Which prime lens focal lengths to get?

Mike@AF said:
Wow, this as turned into a good discussion. Thanks everyone for your input. To respond to some of the comments/questions...

I would prefer a zoom lens, but I haven't seen any at f/1.2 or f/1.4. The best I've seen is f/2 and that was pretty expensive. I figured I could get a few primes at f/1.2 or f/1.4 for when I really need better low light capability. The 24mm f/2.8 was a thought to get something wide and better with low light than the stock GH1 lens. I would definitely prefer an f/1.2 or f/1.4 over the f/2.8, but they're out of the budget range I'm trying to keep for this.
Click to expand...

I think the Kit Lens will suffice for most people, especially if you plan on lighting.

[qupte]
The crop factor of the GH1 is definitely an issue. I don't like the distortion on those real wide lenses getting below 20mm. The 20mm lens is an option though. I usually don't shoot wide shots. I don't really shoot masters either. I may use a master-type shot to establish quickly, and maybe revisit within a scene as necessary, but typically stick to medium and close-up shots.[/quote]

It's definitely less an issue than what's being projected. Hunter Richards has the same math going. It's definitely not 2x in Video Mode. It's good for us!
 
Kholi said:
However, if you're doing a lot of daylight work, don't count out even cheaper, slower zooms. I say it alot, but one of my favorite lenses is my Contax Zeiss 28-70/3.4~5.6 zoom.
Click to expand...

Do you see a big difference between the kit lens and your Contax Zeiss? I was thinking the main idea of a replacement zoom lens would be to get a significantly faster one than the kit lens. To me that's at least a 2.8 and I'd certainly prefer constant.

On the zoom lens I was looking at the Nikon AF-S 28-70D ED f/2.8 constant, which has now been taken off the Nikon website. Problem is it's a $1500 lens.

It's definitely less an issue than what's being projected. Hunter Richards has the same math going. It's definitely not 2x in Video Mode. It's good for us!
Click to expand...

Okay, so it's like this then (for video)...

20 = ~28
24 = ~35
28 = ~40
35 = ~50
50 = ~70
85 = ~120
135 = ~190

For me I think the ones to get are:

~28 (20mm lens)
~35 (24mm lens)
~50 (35mm lens)
~70 (50mm lens)
And then ~120 (85mm lens) would be nice.

I don't know if ~190 would be something I'd want or need. I'm talking only low light use here. If I need the telephoto it would probably be in situations where there's a lot of light and then I could just use the kit lens.

What do you guys think are the best lenses to get at those focal lengths on a modest budget, assuming I really want f/1.2 or f/1.4?
 
PerroneFord said:
I also agree that at a decent wide zoom, and a decent short tele zoom would be good. In fact, it would speed up shooting a ton, probably save money in the long run, and be easier to deal with than running around with a bag full of primes.
Click to expand...

I agree and would prefer a zoom or two. But I'd be stuck at 2.8 at best and have found with my HVX200 that 2.8 sometimes isn't enough in real low light situations where I can't light or light well, especially outdoors at night. I know I can shoot at a higher ISO, but I don't like noise in my picture, which is partly why I'm probably going to get rid of the HVX200. I'd rather add noise/grain if I want to and not be forced to have it there.

So do any fast zooms exist that you'd recommend? Anything faster than 2.8? I'm not aware of any 1.2 or 1.4 zooms and imagine if they're out there that they're super expensive.
 
I got Canon FD lenses for now and they do have a old style quality to them. OK for me as I love that look.

20mm - f/2.8
28mm - f/2.0
35mm f/2.0
50mm f/1.4

I mount them with a ciecio7 FD adapter that's sold over eBay. I got them from second hand retailers here in Sweden and with the adapter the whole enchilada was around $900. I'm looking for a 85 and 100mm.

The one lens I'm drooling over is the Olympus 4/3 14-35 - f/2.0 which would be a perfect base lens but it costs more than the GH1...

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/zuiko_digital_ed_14_35mm_f2_0_swd_review/

To mount it a Panasonic's 4/3 to m4/3 adapter is needed and perhaps some support rails as it's big and weighs twice as much as the GH1 kit lens.

Almost forgot, there's this thread about the Voigtländer prime lenses

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174251
 
Last edited:
Hi guys, are you certain it's not 2x in video? Because while the sensor is larger than a standard 4/3 sensor, I'm certain the imaging circle created by a 4/3 lens isn't going to give you that much more slack to make it a 1.5x FOV crop from 2x.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong though.

Just to add about Nikons: Nikkors are great, but due to the fact that the F-mount hasn't changed (and most high-end Nikons meter with the old lenses even), Nikkors will carry a price premium over something like say, the Canon FD lenses. Since Canon switched to the EF mount sometime in the late '80s, you can get the FD lenses for cheap.

I shoot with Nikons mostly, and while I don't chase the latest and greatest, I think I might try some of my lenses once I've got the time... I have a few I'm itching to try!

On Nikkor lenses: Due to the old retrofocus design the Nikkor 20/2.8 is *not* a happy camper on digital. I had mine, worked great on film, not so happy on digital, so I sold it. The funny 30mm equivalent field of view didn't help. Probably costs US$300 even for the AI-s edition second hand.

The 35/2 however is a much better lens. I've got the AF version, but I think the 35/2 AI-s shouldn't be too expensive. US$250 second hand?

A 50/1.8 is cheap. Plenty on the market too, and good optics too.

The Tokina 11-16/2.8 is awesome; it's sharp and has very little aberrations, but there's no aperture ring. Isn't it a problem to be shooting at f/2.8 ALL the time?

On noise: I don't know about video, but the current crop of DSLRs are amazing. I shoot at ISO 3200 on my D300 without fear. The GH1 is a little worse, but goes to ISO 1600 nicely. The larger sensor on the GH1 is going to be way better than the HVX200 in terms of noise quantity.
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
The crop factor is about 1.4x actually. It's not an actual 4:3 sensor, it's 16:9 and the movie mode uses that. So a 24mm is actually somewhere around 32mm/35mm range.
Click to expand...

Really? You may be right! I never thought about the fact that the 16:9 setting uses more width of the sensor. Hmmm. If that's true, that's very good news for wide angle purposes.

However, I just checked the specs on the GH1 sensor. It says 17.3 mm wide. If a full frame 35mm sensor is 36mm wide, then by my math, the crop factor is approximately 2x.

Now I don't know what to think.
 
Okay, this is getting off topic, but I'm now intrigued that the 16:9 setting has a less than 2x crop factor. After a bit of websurfing, I see this is a topic of discussion with bit of a controversy. I found a GH1 sensor diagram here:

http://www.pbase.com/viztyger/image/109862835/original.jpg

which I don't think is official, but it shows the sensor width is actually more like 18.8mm. While that makes the field of view a bit wider, the crop factor ends up being more like 1.9x, and not 1.4x. Now that I think of it, if it WERE 1.4x, that would make the sensor larger than APS-C, which it certainly isn't.
Thoughts?
 
That's essentially what I was saying. In fact because you lop off vertical resolution I'm certain it's back to 2.0x
 
Hey sorry about the confusion guys. I do this often. I keep forgetting that "35mm" isn't "Academy" LoL.

So when I say 1.6 - 1.4 I'm talking comparing it to S35 or Academy FOV, not Photographic 35mm. That is, the standard for cinematic acquisition is not Full Frame, it's Academy and that's what I go by since I'm not a photographer, but shoot moving images for a living.

So yeah, in comparison to Full Frame it's 2x. right. Full Frame isn't the standard for motion picture, so when comparing it to RED it's more like 1.4x, which is close enough for me!

Sorry again about the confusion! Sometimes I even confuse myself.
 
But they're comparing still photo formats, where stills photo rules apply.
BTW do look a t Voightlander primes, in either M or L39 mount. They're very good for the money, not up to Leica M, but not as expensive either.
Oh, and another BTW, I was shooting FF stills with a leitz 21 f/4 Super Angulon, and its drawing is ruler straight, right to the edges, so wide doesn't always mean distortion, it depends on how much you're willing to pay (£400 in this case)
Dave
 
daveswan said:
BTW, I was shooting FF stills with a leitz 21 f/4 Super Angulon, and its drawing is ruler straight, right to the edges, so wide doesn't always mean distortion, it depends on how much you're willing to pay (£400 in this case)
Dave
Click to expand...


I think I said that right out of the gate. But you aren't going to find too many "wider-than-20mm" lenses that are essentially distortion free for US$100! :) Add a zero or two and you're there.
 
daveswan said:
But they're comparing still photo formats, where stills photo rules apply.
Click to expand...


Sorry, i thought we were talking about cinema/commercial application, as that's what Mike of Ascentia shoots. My bad. If we're talking about the GH-1 as a still camera or for still useage then yeah, if you're used to Full Frame photograph the 2x crop will disturb you.

If we're talking Cinematic and Commercial Acqisition and you've been shooting at Academy FOV (RED, Film, etc) then the slight crop factor will barely effect you I believe.

All cleared up.
 
Hi Kholi,

I have the Tokina 11-16 since the happy D90 days...
I will buy the Novoflex adapter tomorrow for my other Nikon lenses, but how would you use the Tokina on the GH1 and control the aperture?

Thanks,

Johnnie
 
Qtip sticks cut to size for certain apetures and jammed into the iris pin.

Until someone drills a hole in a nikon mount and adds a set screw that can open the apeture that's what I'm doing.
 
Okay, so let me see if I get this right... if I want to shoot video with the GH1 and am using some Nikon, Canon, Tokina, Voightlander, or other similar lenses then it's approximately a 2x crop factor? So a 20mm becomes approximately a 40mm FOV? Is there anything out there (similar to a focal reducer) that will squeeze the image circle by about .5 or .6 to better fit the sensor? Could be a great accessory for 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras.

I like the look of Canon glass as well. I ordered the Nikon adapter because I read in another thread that you can use Nikon glass on a Canon body, but can't use Canon glass on a Nikon body. I'd like to get lenses that I can use with other camera bodies in case I change/upgrade to something else later. I'd hate to buy a bunch of Canon lenses I can't use with a Nikon camera in case I end up with a Nikon down the road. But this does make me question if that statement in the other thread was accurate? I'm referring to post #8 in this thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=173325 If it's not accurate, then I'll take a serious look at the Canon FD's. And could FD lenses work on a newer Canon body?

As far as the Voightlander lenses go, the thread discussing them has discussion of smearing or distortion in the corners. I want to stay away from those kinds of issues.
 
Uh, wow, I need to read better. I just noticed in that thread that Anthonybsd said that doesn't apply to FD lenses. Now I'm going to look at Canon FD. Any opinions on the various FD lenses?
 
Mike@AF said:
And could FD lenses work on a newer Canon body?
Click to expand...

Canon has taken every opportunity to abandon their lens mounts on pro and consumer cameras. I started with a Canon AE1 back in the day. Switched to a Canon T70 and all my lenses became obsolete. Switched to a Canon EOS10s and all my lenses became obsolete again... That was the LAST time. The next camera I bought was a Nikon F4s. Which was able to use any Nikon SLR lens ever produced (with a couple of notable exceptions).

Nikon has worked very hard to keep it's pro bodies backward compatile. Canon just seems not to care. I cannot support that kind of corporate thinking.
 
Due to Canon FD's short(ish) flange-to-focal-plane distance they are difficult to adapt to most cameras. If you want to use them on a new Canon EOS camera body you either need an adapter with some glass in it, which means you lose some light, some FOV, and some resolution, or you get an adapter without glass but lose the ability to focus them to infinity, effectively turning them into macro lenses.
 
Some good info there. Sounds like one needs to be careful when it comes to investing in Canon glass.

Can you focus to infinity with the FD lenses on the GH1?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top