I am a little confused about the crop factor on the af100. Does that affect Lumix brand lens's that seem like they are meant for the af100? What mm would the "Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric G Series Lens" truly be on the af100? Also, is that lens good or is there a better option $800 and under. Thanks so much for your help!
Lens Question about af100
- Thread starter tajcam
- Start date
A 50 is a 50 is a 50. Lens focal length is independent of what sensor records its image.
Crop factors of any particular sensor can tell you what the approximate "35mm equivalent field of view" will be; so, with a 2x crop factor, a 20mm lens will look like a 40mm FOV on full frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
At ~$800, I personally prefer the Leica DG 25/1.4 or a used Voigtlander 25/0.95. At ~$300, the 20/1.7 is a perfectly good small fast prime, despite looking ridiculous on an AF100 body and being somewhat difficult to manipulate. The Olympus 17/1.8 is also a good choice if you like a slightly wider FOV.
Crop factors of any particular sensor can tell you what the approximate "35mm equivalent field of view" will be; so, with a 2x crop factor, a 20mm lens will look like a 40mm FOV on full frame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
At ~$800, I personally prefer the Leica DG 25/1.4 or a used Voigtlander 25/0.95. At ~$300, the 20/1.7 is a perfectly good small fast prime, despite looking ridiculous on an AF100 body and being somewhat difficult to manipulate. The Olympus 17/1.8 is also a good choice if you like a slightly wider FOV.
BrandonT
Well-known member
If you do a lot of interview work, I'd suggest looking at the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 constant aperture. It's $500 and in several mounts. I find that with apertures larger than 2.8, the talent or person being interviewed will drift in and out of focus as they move their head while speaking. So don't let it not being a larger aperture throw you off too much if that's the kind of work you'll be doing. Of course, it is good to have some lenses with larger apertures, too. Another thing (I see it as good, some may see it as bad) with the Tamron is that it is large enough that it looks like it was made for the camera. The proportions are right and it looks like a high quality lens. Whereas most of the m43 lenses (of which I have a few) will just look odd on the camera.
BrandonT
Well-known member
Yeah, the 20 is kind of a "normal" wide, if that makes sense. Kind of wide, but it doesn't have a "wide look". I haven't used it, but people swear by the Lumix 7 - 14 mm for wide. It's not fisheye. It's not a very wide aperture, though. I'll have to leave it to others for recommendations on wide, fast glass.
David W. Jones
Veteran
In my opinion crop factor is only really relevant if you are trying to match framing between 2 or more cameras with different size sensors.... http://www.abelcine.com/fov/
Yes, it's relevant.
If you're used to guesstimating focal length using 35mm SLR/Full Frame references, just get in to the habit of having to halve that number for the equivalent effect on the MFT system. So, your 50mm standard lens on 35/FF is a 25mm standard lens for MFT. Everything else is academic.
I recommend the 12-35/2.8 zoom - I don't find I need to go wider than 12mm.
Ben.
If you're used to guesstimating focal length using 35mm SLR/Full Frame references, just get in to the habit of having to halve that number for the equivalent effect on the MFT system. So, your 50mm standard lens on 35/FF is a 25mm standard lens for MFT. Everything else is academic.
I recommend the 12-35/2.8 zoom - I don't find I need to go wider than 12mm.
Ben.
Last edited: