Invest in Canon/or Nikon glass for buying new GH4.

[Lasers_pew_pew_pew]

Hi guys.

 

So let's say in theory if Metabones brought out a EF lens mount specifically for the GH4 with electronics, which I'm about to buy), and we lived in this universe....

 

I'm going to make the move from TV documentary editing/shooting into directing short films, more commercials, more music videos/ and a step up to a documentary DV director. That sort of thing.

 

I'm planning on getting the GH4, with a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 as my first lens, as it is by all accounts a very high quality lens and would fit me perfectly for most situations.

 

 

 

So... do I buy the GH4 with a speed booster with a nikon mount, and a nikon mount Sigma?

 

Or do I wait for a possible soon to be released metabones speedbooster for the GH4, EF mount with electronics etc and a canon mount Sigma?

 

I'd like your (much more knowledgable about DSLR's) guys opinions?!

 

 

 

If I got the GH4, with a speed booster, which glass is the wise to invest in?

 

I don't have a lot of money to spend on lenses in the near future, so I'd rather cheap quality glass in general. 

 

Canon/Nikon mounts?

 

Which one in general is cheaper for a high level of quality? Which is just the best in general for someone like me? Who wants to start shooting low budget short films and features?

 

Also what's the actual benefit of a EF mount with proper electronics?

 

Does it just mean that I could use the autofocus feature on the GH4 with the Canon lenses? Any other benefits? Would it mean that lenses with image stabilisation would work on the canon lenses while on the GH4, and an imaginary speed booster which would allow such a thing?

 

 

[Andrew Reid]

If Canon version of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is EF mount not EFS, all's good to wait...

 

I have the Nikon version, it's a spectacular lens.

[Nikkor]

Do you plan on using autofocus? If not I wouldn't spend money on canon/nikon glass. The sigma is unique, but for the rest I would go for classic lenses (contax?) and just buy select canon nikon stuff. This is my personal opinion and I am an idiot, so don't take it too seriously.

 

If you buy a nikon speedbooster you are stuck with nikon, nothing bad in nikon glass but its limiting.

[Julian]

If Canon version of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is EF mount not EFS, all's good to wait...
 
I have the Nikon version, it's a spectacular lens.

Third party lenses are never EF-S.

Waiting.. :)

[Perplex]

If Canon version of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is EF mount not EFS, all's good to wait...

 

I have the Nikon version, it's a spectacular lens.

it's EF

 

your advice is very convenient Andrew :)

[Andrew Reid]

If you buy a nikon speedbooster you are stuck with nikon, nothing bad in nikon glass but its limiting.

 

What exactly is limiting about Nikon glass which adapts to almost every camera on the market?

 

Are you confusing it with the Nikon MOUNT itself?

 

Nikon lenses are just as adaptable as the Contax Yashica stuff.

 

Nikon lenses adapt to Canon mount as well.

 

So if you end up with an EF adapter on your GH4 you can still use them.

[Andrew Reid]

Third party lenses are never EF-S.

 

True. Apparently the licensing fee has expired on EF but not yet for EF-S.

[Lasers_pew_pew_pew]

Do you plan on using autofocus? If not I wouldn't spend money on canon/nikon glass. The sigma is unique, but for the rest I would go for classic lenses (contax?) and just buy select canon nikon stuff. This is my personal opinion and I am an idiot, so don't take it too seriously.

 

If you buy a nikon speedbooster you are stuck with nikon, nothing bad in nikon glass but its limiting.

 

I do actually plan on using the autofocus at times. They'll be times when I'm doing more documentary type stuff. (British Docs tend to use A LOT of 5D and C300 stuff, and even some of the commissioners have told me stuff looked terrible. Stuff that was just shot on normal workhorse doc cameras like the XF305, or PMW300.

 

So in these situations where a subject is moving back and forwards, a good tracking autofocus like the one apparently on the GH4, would be a god send!!!

 

Any experience with the tracking focus anyone?

 

Also I thought I might invest in a cheaper movi type system, in which case I'm guessing a good autofocus would greater help pull of more complicated shots where the distance between subject and the focus of the lens would be helpful!!

[Lasers_pew_pew_pew]

If Canon version of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is EF mount not EFS, all's good to wait...

 

I have the Nikon version, it's a spectacular lens.

Thanks Andrew!

 

But which are the better/more affordable lenses would you reckon?

 

IF you were spending your money on your first camera, and it was a GH4. Which lens/adapters would you get? Including speedbosters?

[Nikkor]

What exactly is limiting about Nikon glass which adapts to almost every camera on the market?

 

Are you confusing it with the Nikon MOUNT itself?

 

Nikon lenses are just as adaptable as the Contax Yashica stuff.

 

Nikon lenses adapt to Canon mount as well.

 

So if you end up with an EF adapter on your GH4 you can still use them.

 

Ehm, I think he was wondering if getting the nikon mount speedbooster + sigma nikon version, etc... (first post) and that mount happens to be limited to nikon glass. It's something to keep in mind, I wouldn't have a problem because I only have nikon glass.

 

The thing about mentioning contax, and I could have said olympus,pentax,etc... is that they tend to be a lot cheaper than nikon or canon equivalents, and the exceptions are the very good lenses. 

 

 

So... do I buy the GH4 with a speed booster with a nikon mount, and a nikon mount Sigma?

 

Or do I wait for a possible soon to be released metabones speedbooster for the GH4, EF mount with electronics etc and a canon mount Sigma?

[Julian]

True. Apparently the licensing fee has expired on EF but not yet for EF-S.

 

The whole EF-S mount is just bullshit anyway... I don't see any advantages. Third party manufacturers manage to make aps-c lenses with EF mount just fine (and they fit on fullframe camera's withouth problems), so why can't Canon do this?

 

This was funny back in the days... when the 300D was announced with the EF-S 18-55mm kit lens. Before that time, it was really hard (or expensive) to find a moderate wide angle for your Canon aps-c dslr (D30, D60, 10D, etc) and the 18-55mm EF-S lenses didnt fit on those cameras.

 

There was a solution though: just chop a bit off the back of the EF-S 18-55mm and it would work fine on those camera's:

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/tutorials/efs-10d.html

 

[jcs]

I have a Canon L lenses for the 5D3 and FS700+SB, however for the GH4 I went with the Panasonic 12-35 F2.8 + 35-100 F2.8 and the Voigtlander 25mm F.95. These lenses cover everything I need so far (24-200mm 5D3/FF equivalent). If MB ever releases the Canon EF to M43 SpeedBooster, that might be another option.

[Quirky]

If Canon version of the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 is EF mount not EFS, all's good to wait...

 

I have the Nikon version, it's a spectacular lens.

 

The Nikon version is a Nikon G equivalent, isn't it, which means it has no physical aperture ring, right? 

[pablogrollan]

I personally have no problems with Nikon mount lenses. It's pretty much the only mount that hasn't changed, which gives you the opportunity to choose lenses released from 1959 up to today. Ten years from now it might be more difficult to get affordable old manual lenses from discontinued mounts like Contax, Canon FD, etc.

 

But, if you plan to use autofocus you just might as well wait a little to see if Metabones releases a EOS to M4/3 speedbooster with electronics...

[Lasers_pew_pew_pew]

I personally have no problems with Nikon mount lenses. It's pretty much the only mount that hasn't changed, which gives you the opportunity to choose lenses released from 1959 up to today. Ten years from now it might be more difficult to get affordable old manual lenses from discontinued mounts like Contax, Canon FD, etc.

 

But, if you plan to use autofocus you just might as well wait a little to see if Metabones releases a EOS to M4/3 speedbooster with electronics...

 

 

Thanks!

 

Yeah I don't think the metabones Nikon speed booster has electronics and can't auto focus.

 

But what I'm really after (I'm a bit sleep deprived at the moment because of work don't think I'm communicating well in general).

 

If I could put either canon glass or nikon glass on my GH4 with a speed booster with no problems...

 

Which is the better glass to invest in for filmmaking? Which is cheapest for a high level of quality?

[markbatey]

I found after using the XF305, using a lot of handheld,  for tv for a couple of years that I had got really used to good image stabilisation - and trying to use non-stablised prime lenses on the GH2 was a real challenge. Personally I hate rigs - they turn a small handy camera into an unmanageable beast. And in the hand without tripod or rig, my stuff had a jittery look that was not at all nice. So good stabilisation is a priority for me - as well as all that image quality stuff. 

[maxotics]

Even in photography, camera movement is probably the number one cause of image blur.  The OP should keep in mind that the speedboosters work by sacrificing overall image quality for wider apertures and image.  In other words, if a lens maker came out with the speedbooster built in, the people would probably howl at how bad the lenses perform in tests.  In video, the trade-off is worth it for legacy glass that is usually made for full-frame.  

 

I have a huge Nikon lens collection now, and other glass, and I'm tired of it.  I'm probably going to sell most of it and just get a Sony 10-18mm zoom for my a7 and now a6000.  Keep in mind, Lasers_pew_pew that I shoot primarily photography but video has always been a passion so I hang out here to live vicariously.   For what it's worth this is my advice

 

o. Buy MFT mount with stabilization

o. Buy MFT mount because auto-focus comes in handy more than one wants to think

o. Only buy legacy glass if you're SURE you want it's character/look (sharpness/distortion wise, I don't believe most legacy glass can compete with modern lenses made for MFT mount).

o. It's fun to get more light through speed-boosters.  But if you shoot daylight, you may end up needing your money in ND filters and lighting modifiers.

o. If you want to play with manual lenses, get them at thrift shops.  Just keep an eye out, or ask friends.  They pop up over time.

 

Want to ditto markbatey again.  If you're not going to shoot tripod/rig, you have to have IS or prepare to give yourself and your audience a headache ;)

[Julian]

The OP should keep in mind that the speedboosters work by sacrificing overall image quality for wider apertures and image.  In other words, if a lens maker came out with the speedbooster built in, the people would probably howl at how bad the lenses perform in tests.

 

Where did you get that idea? It's not true. It improves sharpness at wider (bigger you mean?) apertures in the center. With the clones maybe corner performance is a little worse, but not a lot and with the original speed booster that didn't look like an issue at all to me.

 

Actually there are lenses with built in speed booster (focal recuder), or at least some sort. It's said that the Olympus 4/3 14-35mm f/2.0 works with focal reducer like elements and also the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 does. Two lenses with AMAZING image quality...

[Quirky]

I personally have no problems with Nikon mount lenses. It's pretty much the only mount that hasn't changed, which gives you the opportunity to choose lenses released from 1959 up to today. 

 

In theory, yes, and as long as the classic Nikkors are concerned. In practical terms things may not be quite as rosy. Attach an old manual Nikkor onto a D5300, for example, or a modern Nikon G glass onto a 'dumb' tube adapter with no electronics or aperture dimming dial and you'll probably see what I mean.

 

Besides, Pentax K mount is pretty much the same as ever, only with minor mechanical and major electronic tweaks, just like the Nikon mount. The Sony A mount, aka Minolta AF mount has been the same ever since the introduction in 1985, too.

 

 

Ten years from now it might be more difficult to get affordable old manual lenses from discontinued mounts like Contax, Canon FD, etc.

 

Ten years from now the Nikon dSLR mount will be discontinued, too. The old manual Nikkors will then keep circulating in the used market until they wear off, just like the classic Contax and other ones. The newer electric ones may become obsolete sooner.

 

 

 

But, if you plan to use autofocus you just might as well wait a little to see if Metabones releases a EOS to M4/3 speedbooster with electronics...

 

...To operate both autofocus and aperture.

 

FWIW, I'd vote for waiting for the ohter speedboosters, too, but the choice is up to him, anyway. His likes, his wallet, his decision.

[maxotics]

Where did you get that idea? It's not true. It improves sharpness at wider (bigger you mean?) apertures in the center. With the clones maybe corner performance is a little worse, but not a lot and with the original speed booster that didn't look like an issue at all to me.

 

Actually there are lenses with built in speed booster (focal recuder), or at least some sort. It's said that the Olympus 4/3 14-35mm f/2.0 works with focal reducer like elements and also the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 does. Two lenses with AMAZING image quality...

 

Hi Julian.  What I mean is that a lens built for MFT is design to deliver a maximum sharpness and light gathering across the sensor size for which it is designed.  Even cheap MFT glass is going to be pretty good.  It is, in my experience.  

 

When you use other lenses designed for other (bigger sensors) you generally don't see edge problems because you're taking the center part of the glass.  You could argue that these lenses are bigger and you aren't really getting anything for nothing.  Because video is taking really a fraction of the sensor output, it lessens the amount of lens problems you might see in a larger res files.  And again, some blur is needed in video or it is disconcerting.  

 

I can't see the difference in video I've taken with and without a focal reducer.  I don't mind having big lenses because I shoot mostly APS-C and FF photography.  However, if I was going to do only video, which seems to be the OPs intention, then I would want to start with what I know works really well, (MFT glass designed for the sensor and with IS). and THEN look at legacy glass.  Or put another way, I don't see a really compelling reason to buy expensive large sensor glass for MFT video.

 

Again, just looking to give some perspective.  Good ND filters are expensive.  IS is important, etc.