GH2 Under 14mm lenses for GH2
- Thread starter -Tom-
- Start date
ErikTande
Well-known member
MattRobertson
Well-known member
SLR Magic Hyperprime 12mm is quite good. Has nice character, and if you get a good copy is plenty sharp. Mixes much better with vintage/voigtlander lenses
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
That's for sure!
-Tom-
I don't have that 12, likely will be my next purchase when I've saved up for it. But I've seen plenty of stills and video done with it and it is one VERY SHARP wide angle with no "fisheye" distortion at all. It was one of the lenses Robin Wong tested out the at the time unreleased Olympus OMD E-M5 with around Kuala Lumpur. The max aperture of f2.0 makes it a pretty good contender for low light work also, and it is still very sharp wide open.
Do a search for "Robin Wong" and look for his series on testing the OMD E-M5.
A bit "pricey"...Yes.
I'll still pay the price, bite my lip, and press on.
Zxander34
Well-known member
What do you mean exactly by a "good copy" are various versions different from others? If so, where could I pick up a better copy?
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
Sometimes there are "variations" in QC. You almost have to buy to find out what you're actually getting. In 12mm I would go for the Olympus Zuiko 12mm f2.0 which has an excellent rep. QC on that model seems extremely good.
-Tom-
Active member
Quick question regarding the lens on GH2 and other cameras.
When I had my ZS7 / TZ10 back couple of years ago, the lens were rated @ 25 - 300mm. GH2 lens are rated 14-140. Why?
TZ10 numbers were 35mm equiv. so why doesn't the GH2 lens get the same number treatment, why didn't they marked it 28-280? Isn't it borderline misleading?
When I had my ZS7 / TZ10 back couple of years ago, the lens were rated @ 25 - 300mm. GH2 lens are rated 14-140. Why?
TZ10 numbers were 35mm equiv. so why doesn't the GH2 lens get the same number treatment, why didn't they marked it 28-280? Isn't it borderline misleading?
stoneinapond
Veteran
My guess is that the Zs7 being a fixed lens camera where the lens is an integral part of the system and is not detachable, it does not have a focal length outside of that system. Although I seem to remember that somewhere in the specifications equivalency is mentioned. The 14-140 is a distinct item and has a focal length as stated. It is the sensor that forces the equivalency.
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
It has been a practice on "fixed" zoom lens cameras to sometimes list the lens in 35mm frame equivalents because that is what most of us are familiar with. The "actual" focal length numbers on these lenses would really mean little to us in terms of what "perspective" different zoom settings would give.
Rather than be "borderline misleading" it was an attempt to give the camera operator numbers he/she might be able to relate to.
On interchangeable lens cameras the actual focal length is listed and it is up to the photographer to be able to relate it's performance relative to sensor size.
Rather than be "borderline misleading" it was an attempt to give the camera operator numbers he/she might be able to relate to.
On interchangeable lens cameras the actual focal length is listed and it is up to the photographer to be able to relate it's performance relative to sensor size.
-Tom-
Active member
I understand that, but Canon's FD 14mm and Lumix's 14mm lens are not remotely close. I understand people who buy those things have prior knowledge about it and are aware of the crop factors...but I have to be honest, back when I first started to think about switching to DSLR for the first time, and being somewhat of a Lumix guy, when I first saw the numbers on GH2 (14-140) I thought it was the craziest lens ever made...because TZ10 had a solid wide angle for my needs (25mm) so 14mm seemed awesome to have.
Woulnd't it be easier for all the manufacturers to mark their products in 35mm equiv?
Woulnd't it be easier for all the manufacturers to mark their products in 35mm equiv?
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
I don't have any first hand experience with the FD 14mm. I looked it up and the lens formula looks much more complex than the Lumix. Both are "real" 14mm focal length but intended applications are vastly different. The Canon FD optics are all designed with a circle of confusion to cover full frame 35mm negative size while the Lumix is designed strictly for the Micro Four Thirds format and sensor.
Most photographers with ANY experience at all much prefer to have interchangeable lenses marked with their "true" focal length. Yes, we do have to "think" a little - 14mm on a M4/3rds sensor is going to give us an approximate 28mm ff equiv field of view. I understand that those who have not "come up through the decades" with 35mm film cams and become used to the focal lengths and what kind of "perspective" they give on those full frame film cams may be at a bit of a disadvantage.
But with M4/3rds the math is simple. 2 times the marked focal length.
Not knowing what any lens may be "adapted" to, it cannot be any other way. Marking products in "full frame equiv" would not be accurate in those cases.
It is what it is.
Most photographers with ANY experience at all much prefer to have interchangeable lenses marked with their "true" focal length. Yes, we do have to "think" a little - 14mm on a M4/3rds sensor is going to give us an approximate 28mm ff equiv field of view. I understand that those who have not "come up through the decades" with 35mm film cams and become used to the focal lengths and what kind of "perspective" they give on those full frame film cams may be at a bit of a disadvantage.
But with M4/3rds the math is simple. 2 times the marked focal length.
Not knowing what any lens may be "adapted" to, it cannot be any other way. Marking products in "full frame equiv" would not be accurate in those cases.
It is what it is.