Lenses

[jase]

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

Continuing the field tests of all my lenses, the next in line is the venerable Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 with the Lumix G85. I was suffering from back pain when i woke up this morning, still am, so the last thing I wanted to do was carry around that honking piece of glass, but I did anyway, though I didn't end up shooting much. Looking at the few clips on my Mac when I got home, I was reminded of just what at incredible instrument the Sigma is - tack sharp even wide open, beautiful color rendition. So yeah, I do think shooting APS-C and full frame glass on m43 is a pain in the butt, but light gathering ability, bokeh balls and the super 35 look aside, if you're after the ultimate in resolution, good focal reducers with quality glass might be a better choice than many native m43 lenses. I should add that I'm just going by what I've seen from my Sigma lenses with the MB SB XL: Lens Rentals .com has already published several articles showing that focal reducers can actually degrade image quality. And although every single reviewer who's tested the slow PanLeica 12-60mm f/4 kit lens with the GH5 is praising it to the heavens, I will eat my vegetables every day if it holds a candle to the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8. Lastly, as far as build quality goes, the Sigma is all plastic and rubber, while the two Vario zooms I own are mostly metal - yet the Sigma feels solid, the focus and zoom rings are heavily dampened, while the Panasonic Vario lenses feel like Fisher Price toys made in China. Of course, I expect the Leica designed kit zooms to have far better build quality. 

The Sigma is great, without question - but I wasnt as impressed as I thought I would be. Could you spot the places in my Bahamas edit where the Sigma was used and where the cheapish Panasonic 20mm? Well, I couldnt.

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, Fredrik Lyhne said:

Looking forward to seeing you eat your vegetables @jonpais  Off course a f/2.8 - f/4.0 zoom lens can't compete with a f/1.8 in light gathering capabilities, but I bet it will be difficult to tell them apart at f/4.0 - f/5.6 mixed together in a youtube video. Honestly I think you would be able to make just as good videos with the PL 12-60mm and Oly 75mm (or even just the Oly 12-100m for that matter) as all your primes since you usually don't shoot wide open, but where's the fun in that  I could be wrong though, but I'm really looking forward to getting that new PL 12-60mm to replace my 12-35mm Fischer Price lens, which btw is a really good lens for what it is. 

In my opinion the new breed of super fast lenses from Panny and Oly are best suited for still photographers who wants shallow DOF. It's just so difficult to get the focus right at f/1.2 / f/1.4 and if Shane Hurlbut's test is anything to go by they perform noticeably better when stopped down a little. I love my Nocticron lens and the PL 12mm, but in my experience getting the lighting, exposure, framing and WB right is far more important than having a better/faster/sharper lens. In other words, I more often let my gear down than otherwise.

I agree that the Fuji 90mm looks great (the 25mm too), but it is really better than the Oly 75mm? I don't know, maybe I need a bigger monitor than my 15" MBP mid 2014 to see it...

Really appreciate the tests though, keep em coming!

You make some good points, and I really should eat more fruits and vegetables. While I don't often shoot wide open, many of the clips in my field tests have been shot between f/2-f/3.5, which would have required raising the ISO on a slower lens, which, true enough, wouldn't be the end of the world. I haven't done a direct comparison between the Fuji 90mm and the Olympus 75mm, but I think that would be a very close race, they're both exceptionally sharp. You just gave me an idea for another video there. 

[jonpais]

1 hour ago, jase said:

The Sigma is great, without question - but I wasnt as impressed as I thought I would be. Could you spot the places in my Bahamas edit where the Sigma was used and where the cheapish Panasonic 20mm? Well, I couldnt.

The camera doesn't hold still long enough in your wonderful video to really tell.  That brings up another point - that when the camera is moving around a lot, you're throwing away the 4K resolution. I'm a little surprised you weren't impressed with the Sigma as much as you expected, since I'm not easily impressed with much myself (those words should be engraved on my tombstone!), but the Sigma fairly blew me away.

@Fredrik Lyhne Why is it that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 became an overnight success with filmmakers all over the world if not for its wide aperture and high resolution? 

[Fredrik Lyhne]

23 minutes ago, jonpais said:

 

@Fredrik Lyhne Why is it that the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 became an overnight success with filmmakers all over the world if not for it's wide aperture and high resolution? 

I don't really understand why you ask me that question as I have never questioned it's capabilities. To answer the question you should however define what a filmmaker is first, but I'll give it try  I don't consider myself a filmmaker for instance, and there are reasons why I haven't bought the Sigma yet, even if it's fairly cheap. I would probably have come to the same conclusion as @jase if I bought one. The slightly/much? better performance just isn't worth it due to the size and weight. Didn't you also somewhat come to that conclusion?

I know it's a fantastic lens and I would probably bought it if I was making narratives, ads, etc on low budget for a living, but I'm not. I primarily make food videos and yoga videos for youtube with native lenses and even then I usually stop down to preferably f/2.5 or more to get what I want in focus. I only shoot on wider apertures if I don't have enough light, and when I do I usually regret it later (instead of pushing the ISO) because I wanted to have more of the subject in focus. A huge f/1.2 lens isn't going to make my videos any better, and if I would use the Sigma at f/3.5 the resolution/sharpness benefit wouldn't be big enough to justify it for me.

I'm totally with you that it's a great lens, but I don't think it's the best lens for everyone. 

I would much rather have a kit with a nice slowish zoom (PL 12-60mm), and high quality primes for low light that I can carry everywhere and use for all of my projects; food, yoga, travel, stills, portraits, short films etc. When I started to do photography in 2012 I chose the m43 system exactly for that reason, it's not the best out there but it's the best allrounder in my opinion. 

[jase]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

That brings up another point - that when the camera is moving around a lot, you're throwing away the 4K resolution. 

True. The shots where i hold still are breathtaking. Yet, I want the moving, so I am better of with 4k than 1080p anyway  However I really would love sth with a high bitrate codec to avoid the compression artifacts on water surfaces, etc..

[jonpais]

10 minutes ago, Fredrik Lyhne said:

I don't really understand why you ask me that question as I have never questioned it's capabilities. To answer the question you should however define what a filmmaker is first, but I'll give it try  I don't consider myself a filmmaker for instance, and there are reasons why I haven't bought the Sigma yet, even if it's fairly cheap. I would probably have come to the same conclusion as @jase if I bought one. The slightly/much? better performance just isn't worth it due to the size and weight. Didn't you also somewhat come to that conclusion?

I know it's a fantastic lens and I would probably bought it if I was making narratives, ads, etc on low budget for a living, but I'm not. I primarily make food videos and yoga videos for youtube with native lenses and even then I usually stop down to preferably f/2.5 or more to get what I want in focus. I only shoot on wider apertures if I don't have enough light, and when I do I usually regret it later (instead of pushing the ISO) because I wanted to have more of the subject in focus. A huge f/1.2 lens isn't going to make my videos any better, and if I would use the Sigma at f/3.5 the resolution/sharpness benefit wouldn't be big enough to justify it for me.

I'm totally with you that it's a great lens, but I don't think it's the best lens for everyone. 

I would much rather have a kit with a nice slowish zoom (PL 12-60mm), and high quality primes for low light that I can carry everywhere and use for all of my projects; food, yoga, travel, stills, portraits, short films etc. When I started to do photography in 2012 I chose the m43 system exactly for that reason, it's not the best out there but it's the best allrounder in my opinion. 

Yes, I'd pretty much given up on adapted lenses myself, I much prefer having a smaller, lighter kit. My back was about to give out this morning. But I thought since so many are considering pairing the Sigma 18-35mm with the GH5 that there might be some interest in seeing how it performs on the G85, which is why I'm making another video. 

[Fredrik Lyhne]

49 minutes ago, jonpais said:

Yes, I'd pretty much given up on adapted lenses myself, I much prefer having a smaller, lighter kit. My back was about to give out this morning. But I thought since so many are considering pairing the Sigma 18-35mm with the GH5 that there might be some interest in seeing how it performs on the G85, which is why I'm making another video. 

Yeah, I think a lot of people will be interested in that, myself included. Take care of your back, you only have one you know. Feel better!

[arson519]

2 hours ago, jonpais said:

Yes, I'd pretty much given up on adapted lenses myself, I much prefer having a smaller, lighter kit. My back was about to give out this morning. But I thought since so many are considering pairing the Sigma 18-35mm with the GH5 that there might be some interest in seeing how it performs on the G85, which is why I'm making another video. 

yes i am wondering how heavy and cumbersome that setup would be for handheld and how it would perform with ibis.

[mercer]

Idk, the problem with native lenses on micro 4/3 is they lack character. They are very sterile and perfect. This is fine if you enjoy that look. But with so much interest in the LUMIX line of cameras many videographers work ends up looking similar.

However, they are very light and small which is a bonus...

But the focus rings aren't that great for manual focus unless you are spending a ton of money... and some of them are more expensive than a used Zeiss Super Speed...

So, that only leads you with OIS and AF as a major benefit IMO.

Since AF is only really good for getting a quick initial focus, the native lenses lose another point in my opinion.

And now with IBIS, the OIS becomes irrelevant as well, so I am unsure if I see much benefit in spending all of this money to invest in a plastic lens that could be broken in a year or two.

Again just my opinion on a cold, Sunday afternoon. To each his own in the end. 

[kidzrevil]

6 hours ago, jonpais said:

The camera doesn't hold still long enough in your wonderful video to really tell.  That brings up another point - that when the camera is moving around a lot, you're throwing away the 4K resolution. 

This is the first time I've heard camera movement impacting the resolution of either the lens or the camera. Can you explain how camera movement affects 4k resolution ?

[cantsin]

2 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

This is the first time I've heard camera movement impacting the resolution of either the lens or the camera. Can you explain how camera movement affects 4k resolution ?

Really? It's very simple - camera movement induces motion blur, blur reduces the resolution. The higher the resolution of a camera, the more pixels get blurred. With 4K video, it's practically impossible to shoot handheld or with a lot of motion and still maintain full resolution. You'd need high-end tripod and dolly setups for this, with very slow panning speeds.

[mercer]

1 hour ago, cantsin said:

Really? It's very simple - camera movement induces motion blur, blur reduces the resolution. The higher the resolution of a camera, the more pixels get blurred. With 4K video, it's practically impossible to shoot handheld or with a lot of motion and still maintain full resolution. You'd need high-end tripod and dolly setups for this, with very slow panning speeds.

Idk, I get the theory here... but I have never heard that either... though I am not dismissing that it's true... I think it's a shrug your shoulders, oh well situation...

[kidzrevil]

5 hours ago, cantsin said:

Really? It's very simple - camera movement induces motion blur, blur reduces the resolution. The higher the resolution of a camera, the more pixels get blurred. With 4K video, it's practically impossible to shoot handheld or with a lot of motion and still maintain full resolution. You'd need high-end tripod and dolly setups for this, with very slow panning speeds.

???

sounding a lot like alternative facts but ok. I'll do my own research cause that sounds very hard to believe. If this is true then that means even if I stop the lens down, use a higher shutter speed & shoot at base ISO camera movement is dropping resolution. So that means moving objects lose resolution as well even if the camera is on a tripod. That alone makes that statement unbelievable.

another point : the purpose of a camera is to record light. If light moves faster than sound then it moves faster than your handheld movement. So there's no way handheld movement can decrease the resolution of a device used to record light. Thats is physically impossible with a shutter speed recording light 1/50 of a second !

[jonpais]

???

[Nikkor]

Blur does indeed reduce the reproduction of details, if everything is blurred you will see the same details in 4K than on 1080p.

[jonpais]

4 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

???

sounding a lot like alternative facts but ok. I'll do my own research cause that sounds very hard to believe. If this is true then that means even if I stop the lens down, use a higher shutter speed & shoot at base ISO camera movement is dropping resolution. So that means moving objects lose resolution as well even if the camera is on a tripod. That alone makes that statement unbelievable.

another point : the purpose of a camera is to record light. If light moves faster than sound then it moves faster than your handheld movement. So there's no way handheld movement can decrease the resolution of a device used to record light. Thats is physically impossible with a shutter speed recording light 1/50 of a second !

This from an interview with Newsshooter

According to ARRI, if you are filming in 2K or 4K at 24 frames per second with a 180 degree shutter angle (1/48th of a second) and the camera is moving quickly, the amount of motion blur means the image will look the same in 2K as it does at 4K. The only way to perceive a difference between 2K and 4K when the camera is moving is to use a higher frame rate and shutter speed – with less resulting motion blur. ARRI maintain that if you want to have higher resolution for motion pictures where objects are moving and the camera is moving, then you need to use higher frame rates for capture and display to see a difference. Within the industry, the jury still seems to be out on whether HFR material still looks at all like film and whether strobing artifact effects are needed for it to retain its film look. Kraus told me he was aware of the ongoing debate but added that if we don’t move to higher frame rates, then we need to end up with images that are more static, or forget about higher resolutions altogether.

[mercer]

That is pretty interesting, I guess motion blur with 1080p has the resolution of 16:9 SD... I get why Arri does not have a 4K camera... I mean what's the point of it all... where does the madness end?

But this really makes sense to me now... since I am a fool for shallow DOF, I have always felt that consumer 4K has a very brittle feel/look to it unless I downscaled it to 1080p... but then downscaling it to 1080p I guess I have the SD resolution... SIGH... I blame James Cameron...

Talk about a circle of confusion...

[Phil A]

It's funny that this seems to be such news here. Back when the Nikon D800 came out a lot of people on photography forums advocated only shooting it from tripods or with really, really fast shutter speeds to prevent loss of resolution due to movement.

And to the comparison of 4k GX85 vs downscaled 1080p GX85 vs 1080p BMPCC. Due to how sensors work, the 4k from that sensor is probably more like real 3k, the downscaled 1080p is actual 1080p and the BMPC something like 720p. A 4k camera downscaled to 1080p will most likely be sharper and more detailed than nearly all native 1080p cameras, as long as they don't internally downsample or use such tricks (which the better / more expensive ones did).

[Gregormannschaft]

Sorry, but if you lose resolution from motion blur at 4K, surely you're also losing resolution from motion blur at 1080p? I'm not really getting this argument.

[Phil A]

It's kinda pointless anyway, agreed. If you swing the camera around enough to get so much motion blur, chances are there's something intense happening anyway and resolution isn't going to be important that moment.