Lenses

[Phil A]

Tried the 35mm Nikkor, nice rendering but even with my handheld rig the a6300 doesn't work out well. Waiting with getting old manual lenses until I maybe get a body with IBIS one day.

[jonpais]

On 3/13/2017 at 1:26 AM, kidzrevil said:

Thats the point im making, in real life these little nuiances don't matter and are unnoticeable Unless you shoot charts like you just said.its almost like how most people can't see the difference between 4K footage and 4K footage downscaled to 1080. In theory there is a world of difference but in application that is far from reality @jonpais very interesting topic nonetheless, im going to put it to the test today

If you skip forward to 37'05" in Gordon Laing's complete review of the GH5, you can hear Doug noting how, during a pan shot, the image becomes noticeably sharper once the camera stops moving, perhaps partially due to the camera being able to lock focus, but mostly due to motion blur. There are also two freeze frames for reference. 

 

[kidzrevil]

1 hour ago, jonpais said:

If you skip forward to 37'05" in Gordon Laing's complete review of the GH5, you can hear Doug noting how, during a pan shot, the image becomes noticeably sharper once the camera stops moving, perhaps partially due to the camera being able to lock focus, but mostly due to motion blur. There are also two freeze frames for reference. 

 

Or it could be the in camera sharpening algorithim kicking in. The sony a7s was notorious for that jump in detail when you have the in camera sharpness turned up

[jonpais]

29 minutes ago, kidzrevil said:

Or it could be the in camera sharpening algorithim kicking in. The sony a7s was notorious for that jump in detail when you have the in camera sharpness turned up

Do you really believe the difference between those two frames is due to sharpening algorithms, not motion blur?

[kidzrevil]

@jonpais i am not saying motion blur is not a factor. You will get motion blur at certain shutter speeds that is a given. In camera sharpness algorithms "lock on" to shots without the blur. If the in camera sharpness is up to high or if the manufacturer applies to much at default settings we see huge jumps in detail on these frames without blur. I used to have to turn down my detail settings to -5 on my a7s because the in camera sharpness was distracting on motion shots even with its 1080p output. This could be the case here, either way that is not a deal breaker for me being that I barely shoot at slow shutter speeds

[jonpais]

I can't recall ever watching a negative review over at Mirror Lessons, but this is as close as it comes. They recommend getting the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 or the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 instead. Just one reason being, the Leica 12-60 is really only f/2.8 at 12mm, which is why I've been calling it the Leica 12-60mm f/4. Other reasons include onion bokeh balls at the edges of the frame (the bokeh isn't the most attractive I've seen, due to its somewhat busy appearance), poor correction for barrel distortion and vignetting until f/5.6 (read: the apertures you'll be using most often), and high cost (if purchased separately). For those needing the extra reach, the Olympus 12-100mm f/4 is looking like a great value, with superb optics (for a zoom) and only $200 more than the Leica. Incidentally, aside from focal length, the light gathering power of a lens is usually the second consideration when shopping around, but it comes as no surprise that not a single person shooting with it in the videos we've had the privilege of viewing up until now has mentioned the fact that the Leica is not as fast as they would have you believe.

 

[kidzrevil]

On 3/15/2017 at 8:16 PM, Phil A said:

I'm contemplating to get a Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI-s and 85mm f/2 AI that a local store has in used to shoot them on APS-C with a focal reducer. Did anyone shoot with these? I'd hope for them to be a bit soft but detailed in 4k and not too sterile.

I have the 85mm f2 ais. I like it for its compactness, it looks great

[jonpais]

Sorry to those who were expecting to see a field test of the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 with the Lumix G85, but looking at my clips, they only confirm what I already knew about the lens – that it really, genuinely is tack sharp from wide open with the Metabones Speed Booster XL – and I really have little interest in pursuing further tests of the lens. For the time being at least, I’m liking the results I’m seeing with native m43 lenses, preferring their compactness. If time permits, I’ll go ahead and post a video of the Sigma, as well as field tests of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 and Voigtlander 17.5mm f/0.95. I just received new LED video lights, so I’m more interested in shooting with those and sharing my findings than in doing lens tests at the moment. Incidentally, this was shot handheld and I shake like a mad dog, yet the in-body stabilization of the G85 was able to iron out the wobbles, so I see no justification for purchasing a Panasonic lens over any other brand based solely on dual IBIS.

[sgreszcz]

On 3/18/2017 at 7:30 AM, jonpais said:

I can't recall ever watching a negative review over at Mirror Lessons, but this is as close as it comes. They recommend getting the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 or the Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 instead. Just one reason being, the Leica 12-60 is really only f/2.8 at 12mm, which is why I've been calling it the Leica 12-60mm f/4.

Thanks for pointing out this review.  I cancelled my GH5+PL12-60 preorder earlier when you were suggesting to wait for the lens reviews.  I hope that the PL 8-18 zoom turns out better as a potential replacement for my Olympus 9-18 zoom that I travel with when I want standard filters and don't want to pack my Olympus 7-14/2.8.

I still have the two Panasonic 2.8 zooms which are really handy for events and use 58mm filters (which I've standardised upon).  They produce a nice image, the dual-IS with those lenses is pretty good for video, and they are jacket pocketable when mounted on my GX80s.  Does anyone know of any reviews or comparisons between the old and new versions of the Panasonic 2.8 zooms?

[Tsarbomba]

Welp. Did what I said I was going to do. Sold Oly 12-40 & 40-150 for PL 42.5 1.2 & PL 15 1.7

When I got the Oly lenses I excited to get my MFT journey underway. But the lenses (looks & handling) didn't really do much for me. Obviously first impression's dont mean much if it preforms. But after using Pana 12-60 it was clear I wanted faster lenses. Got the PL 42.5 and for the first time since buying the Canon 135L, I feel pretty damn charged up right now. This lens looks and feels the part and hopefully its balls to wall like everyone says it is! Super excited. 

[jonpais]

Watch my video of the Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4 shot wide open here:

 

[Fatalfury]

So DXO just released the zuiko pro 25mm F1.2 test. T-stop 1.8! Really? The same t-stop as lumix 25mm 1.4 (and better overall score for the Lumix). I tried the zuiko 25mm 1.2 for couple and was really impressed by the images, the low light perfomance + the very useful manual focusing ring. It's certainly better than the lumix 25mm 1.4, despite the Dxo score. But if the light transmission actually isn't any better for lowlight video, then i will go with the 30mm 1.4 sigma (t-stop 1.7) or the even cheaper lumix 1.7 (t-stop 2). 

Any idea what t-stop might the speedbooster XL + sigma art 35mm 1.4 combo provide? I want to buy one higher end prime for low light and so far i had my eyes on the zuiko pro 25mm. Not really interested in voigtlander or slr magic at the moment, because the image is a bit soft below f1.8.

I'm also seriosly considering Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4, love the look of the images. Now waitinig if the t/stop is any better than the zuiko 12mm F2.

 

[jonpais]

17 hours ago, Fatalfury said:

So DXO just released the zuiko pro 25mm F1.2 test. T-stop 1.8! Really? The same t-stop as lumix 25mm 1.4 (and better overall score for the Lumix). I tried the zuiko 25mm 1.2 for couple and was really impressed by the images, the low light perfomance + the very useful manual focusing ring. It's certainly better than the lumix 25mm 1.4, despite the Dxo score. But if the light transmission actually isn't any better for lowlight video, then i will go with the 30mm 1.4 sigma (t-stop 1.7) or the even cheaper lumix 1.7 (t-stop 2). 

Any idea what t-stop might the speedbooster XL + sigma art 35mm 1.4 combo provide? I want to buy one higher end prime for low light and so far i had my eyes on the zuiko pro 25mm. Not really interested in voigtlander or slr magic at the moment, because the image is a bit soft below f1.8.

I'm also seriosly considering Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4, love the look of the images. Now waitinig if the t/stop is any better than the zuiko 12mm F2.

 

Your post is both confusing and silly. Are you more interested in T-stops or optical performance? You say you were impressed with the low light ability of the Olympus, then you write that you are disappointed to read that DxO tested it and found it is actually slower than f/1.2. Then you say that DxO mark rates the Olympus lower than the Leica, but you insist it is actually the other way around. Did you even bother to read the entire review? Or do you profess to have higher standards than DxO mark? Because in the review you cite, DxO Mark clearly state that 'Its [the Olympus 25mm f/1.2] excellent light transmission ranks it as one of the highest-scoring MFT-mount lenses we’ve tested on the E-M1 II, only fractionally behind the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4'. Does measurement of T-stop take into account huge vignetting at wide apertures? Because even an outstanding lens like the Sony G Master 85mm f/1.4, which has a T-stop rating of 1.5, measures more than 1EV of vignetting wide open. Which is quite good performance for such a fast lens, BTW. All lenses have T-stops slower than their f/stop, because there is no such thing as a lens, let alone a UV filter, with 100% light transmission. Remember, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 has one of the most complex designs for a m43 lens, something like 20 elements! Perhaps the reason few reviewers even mention T-stops is because it is a low priority when assessing the optical performance of a lens. I seldom even see it mentioned over at Lens Rentals.com, one of the more rigorous sites for testing lenses. Same goes for lenstip.com, unless the discrepancy is huge. I've never heard of any respectable photographer base their evaluation of a lens on T-stops alone. And I've never ever heard of anyone choosing one lens over another based on light transmission values. Maybe I should sell my Nocticron, since it only has a T-stop of 1.7. Are you after best value for money or absolute quality? Also, you mention several different focal lengths here, so not sure what you are looking for: difficult to discuss so many focal lengths - 12mm, 25mm, 30mm, 35mm - and throwing speed boosters into the mix makes it even more complicated. And if you're holding off purchasing the Leica DG Summilux because you're waiting to learn the T-stop of the yet-to-be released Zuiko, that's one of the most baffling statements I've ever read here at EOSHD, and I've seen a few. If you were to apply the same criteria to your camera purchases as your lenses, you might also avoid Panasonic altogether, since they inflate their ISO readings too. 

[Fatalfury]

12 hours ago, jonpais said:

Your post is both confusing and silly. Are you more interested in T-stops or optical performance? You say you were impressed with the low light ability of the Olympus, then you write that you are disappointed to read that DxO tested it and found it is actually slower than f/1.2. Then you say that DxO mark rates the Olympus lower than the Leica, but you insist it is actually the other way around. Did you even bother to read the entire review? Or do you profess to have higher standards than DxO mark? Because in the review you cite, DxO Mark clearly state that 'Its [the Olympus 25mm f/1.2] excellent light transmission ranks it as one of the highest-scoring MFT-mount lenses we’ve tested on the E-M1 II, only fractionally behind the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4'. Does measurement of T-stop take into account huge vignetting at wide apertures? Because even an outstanding lens like the Sony G Master 85mm f/1.4, which has a T-stop rating of 1.5, measures more than 1EV of vignetting wide open. Which is quite good performance for such a fast lens, BTW. All lenses have T-stops slower than their f/stop, because there is no such thing as a lens, let alone a UV filter, with 100% light transmission. Remember, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 has one of the most complex designs for a m43 lens, something like 20 elements! Perhaps the reason few reviewers even mention T-stops is because it is a low priority when assessing the optical performance of a lens. I seldom even see it mentioned over at Lens Rentals.com, one of the more rigorous sites for testing lenses. Same goes for lenstip.com, unless the discrepancy is huge. I've never heard of any respectable photographer base their evaluation of a lens on T-stops alone. And I've never ever heard of anyone choosing one lens over another based on light transmission values. Maybe I should sell my Nocticron, since it only has a T-stop of 1.7. Are you after best value for money or absolute quality? Also, you mention several different focal lengths here, so not sure what you are looking for: difficult to discuss so many focal lengths - 12mm, 25mm, 30mm, 35mm - and throwing speed boosters into the mix makes it even more complicated. And if you're holding off purchasing the Leica DG Summilux because you're waiting to learn the T-stop of the yet-to-be released Zuiko, that's one of the most baffling statements I've ever read here at EOSHD, and I've seen a few. If you were to apply the same criteria to your camera purchases as your lenses, you might also avoid Panasonic altogether, since they inflate their ISO readings too. 

Tbf, most cine lenses are marked with T-stop, as it provides the correct info how much light actually gets through, very useful for video especially. And obviously the t-stop is usually a notch beleow the f/stop, that's a given. The zuiko 25mm 1.2 is a beautiful piece of work, it's a pleasure to use. According to DXO Mark the t/stop is between zuiko 25mm 1.2 and lumix leica 25mm 1.4 is the same (1.8), while the sigma 30mm 1.4 is rated 1.6. So this means there is zero advantage when it comes to actual low light use, premium price is mainly due to the image and build quality, which may justifiable by itself. And yes the low light advantage with Nocticron is marginal compared to the much smaller and cheaper lumix 42.5 f1.7. 

But right now i'm looking for a solution that allows me to use as low ISO as possible while being reasonobly sharp wide open, focal lenght 35mm - 50m (in 35mm terms). I'd pay premium for that, but as it seems there are more budget friendly alternatives with the same low light performance. I'd really preffer a native lens, so i'm gonna probably go with sigma 30 1.4 next.

As an alternative for zuiko 25mm 1.2 i have considered getting speedbooster XL + Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (or 50mm 1.4) instead. Theoretically the speedbooster combo should let in more light than T1.8, but how much?  Plus the speedbooster could be used for other lenses down the road. If i was loaded with cash i'd get the zuiko pro anyway, but right now this DXO test has made me postpone at least for me, a quite significant  purchase. At the same time i actually don't trust Dxo that much, so maybe i shouldn't bother with their tests.  

Am i being unreasonable?

Btw i'm waitning for the t-stop of 12mm DG Summilux and how it compares to the zuiko 12mm f2, a lens  released years ago. 

 

 

[jonpais]

5 minutes ago, Fatalfury said:

Tbf, most cine lenses are marked with T-stop, as it provides the correct info how much light actually gets through, very useful for video especially. And obviously the t-stop is usually a notch beleow the f/stop, that's a given. The zuiko 25mm 1.2 is a beautiful piece of work, it's a pleasure to use. According to DXO Mark the t/stop is between zuiko 25mm 1.2 and lumix leica 25mm 1.4 is the same (1.8), while the sigma 30mm 1.4 is rated 1.6. So this means there is zero advantage when it comes to actual low light use, premium price is mainly due to the image and build quality, which may justifiable by itself. And yes the low light advantage with Nocticron is marginal compared to the much smaller and cheaper lumix 42.5 f1.7. 

But right now i'm looking for a solution that allows me to use as low ISO as possible while being reasonobly sharp wide open, focal lenght 35mm - 50m (in 35mm terms). I'd pay premium for that, but as it seems there are more budget friendly alternatives with the same low light performance. I'd really preffer a native lens, so i'm gonna probably go with sigma 30 1.4 next.

As an alternative for zuiko 25mm 1.2 i have considered getting speedbooster XL + Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art (or 50mm 1.4) instead. Theoretically the speedbooster combo should let in more light than T1.8, but how much?  Plus the speedbooster could be used for other lenses down the road. If i was loaded with cash i'd get the zuiko pro anyway, but right now this DXO test has made me postpone at least for me, a quite significant  purchase. At the same time i actually don't trust Dxo that much, so maybe i shouldn't bother with their tests.  

Am i being unreasonable?

Btw i'm waitning for the t-stop of 12mm DG Summilux and how it compares to the zuiko 12mm f2, a lens  released years ago. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the faster lenses should also have nicer bokeh and shallower depth of field, regardless of T-stop, and that counts for something, no?

[noone]

16 hours ago, jonpais said:

 BTW. All lenses have T-stops slower than their f/stop, because there is no such thing as a lens, let alone a UV filter, with 100% light transmission. Remember, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 has one of the most complex designs for a m43 lens, something like 20 elements! Perhaps the reason few reviewers even mention T-stops is because it is a low priority when assessing the optical performance of a lens. I seldom even see it mentioned over at Lens Rentals.com, one of the more rigorous sites for testing lenses. Same goes for lenstip.com, unless the discrepancy is huge. I've never heard of any respectable photographer base their evaluation of a lens on T-stops alone. And I've never ever heard of anyone choosing one lens over another based on light transmission values. Maybe I should sell my Nocticron, since it only has a T-stop of 1.7. Are you after best value for money or absolute quality?

While they are not common, there ARE lenses that have a T stop the same as the F stop.

When used on a FF A7 series camera, the really nice little Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 has a T stop of 1.8 (with a bit more vignetting than the two M4/3 25mm lenses wide open).

When used on a APSC camera, it has a T stop of 2 for some reason (I had it in my head it would be the other way around) but now vignetting has more than halved.

https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-II-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-25mm-F12-PRO-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II-versus-Panasonic-Leica-Summilux-DG-25mm-F14-on-Olympus-OM-D-E-M1-Mark-II__1252_1035_1774_1136_450_1136

[jonpais]

Apparently, Fuji's 50mm f/2 lens is brilliant, and has broken resolution records for the X-mount. The focal length is a cause of concern for some stills shooters, but when shooting 4K, it's pretty much perfect for portraiture, head shots, whatever - as well as being rather economical (for Fuji!), super compact, all metal construction, and made in Japan.

[Aerialexplorer]

Hi,
Going to buy GH5 and looking lens  for overhead shooting videos Drawing,craft,how-to type (like on attached picture), moreover  i am going to make outdoor videos

travel, nature etc. Can you recommend lens which will be good for both purpose ? or better buy two lenses ? If so which one ?

i have never had any camera, your help will be appreciated

[jonpais]

Very few lenses have impressed me like the Leica DG Summilux 12mm f/1.4. First of all, it is exceedingly difficult to design a micro four thirds lens of those parameters; and while there have been several very Good wide angle primes designed for the system, none have exactly smashed resolution records. And whatever their actual resolution, I've never been able to get satisfyingly crisp images from either the wide end of my Panasonic X Vario 12-35mm f/2.8 or my Voigtlander Nokton 17.5mm f/.95. I know they're capable of delivering detailed shots, it's just that I've never managed to get truly sharp pictures with either of those lenses, while other lenses in my collection, the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 and Sigma DC DN 30mm f/1.4 have never failed to produce dazzlingly sharp images; the verdict is still out on my Olympus 25mm f/1.2. It took me months to decide to purchase the Leica 12mm f/1.4 - firstly, because I seldom shoot ultrawide, and secondly, because there has been next to no convincing work online to make me want to drop $1,300 on an unknown quantity. And none of the videos I had seen taken with the Leica could persuade me that it was any better than the modestly priced Samyang 12mm f/2, so highly praised by readers here. One thing that held me back from getting the Samyang though is that an aperture of f/2 does not really allow you to play with depth of field on a wide prime, and I prefer AF lenses for the kind of work I do, which is street photography and vlogging. So I felt I was taking a huge gamble when I ultimately decided to pull the trigger on the Leica. And now that I own it, I believe 12mm is a perfect focal length for vlogging from home or out on the street with a gimbal: at home, because it gives me more flexibility with lighting and allows me to sit near the microphone; outdoors, because even when holding my arm outstretched, the field of view just barely covers the top of my head to my shoulders.  And whether mounted on a tripod or shooting handheld, wide open or at f/4-5.6, the Leica has consistently delivered insanely sharp detail. It also produces some very beautiful bokeh. And the build quality of the current lineup of Leica lenses surpasses that of most other micro four thirds lenses. I realize that the lens is expensive, most good glass is; I'm also aware that many reading this already have a wide angle Zoom that covers 12mm: but I would still recommend this lens to anyone who wants to see just how great micro four thirds can look with the right glass. 

 

[Geoff CB]

Probably my next lens to pick up. Leica 35-70 F4. Great look and seems to have almost no focus breathing.