GH2 Wide, Cine-style lenses?

[snipe2k5]

It seems like there's some decent options in the m4/3 format, only most of them are too video-y to my eye for some reason, instead of smooth and 'cinematic' looking. The "noktor" 12/1.6 looks great but as with the 25mm Nokton has a little too much DOF for my taste so it's quite "dream like" wide open.

I currently have a set of Pentax smc primes:
28mm/3.5, 50mm/1.4, 55mm/1.8, 105mm/2.8.

The 28 can be used for Wides, and is sharp, but sometimes I want even wider than a 56mm equiv. on a full frame... I also need something closer to a 50mm equivalent, with a larger aperture.

With that in mind, I was looking at some used 20mm m43 lenses that were available. Some older, slower m42 mount ones can be had under $200. I am concerned about their wide-open sharpness - If possible I would like to use them to create DOF for close subjects. Occasional f/2.8's show up but I once again have to question their wide-open sharpness - is it fuzzy, grainy,etc. overall, I am still only achieving 40mm due to the gh2's crop sensor. That's Okay.. it is acceptable. But I also have to bring up the subject of Wide-angle adapters: are there any that work effectively? A 0.65x filter thread adapter would turn my 28mm into about 36mm on a FF - and my 55mm into a 71mm f/1.8 FF effective full frame length. Not bad, if there are any adapters that actually work. Most of the demonstrations I've seen have been awful, with no overall image sharpness (Needed for wide, establishing photography). I have, however, seen some mildly better demonstrations, so I haven't ruled them out completely. A 0.5x adapter would suit my needs just as well, but not necessary if it has alot more image degradation than the 0.65x.

So.. Overall I suppose I'm just trying to get a decent cinematic looking Wide angle, and 50mm. The 12mm Noktor once again appeals to me but I'm really not sure how well it will cut with the Pentax primes, which tend to have a very subdued subtle "smoothness" (even when stopped down). Another huge plus is the ability to use ETC mode make an effective 24mm (or 30mm?) - With a fast 1.6 aperture. I owned the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 from the beginning and loved it's low light performance and DOF. However it was SO sharp, that it looked like almost a different camera when shown against clips from my Pentax primes. So I sold it.

 

[David W. Jones]

It seems like there's some decent options in the m4/3 format, only most of them are too video-y to my eye for some reason, instead of smooth and 'cinematic' looking. The "noktor" 12/1.6 looks great but as with the 25mm Nokton has a little too much DOF for my taste so it's quite "dream like" wide open.

Not sure what you mean by... "a little too much DOF"?

Maybe you mean too shallow depth of field as you then go on to say "it's quite dream like wide open"

You do know that changing your aperture will take care of that. If you don't want shallow depth of field, shoot at something like f5.6 for example.

And when it comes to lenses being cinematic looking, well that's all subjective. As everybody has a different idea of what that might look like.
For example... Zeiss Master Primes are incredibly sharp, but deliver what I consider a cinematic image.

Good Luck with your lens quest!

Dave

 

[snipe2k5]

You are correct, I meant to say too shallow DOF. Sure, I can stop down the f1.6 or f0.95 lenses, but I'd really like a lens that has some useability wide open because I sometimes like good-looking bokeh in the foreground or background while getting a fairly sharp focus on my subject. The 0.95, I hear, has paper-thin DOF wide open. Not exactly what I'm going for... These "Ultra fast" lenses try to deliver as much light as possible, but at the expense of image quality it seems (to me). Stopped down, as you said, the issue becomes resolved. Wide-open, these lenses can look nice, but they'll be very prone to flare and a "dream" look.

I think I could be happy camper with a small-aperture (f4/20mm) wide angle, Which isn't even that wide @ 40mm(cropped). But it's always interesting to hear what solutions people have found to work best for them. I would still need a way to get a roughly 50mm full frame equivalent - a 0.5x adapter on my 55/1.8 would give me that, but would probably look terrible.

Of course, you are right about cinematic style being subjective. Sharpness is not the only factor taken into consideration. As for me, I like old 35mm lenses like Canon FD and my Pentax primes because they sharp without being "extreme" like many modern lenses. They don't look as contrasty, and have a very subtle, "feel" to them that make them shine, especially with all these new bit rate hacks. Maybe it's because they are over 40 years old, but they seem just right for DSLR filmmaking.

 

[j1clark@ucsd.edu]

....
Zeiss Master Primes are incredibly sharp, but deliver what I consider a cinematic image.
...
Dave

Every time I see this I wonder where the hell have I been... I don't watch 'TV'... the only visual media I watch on a 'TV' display is a movie... the only time I see things on the Big Screen, are movies...

And yet, I find the idea that somehow a 'softer' image is somehow more 'cinematic' is totally lost on me.

If 'soft' is what people want... a glob of Vasiline on a glass filter will do... alternatively, post-process with a Gaussian filter...

And of course turn off any 'in camera sharpening'...

The digitization process does have one aspect, that may or may not be handled well 'in camera', and that is the sharpness of the high spatial frequency filter, which can lead to aliasing, if the filter is not 'sharp' enough. But I don't think that's what people are thinking of...

There is also the way the human visual system and brain interpretation handles 'contrast', giving unsharp images the impression of 'sharp' just because there are significant contrast differences. But again in many cases that's a lighting issue... don't use a hard light... if you want a soft image...

As for lenses that are sharp wide open... those tend to be $1-2K and above for 'ordinary' 35mm lenses, and of course one can go for 'cine' lenses and quickly get in to the 10's of K's worth of cost...

 

[snipe2k5]

Well, I can venture to say that extreme sharpness tends to look unflattering, but I'm mainly speaking more about my textures, tones, colors in regards to the look I want to achieve. There is a feeling about the pictures taken, they're not quite the same as with a modern AF lens. It has more to do than simply sharpness.. Can't put my finger on it. I used to shoot these lenses on actual 35mm film so I suppose they might be special to me. Non-cinematic sharp lenses (like a canon L series) will probably look way sterile and sharp, even though it's a quality produced image. I can easily make these lenses as sharp as I want as long as I stop down, the 28/3.5 I have produces stellar results at f/8.

...I think I've found the tokina 11-16 2.8 lens to be my target for my wide shots. It looks great for what I want and is easily adapted, and with a 22-32mm equivalent FoV @2.8 it's very versatile.

I have yet to find a suitable 50mm (ff equivalent) lens though My 50mm lens actually looks like a 100mm...