GH2 Would this lens fit on this camera?

-Which would be better for shooting short films, the 50mm or the 28mm?
Click to expand...
thats like asking "what color is better to paint a picture, blue or yellow?"

it totally and completely depends on your shot. for a tighter, intimate shot, the 50. for a wider room shot, the 28 (or wider)

the thing about the GH2 (or any non full-frame camera for that matter) is the crop sensor. the crop factor on the GH2 is as i understand just shy of 2x.
so any lens you adapt to it is going to be conversationally 2x what it says it is. so a 50 works like a 100 and a 28 like a 56

so if were only going to get ONE lens. id probably choose the 28

when i had my gh2 rig i used the rayqual adapter. its about $200 but it pretty much reliably met any need i had.
 
You probably don't need a Nikon G adapter with the aperture control for a 50mm. The 50mm likely has a built in ring. I do have this same adapter and I use it for my Tamron 17-50 2.8 and it works pretty well but it does have a bit of play in it which I hate when I'm using my follow focus.
 
Ok then it seems like I should go with the 28mm.. Does the adapter effect the quality drastically? Is it worth it to get a nice adapter? I don't see the rayqual adapter on amazon, do you have another suggestion for an adapter for the nikon 28mm to the GH2? I am looking for a cinematic look.
 
Last edited:
Does the adapter effect the quality drastically? Is it worth it to get a nice adapter? I don't see the rayqual adapter on amazon,
Click to expand...

dont live and die by amazon. a lot of the higher end stuff sometimes doesnt show up on amazon. a google search is your friend.

a good adapter shouldnt have noticeable effect on the quality. i cant speak for the cheapo amazon stuff. but ive never heard any complaints on the higher end adapters (novoflex, rayqual etc...)

I am looking for a cinematic look.
Click to expand...
i've said this before. but i'm so earth-shakingly SICK of hearing the term "cinematic". especially from new-adopters who are drunk on a bunch of terminology they've read on forums. to a degree, it's in the eye of the beholder. but cinematic has as much to do with the composition and move of the shot as well as post process as it does the gear.

one thing i've aways enjoyed is taking my camera to pawn shops or camera stores (especially ones that sell used gear) and just try stuff out.
 
I just have an amazon gift card, thats why. But i hear you with the cinematic look rhetoric. I am new to the DSLR, so I am just trying to find the best lens for my film, so its not sharp/new age documentary style. I know thats vague... Any suggestions on a good "old" prime lens with the gh2
 
i also wouldnt get too hung up on OLD either. you can find a nice newer nikon mount glass like say a tokina 12-24 that will give you a decent multi-purpose lens. of course being "adapted" you wont benefit from any of its modern features like IS or AF... but thats true of anything adapted.
 
craigbuckley said:
I just have an amazon gift card, thats why. But i hear you with the cinematic look rhetoric. I am new to the DSLR, so I am just trying to find the best lens for my film, so its not sharp/new age documentary style. I know thats vague... Any suggestions on a good "old" prime lens with the gh2
Click to expand...

Don't listen to him, we all start somewhere right? I still use the term cinematic when talking about lenses qualitatively speaking. It may not be accurate, or even possible to define; just a quality you pick up on in certain footage that reminds you of an aesthetic not unlike film (softer etc.) as opposed to something sharp and sterile from the news or a documentary.

If you want "the look", just about any vintage prime will do in all honesty. A good place to start would be the Nikkors you were talking about. The 2 ranges that are great to have on the GH2 are 25mm-35mm and a 45-55mm. There are of course many more options, but to keep it simple, a prime in each of those ranges will cover you for most types of shots.


Nikkor non ai or ai lenses: 28mm 2.8 / 35mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.4
Minolta Rokkors: Rokkor-X 28mm 2.8 / 35mm 2.8 / 50mm 1.4
Super Takumar 28mm 3.5 / 35mm 3.5 / 50mm 1.4
Sigma 30mm 2.8 EX DN for M4/3 (This lens just came out, but sigmas have an amazing "cinematic" look to them)
Helios 44M 58mm f2

Each one of those lenses can be easily found for less than $100, with exception to the Sigma which is a new lens but still ridiculously cheap at around $160-180 used. I have a feeling any one of those lenses will give you what your looking for.

And if you ever get the budget one day to afford it... JUMP on the voigtlander 25mm .95. It simply doesn't get better than that. If god himself crafted a manual lens for video work... It'd probably be the VL 25mm.
 
Last edited:
The old Canon FD lens set is one that a lot of people use. My dad had an old one from an old camera of his. So I bought an adapter for it. It gives a lovely image, though it's too soft to mix well with my other lenses open all the way. The adapter wasn't all that expensive. Then I have a Panny 20mm, 14 - 42 kit lens, and a 45 - 175 mm X lens. So obviously those don't need adapters. And last, my favorite for interviews, a modern Nikon 50mm 1.4 D. All manual. I got it from Best Buy since I had a CC with them at the time. I have the metabones adapter for it.

Really, whatever adapter you get shouldn't affect your image quality. I've read about the Rainbow one since a little after the GH2 came out. The important thing is if you have multiple lenses of that type-- how quickly you can take the adapter off of one lens and put it on the other. Of course, if it's a cheap enough adapter, you could buy one for each lens. Mine went on the lens once and has never come off.

And wgzn has some great information posted here, but one thing I do want to say is not to get too caught up on what people tell you NOT to do/ say. That can definitely be helpful a lot of times, but you've got to figure it out for yourself, too. If you're just getting started, it's my opinion that you shouldn't be made to feel bad about a simple choice of word and then feel like you have to backtrack and explain yourself. If you ever start working with larger crews on paid jobs, you're going to feel like an idiot sometimes (trust me, I've been there), unless you're fortunate enough to be working with some really great folks who can both do their job efficiently AND help you with things you don't know at the same time. Those are the kind of people you only find every once in a while, and they're the ones to keep in touch with for future work. But a forum with people just getting started posting all the time isn't really the place to tell people that you're sick of a word that they just used, wgzn. I'm not trying to get into an argument with you, and all I have to do is look at your number of posts to know that you've put out plenty of helpful information before. But that's just my opinion. Maybe it's just because I teach video to college students and I have more patience because of it. lol.

You asked if you needed anything else for video. For just video, you're good with the camera and a decent lens (and adapter, if needed). But you've also got to think about audio. I, and a lot of other people, use the Zoom H4n with a sescom cable.

http://www.sescom.com/product.asp?item=LN2MIC-ZMGH-MON

http://www.markertek.com/Cables/Aud.../Sescom/LN2MIC-ZMGH-MON.xhtml?LN2MIC-ZMGH-MON

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/616257-REG/Pearstone_9041690_Male_Accessory_Shoe_Adapter.html (to mount H4n to top of camera)

And then depending on your budget, boom pole and mic, lav mic, wireless mic, etc. It adds up quickly. You might consider the H4n and have it off the camera and use its mic to record your sound, then sync it in post.

Cheers!
 
gh2 with the kit lens or atleast the 14mm pancake
Click to expand...

it was the stock lumix lenses that turned me off to the gh2 my first time around.
i wasn't getting the look i wanted from either video or stills.

my first gh2 i bought, i had both the 14-140 and the 20mm pancake and i HATED both of them. if youre talking "cinematic" these are about the worst lenses ever. overly sharp and SLOW

the second go around with the gh2, i got my rayqual to nikon adapter and a range of older nikkor lenses, 15, 35, 85, 105 macro, etc, and i was a LOT happier with what i saw.

now i've pretty much given up on owning DSLRS in general and rent them on an as needed basis (things are changing too much for me to get too deep into a single kit)
and my go to kits are either gh2s with native m4/3 glass (mostly olympus) or canon 5diii adapted to cp2 primes
 
Last edited:
@wgzn I am not a big fan of the 14-140 (basically one you should only use if you need that sort of zoom range versatility) and the 20mm is sharp... but it's not slow. It's just a distinct look. Still very useful, but also very different from vintage glass. I respect your strong preference for the vintage lenses of course, though. :)

@craigbuckley First of all, I completely agree with the overwhelming majority of suggestions by @L13NARX. Personally, I do not like previous Sigmas though. Softness and CA have usually been issues (which something I tend to forgive more readily in vintage lenses than modern ones). But you may like it and the bokeh on the new one looks better than I am accustomed to from their previous ones I have seen. http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_30mm_f_2_8_ex_dn_review/sharpness_1/

But as for me, I prefer to either grab my Canon L series glass (for a sharper image) or the Minoltas (for a more flattering look) depending on which look I am going for. So my strong preference would be for the Rokkor.
 
and the 20mm is sharp... but it's not slow.
Click to expand...
you are correct. i was simply carelessly lumping the descriptions of each into one statement. the 20mm is not slow but i do find it horrifically unappealing.
 
@craigbuckley If you are using a single camera sensor, with a single crop, then the only two depth of field variables controlled by the lens are:

- The focal length used.
- The aperture used.

Since both lenses are 50mm, you can have slightly shallower DOF with the f/1.7 than the f/1.8. In terms of the bokeh, that's a separate question.

Anyway, I could not find a comparison of those exact lenses but at the bottom of this page is two faster lenses from the same family (Canon FD and Rokkor) at the same focal lengths as the ones you mentioned. That will give you some idea of the overall "feel" of each family, and then you can search for reviews of the specific lens that you want.

http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=40528
 
Here's a lens that I had liberated from me along with a range of nikon glass (so mine are probably on ebay or a craigslist near you now). This 28mm f/2.8 AI-s is a sweet little gem that I miss most from my lost collection. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/28f28ais.htm In fact, seeing what Ken Rockwell has to say about other things is educational. And truly, with money always a concern (this thread is in the GH2 still camera used as a motion picture camera forum, right?) see Ken's cheap nikon list. And one thing I love about F mount 'FX' lenses is cameras come and go and these beauties deal with light- continuing to have practical value. http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/cheapskate-lenses.htm
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top