GH4 MF2 with Canon mount to Speedbooster

[alicia]

Hello Everyone!

I'm a new member but longtime reader. These forums are immensely helpful to someone starting out and the time everyone puts in is really incredible. Appreciate that very much.

I've managed to find answers to most of my questions on my own but have a quick question about mounting a "Helios 44M" 58mm f2 lens to my GH4 and can't seem to locate it anywhere.

Is it possible to purchase a mount adapter like this one:

http://www.amazon.com/Fotodiox-Lens...8&qid=1455163920&sr=1-2&keywords=m42+to+canon

And then connect it to a Canon --> MFT speedbooster like this one?:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...oCFQpbhgoduaIHkw&is=REG&ap=y&m=Y&Q=&A=details

I'm ok with everything being fully manual but was hoping to use my existing speedbooster rather than have to purchase a simple adapter or another M42 --> MFT speedbooster. I'd like to get the extra stop of light (I'll be shooting indoors in a low light situation) as well as extra wide angle so hoping I can make this work. Not sure if the extra distance from the M42 --> Canon --> MFT will allow this.

Assuming this is even possible, does anyone know what the new 35mm focal equivalent would be? Or which focal length on my MFT lenses I could compare it to? (I have the panasonic 20mm 1.7 and 12-35 2.8). I tried finding a chart but this seems to be an odd setup and I can't get a good answer.

Thank you in advance for any assistance.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

If you haven't already purchased the Speedbooster you linked to, that can be an expensive way to go. The final approximate focal length would be .71x58 (about 41.8mm). What I would consider is watching the for sale forums for a used Olympus 17mm f1.8 lens (I've seen several from time to time on mu-43.com "Buy & Sell" for prices that kind of tempted me. Even new those cost less than the Speedbooster.

Hope this helps a bit.

 

[alicia]

Thanks Bruce. This is definitely helpful (I had been considering one of those lenses actually) but the issue I'm having is that the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 I have isn't fast enough for the light situation I'm dealing with (a documentary I'm shooting solo so lighting isn't that easy to manage) which is why I was hoping for the extra stop with the Helios.

I also felt that both my Panasonic lenses were rather clinical looking so hoping to avoid that with some older lenses.

I agree that the Metabones is rather expensive but was also considering a cheaper focal reducer (mitakon or RJ Turbo?) to help cut the price! Alternatively, would a M42 --> Nikon flange and then a Nikon --> MFT speedbooster work? (they are a few hundred dollars cheaper)

Thank you also for the reply re focal length. Does that mean it would be comparable to my 20mm MFT Panasonic lens?

Thanks again

 

[Greg_E]

The adapter you linked is M42 to Nikon so you would need another adapter for Nikon to Canon. All I can tell you is that there is great variation in the quality of the cheaper adapters. That said and M42 to Canon EF and then Canon EF to MFT should get you where you need to be. You can decide if you want a focal reducer or not, should work either way.

And one more thing... That lens is 58mm (ish), you have a roughly 2x crop on the camera which makes that lens a short telephoto. Add the focal reducer of either .7x or the more expensive .64x gives you an effective (as far as image is concerned compared to a full frame 35mm) of 82mm or 75mm which is still in the short tele range.

As far as the Helios lenses go, they have their own look, nothing I would really strive to obtain if it were me. It's a crap shoot of getting a decent lens or getting some junk with oil all over the lens elements, etc.

Yes you could go M42 to Nikon F, then Nikon (F or G) to MFT if you want. But once you do that, you'll need another adapter if you ever want to use Canon lenses because the flange length on the Canon is shorter than Nikon.

 

[Tim Sewell]

I've got various m42 and Olympus OM lenses fitted with those little ef adapters that work just fine on my cheapo focal length reducer. I just got the Metabones 0.64 XL speedbooster and most of them work well with that too (although a couple cause a warning on the GH4's screen saying that the lens attachment has failed - doesn't seem to affect recording however).

 

[alicia]

The adapter you linked is M42 to Nikon so you would need another adapter for Nikon to Canon. All I can tell you is that there is great variation in the quality of the cheaper adapters. That said and M42 to Canon EF and then Canon EF to MFT should get you where you need to be. You can decide if you want a focal reducer or not, should work either way.

Good catch! Wrong link. I had meant to include a link to a MF2 --> Canon EF focal reducer like this. Would that work (in conjunction with the Metabones Canon --> MFT?

Thank you

 

[alicia]

I've got various m42 and Olympus OM lenses fitted with those little ef adapters that work just fine on my cheapo focal length reducer. I just got the Metabones 0.64 XL speedbooster and most of them work well with that too (although a couple cause a warning on the GH4's screen saying that the lens attachment has failed - doesn't seem to affect recording however).

Ah good to know. Does that error appear even if you switch to shoot w/out lens?

 

[Greg_E]

As long as the pieces match, it will work. But I would never spend the money on a focal reducer if the Helios was the only lens I was going to use. Those lenses are $50 or less for a reason. If the flaws are what you want, then it will be OK, if you want flawless you better look elsewhere.

 

[alicia]

Thanks Greg. I'm actually looking for something semi-flawed as the documentary I'm working on doesn't really fit with the clinically sharp panasonic lenses I'm using now.

I understand the Helios might be a little too funky so was also considering getting some other fast primes (ideally wide as some of the footage will be done indoors in less than ideal lighting) to justify the focal reducer.

If you (or anyone else!) has any vintage lens suggestions that won't totally break my bank (~$600-700), that would be appreciated.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Thanks Bruce. This is definitely helpful (I had been considering one of those lenses actually) but the issue I'm having is that the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 I have isn't fast enough for the light situation I'm dealing with (a documentary I'm shooting solo so lighting isn't that easy to manage) which is why I was hoping for the extra stop with the Helios.

In that case I'd go for a direct m42 to m4/3 Speedbooster (or one of the cheaper copies - RJ, Mitakon, etc) direct adapter. You will have manual focusing only and manual aperture but that's workable.

I also felt that both my Panasonic lenses were rather clinical looking so hoping to avoid that with some older lenses.

Mild diffusion can help with that, too. I have an older set of Cokin diffusion filters I used to use in the studio with Mamiya RB-67 lenses that I've tested some with Panasonic and Olympic lenses and I'm looking at Tiffen Black diffusion 1/4 filters with them also. Haven't finished any definitive testing yet but initial tries are encouraging. However, I've always been enough of a "sharpness nut" that the clinically sharp optics don't bother me (as long as I can grab a diffusion filter when I want to go a bit soft).

I agree that the Metabones is rather expensive but was also considering a cheaper focal reducer (mitakon or RJ Turbo?) to help cut the price! Alternatively, would a M42 --> Nikon flange and then a Nikon --> MFT speedbooster work? (they are a few hundred dollars cheaper)

I have the RJ Nikon F to m4/3 that I use with a few almost ancient (late 1950's to mid 1960's) Nikkor lenses and I'm happy with the results. I would DEFINITELY AVOID "doubling up" on adapters if possible.

I just did a check and RJ does make a m42 (Pentax thread) to m4/3 focal reducer so if the lenses you want to use are available in Pentax thread mount you are good to go with a .72x reduction and a 1 stop gain in speed.

http://www.rjcamera.com/ocart/index.php?route=product/product&product_id=85

I would buy from B&H if they have it. Good luck.

Thank you also for the reply re focal length. Does that mean it would be comparable to my 20mm MFT Panasonic lens?

No. You have a 2x crop factor to deal with so that would make it behave as an 82mm lens (bit of telephoto).

What I would try is some mild diffusion with that 20mm. You are within about a third of a stop of f1.4 (Helios f2 with speedbooster getting you to f1.4) and you can effectively work in the same light with the 20mm. Just make sure you can see the "glow" of available light on facial features of your subject and you should be good.

The problem you are going to find with most legacy lenses is the focal length (even with speedbooster) will tend to be a bit "long". So an ideal lens would be the Panasonic Leica 25mm (normal focal length and perspective) f1.4. Easier handling and still fast enough to get you where you need to be.

The Tiffen Black Diffusion filter size I linked to is 52mm, will fit the 25mm Pan/Leica f1.4 and with a 46-52mm step up ring will also fit the 20mm. I suggest the 1/4 strength on diffusion as relatively "mild", you do not want a heavy diffuse effect. That should "break" the clinical sharp rendition yet still show detail.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

I understand the Helios might be a little too funky so was also considering getting some other fast primes (ideally wide as some of the footage will be done indoors in less than ideal lighting) to justify the focal reducer.

Wide is going to be a big problem, when you are dealing with a 2x crop factor, wide doesn't really translate to "wide" for working with. Widest I could afford in Nikon F mount was a 24mm f2.8 which with the RJ would give me 34.56mm, almost exactly the 35mm the manufacturers called wide but those of us who worked with it treated it as "wide normal" (not quite wide).

If you (or anyone else!) has any vintage lens suggestions that won't totally break my bank (~$600-700), that would be appreciated.

Try that diffusion filter I linked to with your 20mm. $48.20 plus the cost of a stepup ring (they apparently don't have it it 46mm as that is not a mainstream enough size). If it works that's a small investment, if not I could likely be talked into buying the filter and ring from you (I have the 1/2) but not the 1/4 strength.

Something else to consider. The quality of light in low light situations changes significantly. It lacks the contrast of daylight which contributes to "clinical" sharpness. One of the benefits of m4/3 gear is smaller size and lighter weight. Large glass optics can be intimidating to your subjects whereas smaller lenses might even go unnoticed.

You may be better off staying simple.

 

[alicia]

That's great advice Bruce. I really appreciate it. I hadn't considered how a larger lens might be intimidating for people.

I'll grab that filter and give it a shot and post back with results! I'm reading it might not work on the panasonic 12-35 though? Just on primes?

Thanks

 

[Greg_E]

Any of the former soviet union lens are going to be trial and garbage, hard to save money that way. The suggestion for filters is very good, might make the difference you need and allow you to roll out some new mft lenses like maybe SLR Magic or maybe some of the Rokinon lenses. The Rokinon can often have their own "less clinical" look to them and they are fairly cheap.

As mentioned, wides are tough! What kind of time frames are you looking at? Renting from some place like lensrentals.com might make sense depending on your schedule.

 

[GrahamH]

Stick with the EF speed booster. You can fit M42, Pentax and Nikon lenses to it via PK-EF, NI-EF adapters. (There may be other mounts that work too, but I know Canon FD and Minolta MD don't work because of shorter registration distances).

To get the same field of view as the Panasonic 20mm, fit a 28mm lens to the Speedbooster. F2.8 28mm are cheap and the result would be F2.0 ... close to the Panasonic. 28mm f2.0s are not cheap, except for Vivitars and Kirons that often have stuck apertures. The f2.0 lenses become f1.4 - slightly better than the Panasonic.

For low light shooting I use a Sigma 30mm f1.4 ($200 on EBay) which becomes a 21mm f1.0 when attached to a Speedbooster.

Edit: I'm sure you know this, but 21mm on M4/3 camera has the same field of view as a 42mm on full-frame. Your Helios would be equivalent to 58x0.7x2 = 80mm on full frame.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

That's great advice Bruce. I really appreciate it. I hadn't considered how a larger lens might be intimidating for people.

Makes a potential big difference. People used to see me with Nikon or Canon and heavy glass. I learned to not "hide" behind the camera so I got done what I needed to. Now with the GH4, GX7 and smaller lenses they pay little attention to me.

I'll grab that filter and give it a shot and post back with results! I'm reading it might not work on the panasonic 12-35 though? Just on primes?

Thanks

The 12-35mm filter size appears to be 58mm, not 52, so it will cost a bit more in that size. Plus the cost of a 46-58mm stepup ring for that size to fit on the 20mm. It will work on zooms as well as primes so it's a pretty handy "tool" to have in your working kit.

Just did some more reading on the subject: Many pro's prefer the Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 as just about right to get rid of the "digital" video look rather than the straight black diffusion. A bit less of a "glowy" look to highlights with the Black Pro Mist 1/4 strength. You have to test to see if it works for you.

Above all stick with Tiffen, others can be good or downright awful. Good luck. Tiffen has good consistency and is not priced too high, although some of the specialty filters can climb in cost. For what it's worth Shane Hurlbut prefers Tiffen when he has a choice.

 

[Tim Sewell]

Yes - unfortunately.

 

[alicia]

Makes a potential big difference. People used to see me with Nikon or Canon and heavy glass. I learned to not "hide" behind the camera so I got done what I needed to. Now with the GH4, GX7 and smaller lenses they pay little attention to me.

The 12-35mm filter size appears to be 58mm, not 52, so it will cost a bit more in that size. Plus the cost of a 46-58mm stepup ring for that size to fit on the 20mm. It will work on zooms as well as primes so it's a pretty handy "tool" to have in your working kit.

Just did some more reading on the subject: Many pro's prefer the Tiffen Black Pro Mist 1/4 as just about right to get rid of the "digital" video look rather than the straight black diffusion. A bit less of a "glowy" look to highlights with the Black Pro Mist 1/4 strength. You have to test to see if it works for you.

Above all stick with Tiffen, others can be good or downright awful. Good luck. Tiffen has good consistency and is not priced too high, although some of the specialty filters can climb in cost. For what it's worth Shane Hurlbut prefers Tiffen when he has a choice.

Makes sense. You may have convinced me to stick with the panasonic lenses I already have which relieves me (and my wallet) of some heartache. Thank you!

Will look into that specific lens. I appreciate you doing the research. I should also mention that I use a variable ND filter (not all shots are in low light). Can I use the Tiffen filter in conjunction with the ND? Meaning at the same time? If so, which order would that be?

I also came across this piece that says some of the older Tiffen filters can be problematic when shooting in 4K. Has that been your experience? It mentions the Satin and Black Satin as alternatives.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

I should also mention that I use a variable ND filter (not all shots are in low light). Can I use the Tiffen filter in conjunction with the ND? Meaning at the same time? If so, which order would that be?

You probably can but I'm not sure I would. Variable ND filters are actually 2 polarizing filters mounted together so one rotates, this configuration can create two problems. Four extra reflective surfaces vastly compounds the problem of internal reflections and unwanted flares. So with a diffusion filter in the mix that becomes SIX extra reflective surfaces. I've run into this myself, and micro four thirds gear seems even more prone. (Possible cure: As deep a lens shade as you can get by without vignetting.

Second problem is that some variable NDs have caused a drop in sharpness especially at the telephoto end of some zooms.

So I tend to use single strength ND filters when I need to reduce light at the lens. Currently I find the 3 stop and 4 stop reductions (0.9ND and 1.2ND) most useful. I would probably put the diffusion filter on first.

I also came across this piece that says some of the older Tiffen filters can be problematic when shooting in 4K. Has that been your experience? It mentions the Satin and Black Satin as alternatives.

WOW! I thank you for that one! Your research has value for me. From the image samples shown there, I prefer the Black Satin, and for narrative the Pearlescent approaches the look of diffusion I used to use with portraiture of women.

 

[stoneinapond]

Any of the former soviet union lens are going to be trial and garbage, hard to save money that way. The suggestion for filters is very good, might make the difference you need and allow you to roll out some new mft lenses like maybe SLR Magic or maybe some of the Rokinon lenses. The Rokinon can often have their own "less clinical" look to them and they are fairly cheap.

As mentioned, wides are tough! What kind of time frames are you looking at? Renting from some place like lensrentals.com might make sense depending on your schedule.

All good points except I take issue with your blanket statement about old Soviet lenses. While it certainly is crap shoot as to what you are going to get, some of the old Soviet optics makers were some of the best. Due to some of the technologies that the Soviets "inherited" after the second world war, you can find some outstanding glass form that period. I have an old LOMO cine lens that is physically challenged when it comes to the housing, but I found an old Russian lens specialist who managed to make the optics truly shine, along with my copy of the Helios 58mm.

Yes, it's a gamble, it's a look you either like or not, and much has been already scooped up with the advent of mirrorless cameras, but don't discount them all.

 

[Greg_E]

The difficulty with the FSU lenses is in finding any that are unmolested. I agree that many have nice image characteristics, and I own many examples. But it took taking them apart and fixing the bad shims and oil everywhere to make them so. Any lens that is advertised as having an oil bathed iris is just plain crap in need of a complete overhaul. Even the sellers that were once "honorable" seem to be selling this garbage now as supply of good examples runs low. You either need to buy at top dollar (which saves nothing over some other high end lenses), or take your chances and hope for the best on the low end. As I said, been there, spun the wheel, have the tools to prove that I've had to work on each one. I like a few of the lenses I have left, but I'll spend my money on other "vintage" makes before I go back to the Russian Roulette with lenses. I have a mostly complete set of nice Canon Serenar lenses that I use for stills that replaced all my FSU lenses, images are similar in many ways, but the build quality is much higher and on average they haven't been molested which makes them generally usable without a bunch of work to clean the elements and check flange distances.