GH4 Vintage 50mm Lenses for GH4: Nikkor or SMC Takumar

D

Darkwing Productions

Member
I have a GH4 and an Olympus 12-40mm f2.8. I get that as vintage lenses go, none will match what I have, but which 50mm would be closer, the Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 D or the SMC Takumar 55mm f2? I'd love to get one of the modern Olympuses but it's not in the budget right now and I need something for low light situations.
 
Last edited:
Darkwing Productions said:
I'd love to get one of the modern Olympuses but it's not in the budget right now and I need something for low light situations.
Click to expand...

Register on mu-43.com and watch their "buy/sell" forum for modern Olympus/Panasonic Leica/Panasonic lenses advertised used before you give up on budgeting for one. A vintage 50mm will be the equivalent of a 100mm and would be a bit awkward in limited spaces. Also would be a challenge to handhold and keep the "jitters" under control.

The Olympus 25mm f1.8, Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4, and newly released Panasonic 25mm f1.7 will generally be a lot easier to control with a field of view equivalent to what the 50mm vintage lenses had for film cameras.

There's one right now for $170, box and papers. (Panasonic Lumix 25mm f1.7)

For the "vintage" lens route, I chose 1950's - 1960's era Nikon F lenses. A Nikkor 24mm f2.8, Nikkor 50mm f1.4, Nikkor series E 50mm f1.8, and a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 in Nikon F mount. I have the RJ focal reducer which works well with them but still prefer the "native" lenses.
 
Last edited:
Bruce is spot on, you may also look into canon FD mount, I'm a big fan and they can be found cheap on ebay. If you can find an older 24mm Tokina f 2.8, pentax pk mount, your going to be very happy with it, it's incredibly sharp, and has a beautiful aesthetic to the image it produces. Not the fastest lens, but it out performs my Samyang 24mm in good light all day. Love that lens! The older Kiron 24mm,28mm, are also very sharp for vintage glass. But tough to find good working copies without a stuck iris, not that it can't be repaired though. The Kiron 28-85 f2.8-3.5 is a very nice lens, and has the ability to be used as a macro lens too. They can be found for under 100.00 bucks.
 
Good FD lenses are not as cheap as they used to be, expect at least $200 for anything in decent condition (not 50f1.4) and way more for the wide like 15mm, can't touch the 7.5mm. Also the 50f1.2, 55f1.2, and 85f1.2 have recently really climbed in price. They seem to be sharper than the Samyang/Rokinon cine series (not XEEN) or the Rokinon cine would be a better choice. The old breach lock FD have a better build quality, more metal used than the "new" FD twist lock lenses. You can buy new mounts for most of the "new" FD to convert to EF (passive), and some of the "old" FD are starting to get filled in again. The Edmika mounts seem to have vanished, but EFtoFD.com is starting to fill in some of the gaps for the older stuff. His problem is buying each of the lenses and then designing the mount, it's a costly enterprise that he may never recuperate.
 
If you want to get closer to a modern look your only logical choice is the Nikon D mount lenses. These are the most modern lenses that still have a manual aperture ring and can act as a 100% full manual lens. Because they are newer and were designed around the transition from film to digital they have more modern coatings to reduce flare and low contrast.

Now if you want that type of old look thats another story but if you want to get as close as possible to modern lenses the Nikon D lenses are likely the best option.

With that said any non native electronic lens is always going to be softer. Even a modern 50mm Rokinon is typically much softer than Panasonic/Olympus native m43 lenses. You may never get the same level of detail as you currently get with your Olympus 12-40 f2.8. While you can get some cheaper vintage lenses if you want to match the look of your current Olympus lens you should really consider the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

The main issue I have with vintage lenses isn't so much the lower detail and contrast but that its virtually impossible to get wider than 20mm with that same look. 20mm is about as wide as you can get in older lenses with a decent speed and not going fisheye. Even then you may be only looking at f2.8 options at that wide of angle. Most of the time the best decent fast lens you will find is 24mm. For me I want as much of a consistent look as possible and using vintage makes that very hard if I need a wider angle of view. Kind of the same issue I have with anamorphic since most of those on the widest end are 35mm or longer. A Speedbooster can help the angle a view a bit but by the time you buy that and some vintage lens you might be better off getting newer lenses and not mess around.
 
I have a Lumix 45mm, a 15mm and I also use an old Helios 44-2 58mm f/2. Personally I really like the look of the vintage lens and I want to get more of them. I might switch entirely over to vintage lens but then I run into the problem of having to buy adapters for all of them. What is your budget? My 45mm cost me around $450 but you could get something cheaper than that easily. It just depends on what you are looking for.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-45mm-3-5-5-6-O-I-S-Thirds/dp/B002IKLJV4
 
Bruce Foreman said:
Register on mu-43.com and watch their "buy/sell" forum for modern Olympus/Panasonic Leica/Panasonic lenses advertised used before you give up on budgeting for one. A vintage 50mm will be the equivalent of a 100mm and would be a bit awkward in limited spaces. Also would be a challenge to handhold and keep the "jitters" under control.

The Olympus 25mm f1.8, Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4, and newly released Panasonic 25mm f1.7 will generally be a lot easier to control with a field of view equivalent to what the 50mm vintage lenses had for film cameras.

There's one right now for $170, box and papers. (Panasonic Lumix 25mm f1.7)

For the "vintage" lens route, I chose 1950's - 1960's era Nikon F lenses. A Nikkor 24mm f2.8, Nikkor 50mm f1.4, Nikkor series E 50mm f1.8, and a Vivitar 135mm f2.8 in Nikon F mount. I have the RJ focal reducer which works well with them but still prefer the "native" lenses.
Click to expand...

Thanks for suggesting this site - never heard of it but they have some good deals.
I'm aware of the crop factor, which is why I wanted a 50mm. I already have 12-40mm covered, so I was looking for something that'd give me a little more reach, so that 50mm would be more like a 100mm for me when you factor the GH4 2x crop factor.
 
I use a 24mm and a 50mm Nikon D series lens with my gh4and G7 and metabones and a dumb adapter. I like the results.
 
maranfilms said:
Bruce is spot on, you may also look into canon FD mount, I'm a big fan and they can be found cheap on ebay. If you can find an older 24mm Tokina f 2.8, pentax pk mount, your going to be very happy with it, it's incredibly sharp, and has a beautiful aesthetic to the image it produces. Not the fastest lens, but it out performs my Samyang 24mm in good light all day. Love that lens! The older Kiron 24mm,28mm, are also very sharp for vintage glass. But tough to find good working copies without a stuck iris, not that it can't be repaired though. The Kiron 28-85 f2.8-3.5 is a very nice lens, and has the ability to be used as a macro lens too. They can be found for under 100.00 bucks.
Click to expand...

That Tokina would be like a duplicate somewhat of what I already have in the 12-40mm. I'm looking for primes or zooms with constant aperture, so the Kirons wouldn't work for my purposes.

I've owned a few vintage lenses in the past (Olympus zuiko 50mm f1.4 and Contax Yashica YUS Automatic 28mm 2.8) when I used to shoot on a Canon T3I, but once I got the GH4 with the olympus 12-40 f2.8, I realized I prefer the sharper modern look as opposed to the slight softness and muted colors you get with a lot of those vintage lenses.

I shot this
And this
using that Olympus 50mm (with the T3i), and I realized I'm just not not a fan of the traditional vintage look. That being said, I know not all vintage lenses have that inherent softness. I've used a Nikon 28-70mm f2.8 that I really liked, but the size and weight led to lots of balancing issues. What I loved about it the most though, was that even though it's vintage (came out in 99, so it's 17 years old at this point), the image I got from it was sharp enough that it didn't look weird when mixed with the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 I already have.
 
Greg_E said:
Good FD lenses are not as cheap as they used to be, expect at least $200 for anything in decent condition (not 50f1.4) and way more for the wide like 15mm, can't touch the 7.5mm. Also the 50f1.2, 55f1.2, and 85f1.2 have recently really climbed in price. They seem to be sharper than the Samyang/Rokinon cine series (not XEEN) or the Rokinon cine would be a better choice. The old breach lock FD have a better build quality, more metal used than the "new" FD twist lock lenses. You can buy new mounts for most of the "new" FD to convert to EF (passive), and some of the "old" FD are starting to get filled in again. The Edmika mounts seem to have vanished, but EFtoFD.com is starting to fill in some of the gaps for the older stuff. His problem is buying each of the lenses and then designing the mount, it's a costly enterprise that he may never recuperate.
Click to expand...

From the footage I've seen, the FD's look "too vintage" to match what I have, although they used to be a good bargain.
I actually have a Rokinon 12mm f2 9 (to me, it actually seems sharper than the fd's ), but the focus ring is way too stiff. I guess for photography it's fine, but I don't like it for video. Thanks for the suggestion on the Rokinon Cine's, I'll have to check it out.
 
Thomas Smet said:
If you want to get closer to a modern look your only logical choice is the Nikon D mount lenses. These are the most modern lenses that still have a manual aperture ring and can act as a 100% full manual lens. Because they are newer and were designed around the transition from film to digital they have more modern coatings to reduce flare and low contrast.

Now if you want that type of old look thats another story but if you want to get as close as possible to modern lenses the Nikon D lenses are likely the best option.

With that said any non native electronic lens is always going to be softer. Even a modern 50mm Rokinon is typically much softer than Panasonic/Olympus native m43 lenses. You may never get the same level of detail as you currently get with your Olympus 12-40 f2.8. While you can get some cheaper vintage lenses if you want to match the look of your current Olympus lens you should really consider the Olympus 45mm f1.8.

The main issue I have with vintage lenses isn't so much the lower detail and contrast but that its virtually impossible to get wider than 20mm with that same look. 20mm is about as wide as you can get in older lenses with a decent speed and not going fisheye. Even then you may be only looking at f2.8 options at that wide of angle. Most of the time the best decent fast lens you will find is 24mm. For me I want as much of a consistent look as possible and using vintage makes that very hard if I need a wider angle of view. Kind of the same issue I have with anamorphic since most of those on the widest end are 35mm or longer. A Speedbooster can help the angle a view a bit but by the time you buy that and some vintage lens you might be better off getting newer lenses and not mess around.
Click to expand...

Nikon D's might be the move for me.

Is it true that non native electronic lenses are always going to be softer? I know that there are certain corrections that happen internally in the camera when using native lenses, but I thought you're good as long as you use an adapter without glass. Are you saying that even with those super expensive modern non-m43 lenses (leica's, zeiss, etc.), you wouldn't be getting maximum quality out of them if you don't use them on their native systems? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that this is the 1st time I've heard this.

I do like that Olympus 45mm. Very nice.

Width isn't really an issue for me, because the 24mm equivalent I get out of the 12mm end of my Olympus is about as wide as I usually need to go. But I agree with you, in general. Some of those same sentiments are in this article here http://www.vintagelensesforvideo.com/battle-of-cheap-vintage-17mm-lenses/.
 
rustyrehl said:
I have a Lumix 45mm, a 15mm and I also use an old Helios 44-2 58mm f/2. Personally I really like the look of the vintage lens and I want to get more of them. I might switch entirely over to vintage lens but then I run into the problem of having to buy adapters for all of them. What is your budget? My 45mm cost me around $450 but you could get something cheaper than that easily. It just depends on what you are looking for.
http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-45mm-3-5-5-6-O-I-S-Thirds/dp/B002IKLJV4
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not opposed to vintage lenses, but I am to that vintage look, if that makes any sense.
I was hoping to spend no more than $150, but I understand I may have to raise that up a bit.
That panasonic lens doesn't have a constant aperture, so no go for me.
 
If you want the best of the adapters, that alone will cost you $100 or more. Even most of the good quality adapters are going to be nearly $100. Not every "vintage" lens (including FD) is soft, the Nikon AI and AI-s with the manual aperture are said to be very sharp. Most any decent 50mm is going to be very sharp as well. OM mount is another you may want to look at.
 
If Canon FD looked "too vintage", then I doubt you would be happy with either a Takumar 55m or a Nikon AIs 50mm, as they are similar. Keep in mind though that the footage you watched may have been with the lens wide open - with a vintage lens you lose contrast and gain a slight "glow" at max. aperture. If stopped down to f2.8 is still fast enough, you might find you like them well enough.

Otherwise, save up for the Oly 60m macro (the 45mm duplicates what you have).
 
Darkwing Productions said:
Nikon D's might be the move for me.

Is it true that non native electronic lenses are always going to be softer? I know that there are certain corrections that happen internally in the camera when using native lenses, but I thought you're good as long as you use an adapter without glass. Are you saying that even with those super expensive modern non-m43 lenses (leica's, zeiss, etc.), you wouldn't be getting maximum quality out of them if you don't use them on their native systems? I'm not trying to be difficult, it's just that this is the 1st time I've heard this.

I do like that Olympus 45mm. Very nice.

Width isn't really an issue for me, because the 24mm equivalent I get out of the 12mm end of my Olympus is about as wide as I usually need to go. But I agree with you, in general. Some of those same sentiments are in this article here http://www.vintagelensesforvideo.com/battle-of-cheap-vintage-17mm-lenses/.
Click to expand...

yes this is true of even Rokinon lenses. Even when they are m43 mount they are not electronic lenses and don't have the corrections the m43 cameras usually do. Modern Canon and Nikon lenses adapted to the GH4 are the same thing. Nothing wrong with those lenses. Its just the over sharpening m43 native lenses are known to do and part of why some people think the format looks too clinical and sharp.

Nothing wrong with either direction but once you pick you it is good to stick with it. If you buy FD or vintage stay with older and vintage lenses. If you buy native m43 stick with native m43 and if you want use Rokinon, or Canon/Nikon modern lenses it s good to stick with those. Of course you can mix and match but there will be a different look between the lenses when you do.

I have a lot of native m43 lenses and I love them. I also has some FD lenses and like them as well. I have a single modern adapted Rokinon 12mm f2.0 lens which is also a great lens. I just don't like mixing them all together. Eventually I will likely switch to modern Canon/Nikon lenses with a Speedbooster XL but thats out of the budget for now. I will use the Rokinon when I have to with my native lenses but it will never be as sharp. I tend to shoot at -5 sharpness which helps bridge the sharpness gap a bit but there is still a clear difference. I tend to only use the Rokinon for indoor steady cam type work so I can live with the sharpness loss in that situation because it beats using a slower/darker lens for those shots.

I also shoot stills so I do like to have native lenses for that. Thats the other reason holding me back from investing in non native glass for a Speed Booster. If I had endless cash I would get full sets of both but alas I do not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top