Top 5 must have lens for a GH1?
- Thread starter JoeJITSU
- Start date
Rory_B
Well-known member
the sigma is pretty nice and works well as a slightly telephoto normal lens.
With recent announcements, I would say the 70-300, 20/1.7, 14/2.5, 14-140 and the CV 25/0.95 . Those would all be native m43.
I already have a 7D w/ 30/1.4, 11-16/2.8 and 2.8 zoom coverage all the way up to 300mm, and all sorts of primes so the lens I want for the GH1 are complimentary and for the most part very light and compact (compared to my EOS ones anyhow).
On the "cheap" side, I have many Minolta MD/MC mount primes like the 50/1.4 (older series, said to be quite similar to the Leica 50's in character), 45/2, 200/3.5, 300/4.5, 100/4 Macro, 28/2.5. The Minolta 35-70/3.5 and 70-210/4 were rebadge by Leica - I have those also. I also have an interesting older Vivitar 35-105/3.5 zoom that is constant aperture and _internal_ zooming.
I already have a 7D w/ 30/1.4, 11-16/2.8 and 2.8 zoom coverage all the way up to 300mm, and all sorts of primes so the lens I want for the GH1 are complimentary and for the most part very light and compact (compared to my EOS ones anyhow).
On the "cheap" side, I have many Minolta MD/MC mount primes like the 50/1.4 (older series, said to be quite similar to the Leica 50's in character), 45/2, 200/3.5, 300/4.5, 100/4 Macro, 28/2.5. The Minolta 35-70/3.5 and 70-210/4 were rebadge by Leica - I have those also. I also have an interesting older Vivitar 35-105/3.5 zoom that is constant aperture and _internal_ zooming.
mojo43
Well-known member
More Feedback on the Nikkor 50mm 1.8
More Feedback on the Nikkor 50mm 1.8
After more use I've decided I do not like the bokeh on this lens - too harsh. I've read elsewhere that others agree. Now it's very sharp though.
Trey
More Feedback on the Nikkor 50mm 1.8
After more use I've decided I do not like the bokeh on this lens - too harsh. I've read elsewhere that others agree. Now it's very sharp though.
Trey
kostas
Well-known member
There is a bit of difference between the 70mm equivalent of the 35mm on the gh1 and the 90mm equivalent of the 45 mm. However, it is not enormous and you may cover your needs with just one out of the two. The 45mm is supposed to be sharper overall so this may be a better choice if you shoot stills also.
stonebat
Veteran
14-140 might become a must for gh2.
"The Extra Tele Conversion function virtually extends the zoom range up to 2.6x, thus the max.728mm in AVCHD Cinema/FSH mode, max. 1092mm in AVCHD SH mode and Motion JPEG HD / WVGA mode and max.1344mm in Motion JPEG VGA/QVGA mode is available with the LUMIX G VARIO HD 14-140mm / F4.0-5.8 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. which offering silent drive focusing developed exclusively for with movie recording."
plus one stop gain from gh2. wow. i dont mind if it makes little less sharp and contrary.
"The Extra Tele Conversion function virtually extends the zoom range up to 2.6x, thus the max.728mm in AVCHD Cinema/FSH mode, max. 1092mm in AVCHD SH mode and Motion JPEG HD / WVGA mode and max.1344mm in Motion JPEG VGA/QVGA mode is available with the LUMIX G VARIO HD 14-140mm / F4.0-5.8 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. which offering silent drive focusing developed exclusively for with movie recording."
plus one stop gain from gh2. wow. i dont mind if it makes little less sharp and contrary.
Last edited:
raymondluo
Well-known member
With that 'Extra Tele Conversion', every lens will be come a 'Dual/ Tri-Elmar'. Most useful in particular I reckon would be the 20mm 1.7. You can go from a slightly wide-normal (on a GH2) to a portrait and arguably face only a slightly indiscernible quality loss and still be in that advantageous compact form.
If memory serves me swell, lens resolving power will play an important role in extracting detail as compared to say- the FF Canon 5D. Smaller sensors require lenses of a higher resolving power than compared to sensors of larger capacity.
So lenses built for smaller sensors i.e. mFT, 1", 2/3", CCTV and 16mm film lenses would have a significantly higher resolving power due to their original applications in much smaller sensors. Putting mFT sensor behind them is in fact actually making these lenses lazy, but great in IQ since larger sensors do not require as much resolving power. And as a benefit, it won't not detrimental to IQ when using the tele conversion since we will be essentially emulating their original FOV if they were mounted on their original bodies.
I wonder if Panasonic had planned this from the get-go, seeing that the 20mm pancake is excellently sharp in the center, most ideal to be 'tele-converted'. In any case, it's a wonderful coincidence.
The contrary can be said for 35mm still lenses unfortunately except for the best lenses and some exceptions. Since they were made for 36×24 mm sensors, only certain lenses I assume will actually be useful. Note that this is especially since 35mm lenses are already cropped on a mFT body, a further tele conversion would be drastically detrimental to IQ.
Please do voice out any inaccuracies regarding the above, i'm just basing this on my general knowledge of wikipedia-ing and forum lurking. Even better if someone can explain the co-relation between sensor size, lens resolving power and pixel density for the benefit of my understanding.
If memory serves me swell, lens resolving power will play an important role in extracting detail as compared to say- the FF Canon 5D. Smaller sensors require lenses of a higher resolving power than compared to sensors of larger capacity.
So lenses built for smaller sensors i.e. mFT, 1", 2/3", CCTV and 16mm film lenses would have a significantly higher resolving power due to their original applications in much smaller sensors. Putting mFT sensor behind them is in fact actually making these lenses lazy, but great in IQ since larger sensors do not require as much resolving power. And as a benefit, it won't not detrimental to IQ when using the tele conversion since we will be essentially emulating their original FOV if they were mounted on their original bodies.
I wonder if Panasonic had planned this from the get-go, seeing that the 20mm pancake is excellently sharp in the center, most ideal to be 'tele-converted'. In any case, it's a wonderful coincidence.
The contrary can be said for 35mm still lenses unfortunately except for the best lenses and some exceptions. Since they were made for 36×24 mm sensors, only certain lenses I assume will actually be useful. Note that this is especially since 35mm lenses are already cropped on a mFT body, a further tele conversion would be drastically detrimental to IQ.
Please do voice out any inaccuracies regarding the above, i'm just basing this on my general knowledge of wikipedia-ing and forum lurking. Even better if someone can explain the co-relation between sensor size, lens resolving power and pixel density for the benefit of my understanding.