noone

It isn't using the same sensor as the Sony camera but I do think it is a Sony sensor made for Nikon.

For what camera? Just about all of them would be on the latest high resolution FF cameras. If you are using on the same camera, then that would get interesting. The highest scoring for sharpness 2.8 FF zoom on DXO is the Sony FE 70-200 GM OSS lens on the A7Rii and it actually come in 12th for sharpness out of all combinations of lens and camera tested and ahead of even a lens like the Otus 55 1.4 on the Canon 5Dsr (which is 13th for sharpness). In shorter zooms, the highest scoring for sharpness combination is the Sony 16-35 2.8 GM on the A7Rii (40th overall). Even the slower Sony FE 28-70 kit lens scores higher for sharpness on an A7Rii than the 18-35 1.8 on any camera it is tested on but put it on other cameras and it scores lower for sharpness. The highest the 18-35 1.8 gets is on the Canon 760D where it comes in as a combination at number 1298 followed by number 1356 on a Nikon D500 (but they still score higher than is possible for ANY lens on my 12mp FF A7s). https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/launched-between-1987-and-2018/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=rankDxo If using the FF lenses on a camera like my A7s though that is another matter (12mp A7s is not tested with any lenses)so it isn't just a lens by itself (unless maybe you are using it as a telescope?). I wouldn't worry about sharpness as long as a lens is sharp enough.

Thanks, That was one of the sites I had looked at trying to find a 43mm filter to fit my adapters vacant spot. I forgot they also made a 50mm so maybe I should get one of them sometime and see if I can find another adapter that might hold it. I came to this by accident as 43mm (thin) filters fit my old 300mm Tamron in lens filter tray and I got a cheap IR filter to put in it. While looking at my adapters with the IR filter handy, I realised there was a spot in the cheap Fotga adapter about that size but had to file off the rim and it fits great if loose but works. That got me thinking what other filters might work and the apodization filter was the one I want the most. The single filters are very expensive for me for what may well be useless but if it works even slightly, that would give me a lot more than just one lens using it (I would love a proper apodization filter lens like the Sony or even the Laowa but beggars can't be choosers). Maybe I will just try a sandspot filter glass or similar and see what I get with that? If anyone knows of a company that makes 43mm apodization filters I would love to know. Any other adapters for canon lenses have spaces that take filters (maybe adapters for the GH5/GH5s to be on topic)? This was with the 43mm IR filter in the adapter behind the 17mm TS-E

Thanks, I have seen those before when looking for a filter but while I am trying for a bit of a kludge, I do want a "real" filter with top class glass. I might just buy the largest I can find and try and use it in APSC mode though it would probably be sticky taped into the adapter.

I am forever searching for a 43mm apodization filter. I have a Fotga adapter for my Canon lenses on my Sony A7s and it has a small space that almost exactly takes the glass from a 43mm filter (I file away the metal rim). I have used an IR filter successfully (43mm filters are a LOT cheaper than a 150mm one for my 17 TS-E would be and means I only need one size for my Canon EF lenses that fit which is most of them so far). There are companies that sell individual filters but they are expensive and too small (at least the ones I have found). There are different sorts too with ones that are reverse. Would love one of these with a lens like the EF 100 f2 though I have sold that lens but would also love to try it with my Sigma 150 2.8 in EF mount.

Thanks both!. These both should allow me to use clear zoom with fast primes and my 17 TS-E for live bands. Now to see about taking out a bank loan for that $8!

Personally, I think some of those cheap $200 lenses on larger formats DO compare with the 25 1.2. That Nikon 58 1.4 isn't a lens that had sharpness as its first objective I think and is an acquired taste that many love and many don't. I mentioned the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 first as it is a 135 format lens (fact) and it is as nice as the Oly 25 (subjective) and it is cheaper (fact). I have owned a few M43 lenses and liked them but I preferred having a couple of those, a couple of Sony lenses and using Canon lenses adapted as I used them on both Sony and M43 (and some even on Canon briefly too). I use whatever lens works for me from any maker on the cameras I am using at the time. What is cheaper and what can be compared IS subjective and also varies from lens to lens and you can not say it applies to all.

17mm on M43 at f1.2 with a subject distance of 15m will have DOF with everything in focus from about 8m to 200m. Take a step back to a subject distance of 17m and everything from just over 8m to infinity will be in focus. Stop down all the way to f 1.4 and you have infinity from around 7m to infinity with a subject at 14m.. FF and 35mm you get infinity with a subject distance at 15m at 2.8 so all is as it should be. If you use 17mm FF, you have infinity focus from around 3.5m at f1.4 with a subject at just 7m (and my 17mm f4 TS-E is infinite at f4 from under 1.5m with a subject at just 3m). http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Forgot to add, that while the Oly is an F 1.2 lens, it has a T stop of 1.8 which is the same as the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 used on FF cameras.

You are missing the point. The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 IS a premium lens, it just happens to be one that is 1.8 instead of 1.4/1.2 or f1. It has often been described as a mini-Otus and it isn't a "normal" normal lens (3 aspherical elements). It is very much in the league of the Oly 25 1.2 and if it was a Canon lens it would no doubt be a Canon L lens. Its biggest problem is LOCA but no lens is perfect. It often gets called for being too expensive (for a 1.8 normal) but to many people, it is worth every cent and it IS cheaper than the Oly for similar performance. Many of the Sony premium lenses ARE more expensive but then they are faster and NOT being matched with any M43 lenses. The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 CAN be matched (as can the FE 85 1.8) but that doesn't take away how good these lenses are. Many prefer the cheap 85 1.8 FE over the more expensive Zeiss Batis 85 1.8 (which is also a very nice lens). Not taking away anything from the premium M43 lenses but don't undersell those "cheaper" FF E mount lenses and mated with decent sensors, they shine. http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/11/09/crazy-comparison-sony-a7rii-and-55-1-8-vs-olympus-pen-f-and-25-f1-2 https://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-NEX-7-versus-Olympus-MZUIKO-DIGITAL-ED-25mm-F12-PRO-on-Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GX7__1252_736_1774_901/ The Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 also does well as an APSC lens too (plus as I said can be used as a 2x zoom for video and jpegs)

That depends. The lenses have to be considered with the camera used. In any case, I think I much prefer the (cheaper) Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 to the Olympus 25 1.2. (yes it is not 50 but it is close enough). I have had a LOT of normal lenses including a Canon FD 50 1.2 I loved and Pentax 50 1.2 that I loved to death (it eventually fell apart on me) but the Sony Zeiss has cured me of all of those others. I also think the FE 85 1.8 is the biggest bargain going in photography for any brand and used on a FF camera I would also prefer it to the Fuji 56 1.2 and the FE 85 is also cheaper than the Fuji. The FE 85 IS an absolute bargain but it is also an excellent lens and has similarly cured me of all the other 85s I have had (still have an FD 85 1.2 L). Just my opinion. EDIT and a couple of other reasons they are even bigger bargains. Both those lenses (55 1.8 and 85 1.8) can be used as 2x virtually lossless zooms in video (as any other lens can and also for Jpeg stills) and also be used both FF and APSC on the FF Sony E mount cameras.

I think it depends on what you want and what lenses are AVAILABLE. My favourite lens is the Canon 17mm F4 L TS-E. When you need shift and wide, you have will have a hard time do that with M43 (maybe a tilt shift adapter with a 8mm lens would be the closest if you can). There is an increasing number of solutions so the number of situations where it would be harder to do things with one format or another is shrinking but they still exist. Another would be fast longer exotics. 400 2.8 for instance (or even 300 2.8). To get the end results to match would be close to impossible currently (how much would a 200 1.4 cost for M43 given the costs of 400 2.8 lenses anyway). I could never afford a modern 300 2.8 AF lens now let alone a 400 2.8 AF but I still love using my old MF Tamron adaptall 300 2.8 and they can be found fairly reasonably priced and the same with some others (old Nikons, Canon FD ETC). If you want 300mm FF angle of view at 2.8 what would you use on M43? (These lenses are also great ON APSC and M43 but then give a 450/600mm FF angle of view.) Maybe something speed boosted but that would have to be something fast and long anyway if it exists.

I go along with what Metabones says about their gear. Oh and what do you think the difference will be if you look at (say) an M43 sensor through a 35mm f2 lens VS looking at it through a speedboosted 50mm 2.8 lens? (example not relying on exact match). I will leave it there.

I would say it does change the lens in that it becomes part of the lens as a teleconverter does. It isn't part of the camera anyway. I believe some faster zoom lenses were actually made by adding a focal reducer to a normal lens in the lens as part of the construction. In any event, this is what Metabones who makes the Speedbooster says (Speedbooster is a focal reducer). "Mounted between a mirrorless camera and a SLR lens, Speed Booster® increases maximum aperture (hence its name), increases MTF and makes lens wider. Optics designed by Caldwell Photographic in the USA (patent pending)." http://www.metabones.com/products/?c=speed-booster

Great article. To me it has always been about if there are lenses to match though I have never actively tried to match systems and have just tried to use what was appropriate for the system I am using/used (FF, APSC, M43 and Pentax Q). In the last couple of years there has been an increasing number of faster options for smaller sensors (and FF too). I am sure there will be situations that I would have to go higher ISO with FF than M43 but not as many as is often implied and is focal length and subject dependent and sometimes it might just mean a different shutter speed. The thing that I sometimes have an issue with is "matching DOF". FF lenses get infinite DOF pretty quickly with wide angle lenses so in many cases there will be nothing to match once you are at infinity anyway. Longer lenses like 300mm also I find the typical subject will have enough DOF even at 2.8 FF Maybe around 50mm FF versus 25mm M43 for my uses there could be an issue FF for me with very fast lenses but while I like fast lenses, I use them wide open fairly rarely (at times a few 50 1.2 and an 85 1.2 and a 24 1.4) but then it is pretty hard to match those fast speeds FF with M43 anyway.

Thing is do you often have to adjust for DOF? I have recently sold off my M43 gear and no longer use APSC cameras often but I can not recall ever trying to match DOF with FF against the others. I am mostly shooting stills and just dabbling in shooting live bands though. I am sure there will be situations when it matters but I am equally sure there will be others were it doesn't (and therefore favours the larger sensor). That said, I am also sure that it would be a rare thing to say that any of these cameras DIDN'T have enough DR. Even at really high ISOs, where DR is limited, that is closer to what I actually see when the lighting is low so lesser DR is quite natural then.

Does not seem to be any tests yet for the GH5s DR but at least for RAW stills, the A7iii has about a stop more DR from the start to the finish which is a bit of a surprise for the A6500 at higher ISO where I would have expected it to drop away more. Maybe the Gh5s would be similar to the A6500 at up to ISO 6400 (but that is a very uneducated guess). https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-A7-III-versus-Sony-A6500-versus-Sony-A7S___1236_1127_949 Photons to Photos has the difference as being a bit more. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

While it is true that the problem is not MOUNT compatibility, the facts are that the oldest lenses can in some cases break the mirror of some cameras and that even still current cameras will not work with the LATEST lenses. As for compatibility, well you can even mount and use AI/AIS Nikon lenses on Pentax cameras if you are careful (do this at your own risk). I once got a damaged old Nikon 35 1.4 and a battered old Nikon 85 1.8 to use on Pentax bare without adapters and I preferred the 85 on the Pentaxes to my old Nikon D50. The 85 worked well on my Sony too (with adapter) but I recently gave it away to a friends daughter for use on her Nikon DSLR but had to warn her to check first if it would break the mirror on her camera.

I wold expect a new mount and any FF camera to have a F mount adapter ready to go. I don't give much to it being the "same" old F mount as while yes, the lenses will mount to all the cameras, they don't all work. Geez, there are still current cameras that wont work at all with the latest E lenses and then all those bodies without a screwdrive motor and all the bodies that can actually be BROKEN using some older lenses! I wouldn't be worried about Nikon F mount adapters for mirrorless though. They even had adapters that can auto focus some of those old manual focus Nikon lenses on some Nikon cameras too (1.6x) with a couple of old adapters (similar to the ones for Pentax, Sony and others- there was even one that auto focused Nikon lenses on Minolta/Sony A mount cameras). Whatever they do, I am sure it will be great but they need to do it soon (as do Canon).

The thing is that most FF DSLRs to date ARE FF for photos but not for video so if getting it for video it is a bit of a waste and your lenses will not give the same angle of view as they do for stills. Some FF mirrorless cameras are closer to being "FF" for video.

Thanks. Yeah, on purpose. It is actually an as taken in camera HDR. The -1 to bring up the cloud reflections from the sun and the HDR to bring some of the rest back (this was the first early morning cloud of any sort I have had for a couple of weeks). I took quite a few in various combinations 0 to -1 and HDR and not and I tend to like it a bit darker. I have HDR to be switched on/off with two button presses and am having a bit of fun with it at the moment. I have looked at it on a few computers and it is too dark on some but I like it on others (including my home computer).

I find it funny how we keep looking for lenses to try/use but sometimes forget or dismiss what we already have. I have an ancient Promura 28 2.8 lens in m42 mount and it spends its days as a "plug" on an old Pentax Spotmatic I have not used for 15 years or so. I was reminded of it when I saw it while looking for something the other day and thought I would take the lens for a walk. Just a jpeg as taken still but for a pretty much give away lens, I don't mind it now at all (I used to think it was crap and only good as a body cap).

Wouldn't it depend on what was being shot? 15 stops in a really dark night scene might look as poor (for different reasons) as 7 stops in a really well lit colourful flower garden.

While I do like it a lot, it isn't perfect. I guess in some ways it seems like I am turning my FF camera into a APSC and M43 one (depending on how far I zoom) For my uses it is great. I actually think if I had more money and did a greater variety of shooting, I would prefer using both a FF and M43 camera again but it is just simpler and easier for me to now use Sony only and I like primes generally so am happy I can use them to "zoom". Hope it works for you.

Clear zoom works great. It is for both video and Jpeg stills but doesn't work in RAW. I have it set to turn on (A7s) via the down button and then use the left/right buttons to zoom in and out. It is virtually lossless variable zoom to 2x (you can also use variable digital zoom which goes to 4x but above 2x, it does start getting lossy and especially as you get to 4x). If you start with a decent lens you keep a decent lens and (for example) ANY 50mm prime zoomed to 90mm (1.8x clearzoom) is going to be better than 90mm on my worst Canon zoom optically but lenses like the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 zoomed leave it for dead (an old 28-90 EF kit lens). It turns a lens like my Canon 17mm f4 L TS-E into a 17-34 tilt shift zoom but also works great with fast longer lenses too. M43 has its ETC which works very well but to date at least none have been variable and they are more like fixed teleconverters (1.4x or 2x I think) than "zooms" like Sony has. As for lenses, I have used a few across systems and some I liked on both M43 and FF E mount are the old Tamron 300 2.8 adaptall manual focus lens, the Canon EF 135 f2 L, an old EF 100-300 5.6 L (an old lens that focused slowly on my first gen A7 cameras but was still ok and was fast AF on my M43 camera and Kipon adapter- AFS only), and a Sigma 150 2.8 APO macro (plays up on Sony but works ok for MF as well as fast AF on M43) and a EF 100 f2. FD lenses I liked on both systems include the 80-200 f4 L, FD 50 1.2 L, and FD 85 1.2 L. I have cut right back lately though so only have the 300 2.8 (followed me across several systems) , Sigma 150 2.8, and FD 85 1.2 L (though is a bit sick and needing a fix but since getting an FE 85 1.8, just isn't needed now).