Rolf Silber
Veteran
Second quick and dirty, shot with GH2......
Voigtlander 17.5 / 0.95 coming...???
- Thread starter Rolf Silber
- Start date
vincent thomas
Well-known member
Will this lens works on the Black Magic Camera?
hscully
Veteran
It will cover the sensor but as of this moment there is no m4/3 mount. I wonder if you could do something with an adapter to the Canon mount currently available?
dregenthal
Veteran
I couldn't guess what the big boys (quality manufacturers) are going to do but I'd bet that by the time this camera ships the low end adapter folks will have started knocking 'em out.
I mean really, how hard can it be when they're offering adapters on eBay for less than $12 with free shipping . . .
Got my 17.5mm last week, looking forward to trying it out.
Like someone already said, really solid build and, I'm crazy about the ability to switch from clicked to de-clicked iris settings!
I mean really, how hard can it be when they're offering adapters on eBay for less than $12 with free shipping . . .
Got my 17.5mm last week, looking forward to trying it out.
Like someone already said, really solid build and, I'm crazy about the ability to switch from clicked to de-clicked iris settings!
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
For me the 25/0.95 has hit the sweet spot. It is my go to lens. The 7-14 is my goto backup. Love them both and f4 hasn't been a deal breaker in most situations.
How's barrel distortion on the 17.5/0.95?
How's barrel distortion on the 17.5/0.95?
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
Not bad at all. Hmmmm, could be a nice addition.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The low-end guys will probably make one, but it will not work. You would have to physically mount an m43 lens over an inch inside the lens mount on the BMC. Ain't gonna happen.
They'll make some awful mechanical adapter that lets you put the lens on there, but it'll be about as functional as if you mounted it to the side of a rhinoceros...
The only way this will work properly is if BlackMagic issues a second body style, a different camera, that has a native m43 or short-flange interchangeable lens mount. No cheap/simple adapter will get you there.
dregenthal
Veteran
+1 for best quote of the year!
Thanks Barry, I'm going to have to remember that one . . . still laughing.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Got the 17.5 a week or so ago. Feels like a beefy version of their 25.
...as for the BMD camera housing... why??? Did politics (Panny/Olympus) influence the stupidly deep flange design? I can't think of a single reason why it doesn't look like a GH2's...
...as for the BMD camera housing... why??? Did politics (Panny/Olympus) influence the stupidly deep flange design? I can't think of a single reason why it doesn't look like a GH2's...
Barry_Green
Moderator
Well, because the GH2 was designed around and for the m43 mount, which has only a 20mm flange depth. The EF mount requires that massive long tube because it requires a 44.5mm(IIRC) flange depth...
hscully
Veteran
That's what I figured. That mount seemed pretty deep. That's the beauty part of the m4/3 mount. Everything else is deeper!....mounted to the side of a Rhinocerous.... nice!
Zephyrnoid
Veteran
Indeed. I think BlackMagic has heard the message loud and clear. M43 mount or they loose 1/3 of their potential of customer base.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
That's exactly my point, they should've made it shallow like the GH2 (and maybe thrown in a removable pass-through EF adapter, or just let people use the abundant m43 adapters) so that anything would go on it, instead of making it impossible to mount native m43 lenses, or anything with a shallower-than-44.5mm flange depth. I don't get that design choice, the 'snorkel' sticking out of the body.
Barry_Green
Moderator
While I was (profoundly) disappointed in their choice of Canon EF mount, I will be the first to admit, it makes a lot of sense. The vast majority of DSLR shooters (who are the presumed target market for the BMC) are coming from Canon DSLRs, so they'll already have lenses. #1 question I field about the AF100 is "can I use my Canon lenses on it", etc. So providing Canon support was the obvious choice. I sure wish they could have done it with some manner of interchangeable lens mount, but ... well, while it is certainly a big inconvenience for me, and while I think it would have been a more usable camera system with a shallower mount, I can certainly see their point and at the price point I'm willing to work around it.
Erik Naso
Veteran
If you look at all the interchangeable lens cameras on the market none of them work with MFT lenses.
Don’t buy MFT lenses with the hope to use them with anything other than MFT cameras. I accept that but also started buying lenses that I can use on more cameras. Hopefully lenses will out last many cameras.
Don’t buy MFT lenses with the hope to use them with anything other than MFT cameras. I accept that but also started buying lenses that I can use on more cameras. Hopefully lenses will out last many cameras.
Last edited:
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
I'm sorry, what? None???
I don't, and that's irrelevant to the discussion. BMD could've (easily?) made the case shallow enough to take m43 lenses, but didn't. An aftermarket company, or just someone crazy enough could literally take a hacksaw to the cam, some J-B Weld, and presto, have a m43 mount, and as such, compatible with a ton of other lenses besides Nikon and Canon, you know, one of the reasons many of us bought AF100s in the first place.