Someone finally got it right! (EF->M4/3 adapter)

Jesse Brauning said:
But what other lens in that range can be had in that mount with IS for that price?
Click to expand...

On a different body? There are many many many! In fact for the MSRP that Panasonic is suggesting you can purchase the camera AND the better lens - with IS. Honest!

Also I haven't tested this at 400 to 600mm (equiv) FL but is IS even affective at these lengths? I tested minolta's exceptional IBIS at 200mm equiv. and there was benefit but I'm guessing that lens based IS is going to poop out and offer almost nothing at 300mm equiv. (that's 150mm on the lens) - i guess there might be some tho. But what about 200mm on the lens (400mm equiv.). I dunno but something tells me it's completely useless at that length. Here's one of my tests at 200mm equiv:


HandHeld_Shake_Sheet_02.jpg

Shake-chart: 100% crops Minolta/Sony IBIS at 200mm Equiv.
​





entry said:
Does IS work with this adapter? What are exactly all the downside when using adapter?
Click to expand...

I dunno the answer to either but what exactly do you mean by downsides? As compared to what?

Compared to other currently available adapters there are only upsides - functionally speaking.
 
Last edited:
Tesselator said:
Of course no one knows what will happen in the future or if Panasonic who has no exceptional lenses to date, will begin releasing exceptional lenses. I guess there's a resale value loss according to the post above but I hadn't noticed this myself. The 100-300 is a dog IMO because it's actually NOT sharp at all except from 100 to about 150mm. After that it gets bad! I have no idea why people feel the need to cheat results. I guess they don't want to personally look like losers for buying something that isn't great and having to pay $800 for it. That seems pretty lame to me but it's the only thing I can think of. I know for sure it's not the case that one user gets a fantastically better copy than some other user. I also know for sure that the only way to get "great" results from this lens is to use it under optimal lighting conditions, preferably on a tripod, and then post process the heck out of it and/or scale it way down. The Lumix 100-300 reminds me almost exactly of the Sigma AF 100-300mm f/4.5-6.7 DL - not to be confused with the EX DG or EX DG APO of the same focal range from the same maker. The properties of the DL http://www.photodo.com/lens/Sigma-AF-100300mm-f4567-DL-423 are nearly identical to the Lumix 100-300mm and so is the performance - although it can be debated that the Sigma DL is actually a little better than the Lumix and this is indeed a sad state. The Sigma in question here goes for $10 ~ $75 BTW. :)

So how come about 25% of the images posted from the Lumix look OK to Good? Like these: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37221057 as opposed to the other 75% that show how poor the lens actually is? Like these: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1041&message=37093234 Yeah; lighting, post processing, and scaling - and of course knowing how to use the tool - like using magnification/proximity and texture contrast to your advantage, composition, and etc. to optimize the affects or "look" that we most commonly associate with "good glass". If you know what you're doing in just post for example, you can make a poor lens look quite good and the skill-set needed to do so is not that difficult to learn - although admittedly only about 20% of the users and posters I see know them. Let's take a look at this phenomena for a moment. I'll use the sigma DL for this example as almost everyone agrees that this lens is a total dog (no one will fell the need to defend it!) while there remains some debate however unfounded in fact, about the Lumix. Here's me trying consciously to use magnification/proximity, texture contrast, color contrast, and composition in coordination with post processing and scaling in order to make the relatively bad Sigma AF 100-300/4.5~5.6 DL look half way decent. I'll post the final image first and follow it with a 100% crop that had all of the ACR sliders (except color noise reduction) set to zero and all images were at approximately 300mm f/5.6 which is "wide open" for both the Sigma and the Lumix alike:



Anyway, this is kinda OT for this thread so I hope this doesn't spin off into whether or not the Lumix 100-300 is crap or not. Back to the adapter? :)
Click to expand...


Thanks for such a comprehensive answer - you made you point extremely well, and I'm considerably less anxious to own a Panasonic 100-300mm than I was. Your samples, in conjunction with the reports of the 100-300's cheap build quality and 'sticky/uneven zoom, have cured his particular bout of LBA....

Good point about the Sigma - I didn't know that the specs were the same, but now I'd never be able to buy the Panasonic lens without feeing that I'd paid over £300 just for lens IS :cheesy:

I suppose the bottom line is 'price'. If they were selling the lens for, say, £150, you could buy it and be happy - but to pay over £400 for is poor value for money (like all Panasonic lenses, actually)

I sometimes think that Panasonic UK marketing must spend their days smoking crack and plucking ludicrous SRP's out of the air! - take the 14-140. A couple of months ago that had a SRP of £700, and a street price of £550 - £600. I noticed a couple of days ago that the SRP had suddenly jumped up to £950 (!) and the discount price is over £700.

Are they mad?, or do they assume their customer base is comprised largely of eccentric millionaires? :cheesy:
 
Tesselator said:
I dunno the answer to either but what exactly do you mean by downsides? As compared to what?

Compared to other currently available adapters there are only upsides - functionally speaking.
Click to expand...
I mean using Canon IS lens with adapter on GH2 vs using same lens in 550D for example. So, adapter vs no adapter.

and btw, same person here though using different nick. Didn't remember earlier that I had made more proper account here with this nick.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying the nick thing.

I can't answer the questions beyond what I have already guessed at without possessing the adaptor tho.

Again I'm going to assume there is no Autofocusing controlled by the camera. The IS issue I'm at a total loss to even guess at. The electronic aperture is (or seems to be) adjustable via buttons on the side of the adapter. Electronically focussing the leans should also be supported in the same fashion but that's entirely not useful unless the lens in question has no manual focusing ring. The addition of that 3rd party controller knob adds a lot of usefulness when shooting video. ;)
 
Ooo, what's this? Someone else did it right too!

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1109/11092913redrockmicro.asp

DSLR video accessory specialist Redrock Micro has created a Canon EF to Micro Four Thirds lens adapter. The LiveLens MFT adds the electronics required to control the aperture on the mounted EOS lenses. A 9V battery and a touch-panel allows the adapter to specify the lens aperture in 1/3EV steps. The adapter costs $442.50 and is available directly from the manufacturer's website.​


RedRockadapterPEN-001.jpg
 
I've had the Kipon EF adapter with iris blades but it's use is very limited because it's not consistent between lenses. Some work okay and some do not. It's also not the same as adjusting aperture within the lens.
 
Yeah, that's why I entitled the thread "Someone got it right" - because Kipon got it oh so wrong!

You can pretty much achieve the same affect or maybe even better in some cases, by cutting a hole in a black piece of paper and placing it over the front of the lens. LOL
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top