Differences in lens brands

[Andy Jarosz]

I'm getting tired of the one slow kit lens for my GH1. And I really would like to go with another brand of full manual lenses. There are lots of adapters, but the most available are for Nikon F, Pentax K, and Leica M.

Most would say go with the Leicas--I know they were high quality back in the day. But why? What's the differences between the three brands, and what should I be looking for?

[Nils J. Nesse]

Leica M-lenses are excellent -- but the fast ones are so expensive, you'll be better off buying a PL adapter and a set of Red Pro Primes. For example, the Leica Summilux 24mm f/1.4 is $6000, while a RPP 25mm T1.8 is $3800 (set price). The RPPs are of course much better suited for cine shooting.

So IMHO, if you can afford Leicas, get RPPs instead.

If you're looking for something less expensive, the Zeiss ZF lenses (Nikon mount) are very good. I recommend getting a modded set from Duclos Lenses ,with focus gear, 80mm front ring, and de-clicked aperture. http://www.ducloslenses.com/DL/ZeissZF.html These will be much better for cine work than the modern primes from Nikon, Canon etc.

[Pawel Achtel]

Get Arri-Zeiss Master Prime set and a Master Zoom and be done with it. :biggrinjester:

Seriously: Speed, sharpness, contrast, build quality, focus range, breathing, flare, ghosting, chromatic aberrations, distortion, vignetting, weight, price, etc... it all depends on what you are trying to film and achieve and what the budget is. It is like asking, which brand of a car you should buy?

[Andy Jarosz]

I'm not shooting super pro here--remember this is still only a GH1 we're talking about, not a RED, so I'd prefer to keep things under the cost of the camera itself.

[Nils J. Nesse]

prefer to keep things under the cost of the camera itself.


The Voigtländer SL-lenses are similar to the Zeiss ZFs in quality (made at the same factory) -- but less expensive. Available in Nikon and Pentax mount.

Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f/3.5 $549.00
Voigtlander Ultron 40mm f/2 $379
Voigtlander Nokton 58mm f/1.4 $379

[Steve Murray]

Canon FD is the best glass for the lowest price.

See my set for sale: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=34687

Getting ready to put them on eBay as 2 sets. PM me for info.

[Michael Hastings]

I would say Contax Yashica mount Zeiss lenses are the best at the lowest price. They are basically the same optically as the ZFs but sell used in excellent condition for about a third of the price. They have cinema like buttery smooth long focus throws and rotate in the "right" direction - i.e. the same as zeiss cine lenses rather than reverse like the nikon lenses.

They have the Zeiss T* coatings and the famous zeiss sharpness and contrast/microcontrast.

[Liam Hall]

If you go for 35mm stills glass don't forget you'll have a 2x crop factor.

[Stephen Williams]

I'm not shooting super pro here--remember this is still only a GH1 we're talking about, not a RED, so I'd prefer to keep things under the cost of the camera itself.

The lens is more important than the camera.

[Stephen Williams]

If you go for 35mm stills glass don't forget you'll have a 2x crop factor.

Not true, a 35mm lens is ALWAYS a 35mm lens.

[Stephen Gentle]

Not true, a 35mm lens is ALWAYS a 35mm lens.

He means the field of view - that will be smaller, won't it?

[Liam Hall]

Not true, a 35mm lens is ALWAYS a 35mm lens.

Stephen, I'm talking formats not focal lengths, ie using a lens designed for 35mm stills (135 format) will have a crop factor of x2.

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, I'm talking formats not focal lengths, ie using a lens designed for 35mm stills (135 format) will have a crop factor of x2.

Lenses are named by whatever the focal length written it says it is. What the lens was originally designed for makes no difference.
Am 80mm on a Hassleblad is a standard lens for 6 x 6 cm format, if placed on a RED will behave like any other 80mm lens on a RED.

[Liam Hall]

Lenses are named by whatever the focal length written it says it is. What the lens was originally designed for makes no difference.
Am 80mm on a Hassleblad is a standard lens for 6 x 6 cm format, if placed on a RED will behave like any other 80mm lens on a RED.

But on the RED, the image captured will have a smaller angle of view. That's what we are talking here. Yes the lens will behave in exactly the same way, but the image created on the two formats will be different. Commonly referred to all over the internet as a crop factor or am I being really stupid?

[Stephen Williams]

But on the RED, the image captured will have a smaller angle of view. That's what we are talking here. Yes the lens will behave in exactly the same way, but the image created on the two formats will be different. Commonly referred to all over the internet as a crop factor or am I being really stupid?

Generally lenses are refered to by focal length, not angle of view.

Confusion caused by people by talking about crop factors does not help anyone. Red primes currently go from 25mm to 100, any one elses lenses with the same focal length will produce the same FOV & Crop on a RED One.

[Stephen Williams]

Perhaps this helps,

A 15mm lens would be a standard lens in S16, A very wide lens in S35 & en extreamly wide lens if FF35.
A 32mm lens is a long lens in S16, a standard lens in S35 & a slightly wide lens in FF35,
The focal length written on the lens never change.

What is focal length ? http://www.paragon-press.com/lens/lenchart.htm

[Stephen Gentle]

Perhaps this helps,

A 15mm lens would be a standard lens in S16, A very wide lens in S35 & en extreamly wide lens if FF35.
A 32mm lens is a long lens in S16, a standard lens in S35 & a slightly wide lens in FF35,
The focal length written on the lens never change.

Yeah - isn't this the crop factor we've been talking about all along?

[Liam Hall]

The focal length written on the lens never change.


Stephen, no one said it would.

I guess the term "crop factor" bugs you a bit, but in a world saturated with different formats many people find it helpful and I think we all know what I was talking about.

I do understand your point, but you must admit "Crop Factor" is a better term than "Focal Length Multiplier", the term used by B&H Photo to describe the same thing. That even makes me come out in a rash:)

[Michael Hastings]

Stephen, no one said it would.

I guess the term "crop factor" bugs you a bit, but in a world saturated with different formats many people find it helpful and I think we all know what I was talking about.

I do understand your point, but you must admit "Crop Factor" is a better term than "Focal Length Multiplier", the term used by B&H Photo to describe the same thing. That even makes me come out in a rash:)

It is only annoying because it has been explained 1000 times - primarily because it has become a totally misleading term. It was only useful at the beginning of DSLRs when the comparison was always to the 35mm 24x36 film because it was basically the only thing used in semiserious still photography. Now there are millions of people buying Digital cameras that have never even loaded a roll of 35mm film. And we have had numerous sensor sizes from 4/3 to APS-C to APS-H to Full frame (kind of a silly designation since they ALL shoot full frame?) plus the medium format sizes. Not to mention that the vast majority of motion picture people are coming from the video world where normal was 2/3" or less.

Without a common reference point that virtually everyone understands the idea of a "crop factor" becomes a hindrance rather than a help (and it often leads people down mental pathways that make it even harder to understand and communicate).

So at this point it is probably better to just understand that a "normal" lens gives an angle of view (diagonal) of about 45 degrees and then figure out what focal length gives you that for your particular sensor size and then anything higher gives you more telephoto and lower is more wide angle.

So if APS-C/RED/S35 is normal at a little over 30mm then an 80 mm lens will be a short telephoto on your REDONE regardless if it was made for S35, or full frame SLRs or 645 medium format .

[Stephen Williams]

Stephen, no one said it would.
:)

Hi Liam,

You wrote earlier in the thread "If you go for 35mm stills glass don't forget you'll have a 2x crop factor. "

That implies that the focal length written on the lens is wrong when used with a RED. It makes no difference if the still lenses are designed for DX or FF35, the focal length written on them is what they are.

Stephen

[Sanjin Jukic]

Get Arri-Zeiss Master Prime set and a Master Zoom and be done with it. :biggrinjester:

Seriously: Speed, sharpness, contrast, build quality, focus range, breathing, flare, ghosting, chromatic aberrations, distortion, vignetting, weight, price, etc... it all depends on what you are trying to film and achieve and what the budget is. It is like asking, which brand of a car you should buy?

Somebody (a lens test expert) told me at IBC that brand new Cooke 5/i at 18, 25, 32, 50, 60, 75, 100, 135mm from T1.4 to T22 aperture is probably the best fast cine lens set made today.

[Stephen Strangways]

I don't intend to be mean to anyone, but in hopes of keeping things clear for the OP and anyone looking at this thread after the fact, talking about a crop factor is essentially useless information for someone with a camera looking for more lenses.
It can be useful if someone already has lenses and is looking for a camera with a different image size than they are used to using with those lenses.

The OP currently has a 14-140mm zoom. Any other lens, be it 35mm still glass or PL mount cine lenses, will give him the same field of view, depth of field (at the same aperture) and "crop factor" as his 14-140 set to the same focal length.

So, if he goes out a buys a 100mm Canon FD stills lens, or a RED PRO 100mm, it will be the same as setting his 14-140mm to 100mm (except for the option of a wider aperture.)

[Stefan Christou]

The lens is more important than the camera.

It's getting harder to tell these days

[Liam Hall]

Hi Liam,

You wrote earlier in the thread "If you go for 35mm stills glass don't forget you'll have a 2x crop factor. "

That implies that the focal length written on the lens is wrong when used with a RED. It makes no difference if the still lenses are designed for DX or FF35, the focal length written on them is what they are.

Stephen

Hi Stephen,

Clearly, that's not what I was intending to imply and of course, I understand that a 50mm is a 50mm and as I said earlier I also understand why you don't like the term.

And yes, I can see how this is confusing the issue:)

[Stephen Williams]

It's getting harder to tell these days

Lens selection I find makes a subtle but important difference, often I don't have the bugdet to choose. Having a focus puller complaining about the marks on a lens, wastes energy I can use elsewhere.
I always liked the look of the K35's, my focus puller would ask why I did not use the ultra primes (which I find too sharp). I like the look & focus pullers like the handling of S4's, the Pancros & S5's have the same feel, so I am sure I will use them often. I own some Super Speeds that seldom get used, solely due to handling, I love the images.

[Liam Hall]

For the OP,sorry about the semantics. Here's a list of compatible lenses:

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/g1.html

[Stefan Christou]

I meant harder to tell where the quality comes from: Lens or camera?

I suppose it really depends what kind of level we are talking about. In the cheap seats the recording format makes a huge difference. But yes the lens is the image

[Andy Jarosz]

For the record, I understand crop factor and have already made my decision (Contax Yashica zeiss lenses.)

So I'm just letting this thread go where it will, since my question has been answered.

[Stephen Williams]

For the record, I understand crop factor and have already made my decision (Contax Yashica zeiss lenses.)

So I'm just letting this thread go where it will, since my question has been answered.

You wont be disappointed, like the Super Speeds, just a bigger set of fast lenses available

[Stephen Strangways]

Clearly, that's not what I was intending to imply and of course, I understand that a 50mm is a 50mm and as I said earlier I also understand why you don't like the term.

And yes, I can see how this is confusing the issue:)

It is an issue that has confused plenty of people in the past, and that's why I (and another Stephen) are jumping all over the terminology. Not to jump all over you, but to try and be as clear as possible so others reading this don't end up confused.


Stephen, I'm talking formats not focal lengths, ie using a lens designed for 35mm stills (135 format) will have a crop factor of x2.

It can just be grammar, but this does seem to me (and therefore likely others) to be backwards.
To be nit-pickingly precise for the record here, the FourThirds format has a crop factor of x2 compared to 135 format. It's the camera, not the lenses, as a lens designed for 35mm stills, or medium format, or APS-C, or S35, or FourThirds, used on a FourThirds format camera, will all show a 2x crop factor compared to a 135 camera.

You are definitely improving things by referring to the 135 format, as a lot of people get confused with "full-frame 35mm" being used to refer to either 135 stills format, or to 35mm or S35 cinema format. I wish it were more widely adopted.
I spent years referring to the stills format as "135 film" in the lab at a photography store, but I know for most people it will always and forever be "35mm"

And I'll never forget the DP who started swearing at me for saying that the RED ONE sensor was not the same size as his Canon 5D's sensor, because he "knew" that both were "full-frame 35mm!"

[Patrick Tresch]

There are lots of adapters, but the most available are for Nikon F, Pentax K, and Leica M.


Not every lens work on any camera with adapters, also due to flange distance and rear element. For exemple a 24mm Leica R don't work on a Canon 5D MK II.

Leica M lenses are very special because Leica M camera don't have a mirror and are closer to the film plane as other lenses (Leica M standard of 27.80mm ± 0.01). I would definitly look if the focal flange is usable on your camera with adapter.

Sorry for my bad english.

Patrick

[Karl Gustav H.]

The GH1 is essentially a form digital rangefinger, so there is nothing between the lens mount and the sensor package. All viewing is done via an EVF or LCD screen.

This makes it more easy than say a 7d, to adapt to new lens formats, providing the FFD is greater than that of the stock m43 mount.

[Liam Hall]

It is an issue that has confused plenty of people in the past, and that's why I (and another Stephen) are jumping all over the terminology. Not to jump all over you, but to try and be as clear as possible so others reading this don't end up confused.

Don't worry Stephen, I understand that many people don't like the term. I won't take it personally:)

Many people do like the term and fully understand what it means even though it is grammatically incorrect. Indeed, it shouldn't even be called a crop factor, because nothing gets cropped.

I work with many different formats from 35mm, Super16, 2/3" to 1/3" and I find it useful because my brain is calibrated to 135 format.

Wait until Scarlet/Epic come out, this forum will be awash with posts about crop factors...

Actually with that in mind, lets ban the use of it now!

[Blair S. Paulsen]

If we accept the idea that a 45 degree field of view constitutes a "normal" lens, meaning that it is roughly the average human visual field sans peripheral, then perhaps the most useful info would be to note each format's "normal" focal length.

FWIW I always think of FF35 (135) format as having 50mm as normal. On the RedOne I think of 33mm as normal.

The reason I advocate this is that each shooter can use their most familiar format as their reference and semantic arguments can be sidestepped. Just a thought...

Cheers - #19

[Yousuf Abbasi]

The term "crop factor" doesn't seem misleading to me, because the way I think about a lens is in terms of its angle of coverage as determined by the lens's image circle. For a given lens (of any focal length), the smaller the sensor, the more light that is unused (or "cropped away") from the circle of illumination projected onto the sensor frame, thereby resulting in a photo with less angle of view (relative to a larger format sensor). So, I don't see why its such a wrong thing to say "crop," however I do think it's important to specify to what format the crop factor relates to (e.g. comparing coverage of a 50mm lens on S16 vs. S35 format can be described in terms of a numerical "crop factor"). Then again I'm no expert on lenses either, so comments are welcome! :-)

[Stephen Strangways]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens