try to stay the best you can away from AF lenses. my main point is because AF should be used as little as possible in my opinion. given the motor in them for AF features on DSLR, the focus ring is not smooth, fluid and often the image may "jump" while you pull focus. it is not a pleasing feeling pulling focus with a cheap plastic ring. the focus throw also is way too short on AF lenses. if you zoomed in to say the 200mm you say, a few millimeters on the lens may move you a whole foot in your focal point (roughly), which will not look eye pleasing nor dramatic. And due to these motors needed in AF lenses, they are very expensive, basically paying for something you do not need. Manual nikon glass (AI or AIS) are great prices, just have to search for a good deal and good condition ones.

as for the aperture, yes, you need a manual ring on the lens, otherwise it is uncontrollable. which i prefer, again, more like a traditional film camera feel. if you are looking at this camera as video, wait for an adapter with sensors for other lenses.

my advice and opinion is if you are using this camera to move your image quality to a nice cinematic feel, i would not go AF. really cannot beat manual glass, i know i will stay away the best i can unless the situation may call for AF. hope this helps some, im sure many others here will give their insight.
Click to expand...

He really didn't ask for your opinion about the value of autofocus.
 
1) The AF-100 has no internal stabilization -- it relies on the lens having an OIS built in. The kit lens does, some other m4/3 lenses do, the Nikon you ask about doesn't. No stabilization with that lens.

2) The camera must communicate with the lens for autofocus -- so again, the kit lens yes, some other m4/3 lenses yes ... unless someone offers a very clever adapter & the lens you try understands it, you will have no autofocus with adapter-mounted lenses.

3) Yes, again the adapter has to understand how to pass the information along, or the lens has be offer a manual mode.

HTH

GB
 
Birger Engineering, who did the adapters for the Red One, is reputed to be developing electronic adapters for the AF100. It has been stated that they are doing the Canon EOS adapter first and the Nikon adapter second. Since the AF100 won't be out for awhile yet there's a good chance the adapter will be out contemporaneously with the camera.
 
I would like to know about non m4/3 lenses with image stabilization. In Canon and Nikon glass, does IS require power from the camera, and as such an electronic connection?
 
TheReverend said:
Exactly... Anyone have answers to my questions three? :D
Click to expand...

It is these types of responses that will prevent you getting good answers to your questions. DanielC not only answered your questions, but went further to explain the why's behind it. This was met with a snippy retort, and then your comment out of ignorance.

RGBaker has given the specific answers to your question, and I hope they met with your approval.

Best of luck as you begin to navigate the waters into the complex world of cinema style cameras. Apparently, you prefer the more difficult path.
 
PerroneFord said:
It is these types of responses that will prevent you getting good answers to your questions. DanielC not only answered your questions, but went further to explain the why's behind it. This was met with a snippy retort, and then your comment out of ignorance.
Click to expand...
Actually, I knew what Daniel was taking about and his opinion is great. But I wasn't asking for that, just specific information that I couldn't find elsewhere. No snippyness. Looking for a simple answer. (The smiley was cause I "quoted" Monty python and the holy Grail... Who can answer me these questions three... ;) )

And thank you for answering Jesse's question!
 
Great Thread Reverend. I myself am in the same boat, not knowing anything about these type of lenses. I've been trying to pick the brain of photographers that I've been working with lately to get a feel for what lenses they are using for different lighting situations. Some photographers are shooting with a lens that has an F stop of 2.8 indoors in low light, where as I have to shoot with 12db gain on my XHA-1 without an on camera light. Can anyone tell me what f stop lens will equate to the stock lens on the A1? The lens on the A1 is a 4.5-90mm 1:1.6-3.5. I really can't wrap my head around what the other lenses mean on the Af100 until I can compare it to what I'm used to shooting, which is the XHA1. I'm guessing with the larger sensor the fstops will give a different result, when comparing the same fstop to the AF100 and the XHA1. So my question is, which Fstop on the still lenses will give me a similar look as the A1 at shutter speed of 60, Gain at +12 db, shooting wide open at 1.6?
 
swanny said:
Great Thread Reverend. I myself am in the same boat, not knowing anything about these type of lenses. I've been trying to pick the brain of photographers that I've been working with lately to get a feel for what lenses they are using for different lighting situations. Some photographers are shooting with a lens that has an F stop of 2.8 indoors in low light, where as I have to shoot with 12db gain on my XHA-1 without an on camera light. Can anyone tell me what f stop lens will equate to the stock lens on the A1? The lens on the A1 is a 4.5-90mm 1:1.6-3.5. I really can't wrap my head around what the other lenses mean on the Af100 until I can compare it to what I'm used to shooting, which is the XHA1. I'm guessing with the larger sensor the fstops will give a different result, when comparing the same fstop to the AF100 and the XHA1. So my question is, which Fstop on the still lenses will give me a similar look as the A1 at shutter speed of 60, Gain at +12 db, shooting wide open at 1.6?
Click to expand...

This is unknowable until we know the native ISO if the AF100. But even knowing that, there are nearly a dozen variables in this that can affect things. So I don't suspect an answer will be forthcoming.

The sensor size makes a difference
The picture style makes a difference
The front element size makes a difference
The quality of the glass in the chosen lens makes a difference
The color of the lighting can make a difference

Put a lens on the AF100 when you get it, and do some tests. That's about the only sure-fire way.
 
yeah, i do believe that was not needed, thanks PerroneFord. i did infact answer some of the questions, and when you put "noob" in the title, really any given information should be made useful for yourself. perhaps you should specify if you have some prior knowledge to lenses, but when you said, "don't know a darn thing about photography lenses", that told me my points could be of some use. people like you wreck the open forum structure by agreeing with the first negative post. if you want only three questions answered and just those three, dont ask them in an open discussion environment. my points are spot on and you should take any points given to you serious. they helped me while first using 35 adapters. so if you have only worked video prosumer, you have much to learn about this type of camera, thus should be more open to external advice which may help you and save you lots of money and time in the long run.
 
Question:

I'm used to the focusing method on fixed lens video cameras: zoom all the way in, adjust the focus ring, and then zoom back out and adjust your framing. However, in reading around on the forum I found out that this is not how it's done with photographic lenses. So, how does one focus on a subject with these types of lenses? Use the distance markers on the focus ring? Eyeball it on a monitor?
 
Question:

What sort of quality difference can we reasonably expect with different lenses? It's my assumption that uber-expensive glass will to some extent be wasted on a video camera, since it would take really poor quality glass to not resolve as much as the sensor can deliver.

Question 2 - relating to the first:
Where can we see some straight-out-the-camera images showing the difference between a cheap lens and an uber-expensive one?
 
Aneurysm said:
So, how does one focus on a subject with these types of lenses? Use the distance markers on the focus ring? Eyeball it on a monitor?
Click to expand...

Yes, both of these. Which is why the 7D is so valuable. The 5D/T2i do not output a signal good enough while recording to focus critically. Though the signal is just fine when not recording.
 
Aneurysm said:
I'm used to the focusing method on fixed lens video cameras: zoom all the way in, adjust the focus ring, and then zoom back out and adjust your framing. However, in reading around on the forum I found out that this is not how it's done with photographic lenses. So, how does one focus on a subject with these types of lenses? Use the distance markers on the focus ring? Eyeball it on a monitor?
Click to expand...
This is a very iffy technique on SLR lenses. Many SLR lenses will not hold focus through a zoom (they're varifocal instead of parfocal) and there's no backfocus adjustment for parfocal lenses anyway. So, yeah, you pretty much don't do that.

On SLRs, there's usually a magnified focus assist that gives you a hyper-closeup of the image, for focus purposes.

On cinema cameras with proper cine lenses, you typically measure out the focus distance, and verify that through the viewfinder. An external monitor can be extremely helpful on a digital cinema camera. But with SLR lenses, that's not an accurate technique because SLR lenses aren't marked with precise focus points. So, yeah, you eyeball it, you use a monitor, and you use the magnified focus assist.
 
Lyris said:
Question:

What sort of quality difference can we reasonably expect with different lenses? It's my assumption that uber-expensive glass will to some extent be wasted on a video camera, since it would take really poor quality glass to not resolve as much as the sensor can deliver.
Click to expand...

You can expect less distortion, more contrast, better colors, perhaps better lens coatings, better feel in the hand, better focusing, perhaps less breathing, etc.


Lyris said:
Question 2 - relating to the first:
Where can we see some straight-out-the-camera images showing the difference between a cheap lens and an uber-expensive one?
Click to expand...

Good question. My guess is that even if you did find it, you'd probably have a hard time telling the difference. I shot something a few months back, and had people telling me how sharp it was and how nice, and how the colors popped. I shot it on the 18-55mm kit lens that came with the camera. This uber-expensive lens thing is absolutely folly for shooting 1080p video on these cameras. They barely resolve more than a DVX100. I shot a test chart a week ago with one of my mid 1960s lenses. It easily resolved over twice as many lines as the sensor can in video mode. It's an absolute non-issue.
 
Lyris said:
What sort of quality difference can we reasonably expect with different lenses?
Click to expand...
In terms of final image, not all that much, as far as rendered detail goes. Where you'll see the difference is in flare control, for example, or in contrast and color.

In terms of mechanical build, there's huge differences. Not just in the iris (although that matters; cheapo lenses might have a three-bladed iris and some ugly triangular bokeh, whereas the Zeiss Compact Primes have a 14-bladed iris for nearly perfectly circular bokeh). There's differences mainly in the focus ring, in how far it travels and in how it feels. A cheap 50mm lens might have a lame focus ring with 20 degrees of travel, total. Which makes it extremely difficult to finely focus it. Whereas on something like the Zeiss ZF's, they have focus travel more like 300 degrees of delicious silky smooth nicely-dampened focus action. It's a world of difference.

Where can we see some straight-out-the-camera images showing the difference between a cheap lens and an uber-expensive one?
Click to expand...
I did that test on the 7D (I think it was the 7D...) I put up a $1500 Zeiss ZF against a $30 Zeiss Jena I got off ebay. As far as resolved detail goes, they were identical. The ZF had a lusher, more contrasty image, the Jena was flatter. But could probably be corrected out in post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top