what are the best quality M4/3 lenses available for the AF100 Camera?
- Thread starter Shooter
- Start date
Darren Levine
Veteran
Tough one for the wide angle, which seems to be mostly limited to 4/3 lenses and cine35 lenses which are of course nice for a price. would certainly like to hear some thoughts. especially about canon FD/FL lenses, since the af100 is probably the first camera which can make good use of them in a long time
antonyoung
Active member
He's asking about native Micro 4/3 lenses, there are a ton of threads already on other lenses. The native Micro 4/3 lenses are here: Micro 4/3 Lens Chart
Darren Levine
Veteran
ah yep, missed the no adapters part. guess that means i have to finally succumb to that sleep thing...
Not even the Panasonic/Olympus Four-Thirds to M4/3 adapters? Unlike the manual operation third-party adapters, these adapters make a Four-Thirds lens work as if it was a native Micro Four-Thirds lens. I think the reason for making this exception will be obvious to those who own any of the following lenses:
Olympus 14-35mm f2.0 SWD: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=260
Olympus 35-100mm f2.0: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=242
Olympus 50-200mm f2.8-3.5 SWD: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=201
Olympus 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 Mark II: http://www.lenstip.com/index.php?test=obiektywu&test_ob=227
Olympus 12-60mm f2.8-4 SWD: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/olympus_12-60_2p8-4_o20/page3.asp
There is no decent zoom available for AF100 without PL mount.....except for Lumix 7-14mm f4.0 . If one must, Olympus 14-35mm f2.0 and 35-100 f2.0 but they are not video/cine lenses.(must use adapters)
I am using Voigtlander Primes 25mm and 50mm f1.1.
In a long run Jacek's Golden PL mount and RED PRO zoom 17-50mm t2.9 is the best option in long run.
jiri
I
Jon Furtado
Well-known member
They're not native m4/3, but I went with an older set of Arri Standard Primes. That way I'm pretty much as future proof as it can get. If they were around in the 70's-80's and still in use now, that's a good sign!
Barry_Green
Moderator
The best lenses out there in native m43 mount are the Zeiss Compact Prime CP.2's. The Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 is also exceptional, especially if you get the iris declicked by Duclos.
That is extremely expensive and pretty much cost prohibitive. It would cost well over $1000 to do it. At least that's what they told me when I took the lens in there.
Problem with any PL expensive lenses one will find it hard to find fast wide lens.
Zeiss 18mm t3.5 is 36mm .........
There is no solution but Lumix 7-14 ....nice but slow.
Panasonic 14mm f2.5 is the other choice.
Samyang 8mm f3.5 is another.
There is no fast wide lens fast lens .....only Olympus 14-35mm f2.0...... but 28mm is not wide enough for me.
Zeiss 18mm t3.5 is 36mm .........
There is no solution but Lumix 7-14 ....nice but slow.
Panasonic 14mm f2.5 is the other choice.
Samyang 8mm f3.5 is another.
There is no fast wide lens fast lens .....only Olympus 14-35mm f2.0...... but 28mm is not wide enough for me.
2 things...
1. It's not 36mm unless you're comparing it to full frame. If you're shooting video or film you need to compare it to those formats. Full frame is a photography format and this is not a photography camera.
2. T3.5 is different than f/3.5, so it's really not that slow. (The Zeiss CP.2 18mm is actually T3.6 and I mention that because the OP asked about m4/3 lenses without needing an adapter). Most of the time a DP won't want to shoot more open than that anyway because it becomes too difficult to focus and you get a softer image even when in focus as much as it can go.
This obsession about super wide lenses is coming from a misunderstanding of what usually gets used in filmmaking. Rarely do films get shot with lenses wider than 18mm. Anything wider is typically a specialty lens for special purposes. They don't get used much partly because they tend to add a lot of distortion.
2 things...
1. It's not 36mm unless you're comparing it to full frame. If you're shooting video or film you need to compare it to those formats. Full frame is a photography format and this is not a photography camera.
2. T3.5 is different than f/3.5, so it's really not that slow. (The Zeiss CP.2 18mm is actually T3.6 and I mention that because the OP asked about m4/3 lenses without needing an adapter). Most of the time a DP won't want to shoot more open than that anyway because it becomes too difficult to focus and you get a softer image even when in focus as much as it can go.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Really??? Well that sure isn't worth it. I thought I'd heard him say he could do it, but I hadn't heard anything about a price associated with it, I guess I just assumed it'd be $250 like with the other lenses he does.
Barry_Green
Moderator
First, none of this PL talk has anything to do with this thread, because the original poster had specified "no adapters."
Second, you don't have to buy everything -- especially a hyper-wide. You can rent an 8mm T2.8 lens, or a 10mm T2.1, which should satisfy anyone's craving for ultra-wide. And with the Panasonic 7-14 and the "clean" settings, you can get 14mm equivalent wide by just turning the ISO up a notch, and turning up the ISO can be nearly grainless, so -- it really isn't that big of a problem.
The problem is that it's not like the Nikons or Zeiss ZF. With those it's just a matter of removing 3-4 screws from the back of the lens, pulling the mount off, removing the little spring/ball, added grease, and putting it back together. With the Voigtlander 25mm lens the aperture ring is at the front of the lens so he'd have to completely dismantle the lens and get inside of it. And he's never done that to one of these lenses before, so he's speculating that it could be done and then speculating again how much he imagines it would cost. I'm waiting until someone else does it and then I'll see what the actual cost is.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Roger that. Well, it would have been nice, but yeah, forget that.
When I shot that ISO test I started out using the Lumix 20mm, but controlling the aperture to the precision that I needed was rather infuriating. I went with the CP instead and it was just so refreshing to get something that worked exactly the way I wanted it to. When at "A Verse" I had the opportunity to use Stephen Mick's declicked Duclos'd ZFs, and they were almost as exquisite. Made me want to Duclos my Voigtlander, but ... not for a grand. Thanks for looking into it though!
When I shot that ISO test I started out using the Lumix 20mm, but controlling the aperture to the precision that I needed was rather infuriating. I went with the CP instead and it was just so refreshing to get something that worked exactly the way I wanted it to. When at "A Verse" I had the opportunity to use Stephen Mick's declicked Duclos'd ZFs, and they were almost as exquisite. Made me want to Duclos my Voigtlander, but ... not for a grand. Thanks for looking into it though!
Gary Senda
Well-known member
This is true, but there are 3 observations:
1. cinematographic sets are usually much larger than indie's set (it is impossible for an indie to remove a wall or to use a modified car for camera car internal shots)
2. 7-14mm lens distorsions are corrected by the camera and none movie camera makes this
3. no reason to not explore a new image language now that the technology allow us to make this experiments
7-14mm is a special purpose lens, without doubts, but I think that if it used with moderation and in a clever way can make the difference, expecially for an indie shooter and can open new horizons that before were precluded only because they were quite impossible to shoot
Regards
Gary