Jump to content
Andrew Reid

Lenses - Sticky Topic

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, jonpais said:

Which is more bokehlicious?

Screen Shot 2018-10-13 at 12.51.51 PM.png

Screen Shot 2018-10-13 at 12.53.11 PM.png

Not sure.

I definitely prefer the second image as the subject stands out from the background more but as far as bokeh goes, they are pretty similar to me.

Maybe too much loss of detail in the first due to noise (and a bit of the same in the hair of the second)? 

I am sure I wouldn't notice in the video though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I got a couple of vintage lenses today for my new MFT setup, and I couldn't be happier.  In fact I was so excited that when I discovered I'd bought the wrong adapter (who puts "M42-MFT" in the title of an eBay auction for a Nikon-MFT adapter - seriously!) that I cut a small section of PVC pipe to act as a spacer and tried a few free-lens style tests.

All frames are grabs from 4K 50p 8-bit 150Mbit HLG file exported to Prores 422.  

Hellios 44M-4 58mm F2 on MFT (2x crop makes it 116mm FOV)

vlcsnap-2018-10-15-17h06m26s016.thumb.png.09553e632c2d66bdd5692f29d88df8f8.png

Yashica yashikor 28mm f2.8 (2x crop makes it 56mm FOV)

vlcsnap-2018-10-15-17h07m09s856.thumb.png.340d4a98453cc603d01c4080da78ea50.png

and lucky last, just for comparison, my decidedly non-vintage native MFT Panasonic 14mm F2.5 pancake lens.

vlcsnap-2018-10-15-17h14m58s226.thumb.png.55a66e1566505364a45fecacb32ba82b.png

The vintage lenses look so much nicer.  The GH5 was on AWB so I'm not sure if the changes in the colour came from the lens or AWB or late afternoon sun.  However, notice the lovely elliptical bokeh of the Hellios, and the lowered contrast of the vintage lenses.  Also, the highlights have a bit of flare on the Yashica that look like a slight Tiffen Black Pro Mist filter, very nice.  That might also be due to the front coating being basically worn off on that lens :)

I haven't shot into the sun with these yet, so no idea on flares, but they look pretty darn good to me.  Even the files with only 150Mbit look so nice - reminding me a little of the soft but clear look of the original BMPCC.  This is what I was hoping for in the GH5 / vintage lens combo.

I've got a Nikon Nippon Kogaku Cine-NIKKOR-C 13mm F1.9 lens on its way that is a gamble about if it will cover the MFT sensor, and I will pick up an 8mm SLR Magic at some point too to round out the set, but very nice so far..  With the exception of ordering the right M42-MFT adapter, I couldn't be happier!  and considering you can't even buy a sensibly sized memory card for what I spent....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, leslie said:

i like the look of your frame grabs, that gives me some hope that my m42's may be ok with the bmp4k time will tell no doubt.

AFAIK, the only difference is possibly the crop factor?  BMPCC v1 had a larger crop than true M43, but my understanding is that m42 lenses were for FF so image circle should easily be large enough.  The problem might be the C-mount lenses that were borderline, even for the original Pocket.

I'm using mine without a speed booster, so coverage isn't an issue at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kye said:

AFAIK, the only difference is possibly the crop factor?  BMPCC v1 had a larger crop than true M43, but my understanding is that m42 lenses were for FF so image circle should easily be large enough.  The problem might be the C-mount lenses that were borderline, even for the original Pocket.

I'm using mine without a speed booster, so coverage isn't an issue at all.

i agree, my understanding is the m42's are ff as well so the image circle should be ok but i hear that the bmp4k has a slightly larger sensor than previous but it's still same mount. so i'm thinking with crossed fingers that it will be ok. this video side of things is new to me and i lashed out on the bmp4k while its brand new and somewhat unproven. be bold or go home i say ? . i would be leaning towards a speed booster later down the track. i'm salivating at the thought of an extra stop of light and a little less crop . main issue at the moment is the waiting game. hopefully before or around xmas time i am informed  then can play with the lenses i have got. hopefully the lenses are fine. some suggest that they may not hold up to 4k. its all up in the air at the moment

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, leslie said:

i agree, my understanding is the m42's are ff as well so the image circle should be ok but i hear that the bmp4k has a slightly larger sensor than previous but it's still same mount. so i'm thinking with crossed fingers that it will be ok. this video side of things is new to me and i lashed out on the bmp4k while its brand new and somewhat unproven. be bold or go home i say ? . i would be leaning towards a speed booster later down the track. i'm salivating at the thought of an extra stop of light and a little less crop . main issue at the moment is the waiting game. hopefully before or around xmas time i am informed  then can play with the lenses i have got. hopefully the lenses are fine. some suggest that they may not hold up to 4k. its all up in the air at the moment

Lenses and crop factors and speed boosters can be complicated..  if you have questions then just ask :)

What lenses do you have?

In terms of them "holding up to 4K" I think that's probably not a problem, here's why.  Firstly, 4K video is 8MP, which for a photography lens (which these will all be) isn't that high a resolution.  Secondly, lots of people think that 4K is about getting super sharp images, but not everyone actually likes those super sharp images, and frequently people find that sharp images look "digital" and softer images look more "cinematic".  Film has been pretty soft for the majority of cinematic history, and even more recently when film was of higher quality it doesn't look sharp, so soft can be a nice aesthetic.  

I think the BMPCC4K will prove to be an excellent camera, and already the images look pleasant and most importantly, it doesn't seem to have the digital over-sharpened look of cheaper digital video, so I think it will look nice with whatever lenses you put on it.

My personal view is that you shouldn't put too much emphasis on resolution, but think of it in terms of image quality.  For example, the 1080 from Canon DSLRs is no match for the 1080 in the C100 despite being of similar resolution and bit-rate (actually the DSLRs have a slightly higher bit-rate).  Most 4K cameras don't match the image quality of the original BMPCC despite it "only" shooting 1080.  In this sense, the BMPCC4K can be viewed as having high image quality and then just think that it will do a good job of capturing whatever the lens gives it.  If a lens is a little soft then you will still benefit from capturing it with a camera that has high image quality, right?  Then, once you've chosen a set of lenses, work out the most important part of the equation - what to put in front of the camera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone confirm or disprove that the Nikon 35mm f/1.8 Z mount lens suffers from huge focus shift (focus changes when stopping down from max aperture due to spherical aberration)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, kye said:

Lenses and crop factors and speed boosters can be complicated..  if you have questions then just ask :)

What lenses do you have?

i have the takumars  24mm f3.5,  smc 35mm f3.5, 50mm f1.4,  85mm 1.9, smc 100 f4 macro, smc 200 f4, and the 300mm f4 all m42 mount. also canon fd 50mm 1.4  fd 50mm 1.4 ssc  and the 35-70 f4. i have been looking for a 20mm either m42 or fd probably m42 smc,   as the prices are starting to jump up abit for either mount. i guess you could say i'm old school

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, leslie said:

i have the takumars  24mm f3.5,  smc 35mm f3.5, 50mm f1.4,  85mm 1.9, smc 100 f4 macro, smc 200 f4, and the 300mm f4 all m42 mount. also canon fd 50mm 1.4  fd 50mm 1.4 ssc  and the 35-70 f4. i have been looking for a 20mm either m42 or fd probably m42 smc,   as the prices are starting to jump up abit for either mount. i guess you could say i'm old school

Nice!  That's quite a collection!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/13/2018 at 3:41 PM, webrunner5 said:

Actually I was referring to Buckminster Fuller and His Bucky Balls LoL. Not that I really have Ever seen His balls in person! ?

I was about to say that the Bucky Ball is the largest object to have been passed through the two-slit experiment (and exhibit wave-particle duality), but I notice that my information is way out of date, and they've been flipping significantly larger objects through that thing for quite some time now ?.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't tested the filter yet, but I want to say how much I absolutely love Formatt Hitech's packaging for their filters. Packed by hand, quality control stamped, and come with cloth pouches for the filter. I wish every piece of glass came like this. 

_GEO3091hiteche.thumb.jpg.eedc254d7b680a246bda6cf5770cc3aa.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In praise of the Helios 44m-4 ....

Put on a M43 sensor without a SB it becomes a 116mm FOV, and used sensibly (not trying to show off the bokeh) it can be a nice lens, soft but still detailed.  Some of the below might also be in ETC mode (162mm) but I can't remember which are and aren't.

Shots below taken with GH5 in HLG 4K 150Mbps and processed in Resolve.

Untitled_1.4.1.thumb.jpg.8858f5bbe8ccd73608680ebfadef9a3e.jpg

Untitled_1.6.1.thumb.jpg.3915ae516eb4579310fcbd17bd07cf76.jpg

Untitled_1.7.1.thumb.jpg.2d29a796f43dea59fb73c1f366456640.jpg

Untitled_1_11.1.thumb.jpg.35e47a555a07fef8286d760d3fc0edd6.jpg

Untitled_1_12.1.thumb.jpg.99846f44fcaaa0c1a080be687d8f90c8.jpg

Untitled_1_13.1.thumb.jpg.4ce1eaa40aae27b1dafd46531af55294.jpg

Considering the low cost for the lens and a non-SB adapter, it's a complete steal really.

It's probably too soft for most peoples tastes, but click on the crane shot above to see in full-res before you dismiss it as lacking detail.

When I look at the images I stop thinking about camera stuff and start thinking about what is in the frame.

EDIT...   actually, I just realised these all had a slight blur applied in post.  Here's the crane shot without it for resolution.

Untitled_1_12.2.thumb.jpg.64544b8999af6eeaadca314751ec4b3d.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, noone said:

Not soft to me but not high in contrast.      I THINK there is a seagull in one of those shots?

I had a Biotar 58 f2 not too dissimilar to that (18 blades and single coated on mine).

LOL, I should have started a new thread "spot the seagull" :)

I'm new to vintage glass and what effects it has, and definitely don't know the right words to describe what I see, but I know I like the look.  "Not soft but not high in contrast" seems like a perfect way to describe it!

My 28mm F2.8 with the front coating worn off is both soft and severely lacking in contrast but I'm glad I bought it anyway.  Apart from not costing much, it's given me a data-point about what effect that has, and also gave me some feedback about how soft and flar-ey is too much, both for me and my wife.  But also, I can play with the post-processing and adding blur or Glow type effects to match the look from sharper lenses, which means I learn more about image processing, what I like, and how to deconstruct things I see online, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, kye said:

LOL, I should have started a new thread "spot the seagull" :)

I'm new to vintage glass and what effects it has, and definitely don't know the right words to describe what I see, but I know I like the look.  "Not soft but not high in contrast" seems like a perfect way to describe it!

My 28mm F2.8 with the front coating worn off is both soft and severely lacking in contrast but I'm glad I bought it anyway.  Apart from not costing much, it's given me a data-point about what effect that has, and also gave me some feedback about how soft and flar-ey is too much, both for me and my wife.  But also, I can play with the post-processing and adding blur or Glow type effects to match the look from sharper lenses, which means I learn more about image processing, what I like, and how to deconstruct things I see online, etc.

Did you use an M42 to MFT mount for the Helios? Looks great! I bought a Takumar 50mm myself but can't decide what adapter to use on the GH5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, TurboRat said:

Did you use an M42 to MFT mount for the Helios? Looks great! I bought a Takumar 50mm myself but can't decide what adapter to use on the GH5

Thanks!

Yeah, I got a Fotga m42 to m43 adapter.  Like this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-Lens-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-Adapter-EP1-EP3-EPL1-EPL2-EPL3-G1-GF1-GH1-M42-M43/251677877818?hash=item3a992ba63a:rk:1:pf:0

It's "dumb" and so doesn't have electrical contacts, and also doesn't have a glass element in it, so it crops into the lens making it seem longer.  Ie, a 50mm lens on the GH5 with that adapter would be the same as a 100mm lens on a FF camera.

I've got another one on order that has a focal reducer in it so we'll see how that works when it arrives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kye said:

In praise of the Helios 44m-4 ....

Nice images!

I started my love relationship with Helios (I also have the 44-4) about a year ago, when I paired it with a6000. 1.5x crop gave me a 87mm FOV, which was very useful.

What I enjoy most about it is its build quality. The focusing ring works smoothly but with enough resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kye said:

Thanks!

Yeah, I got a Fotga m42 to m43 adapter.  Like this one: https://www.ebay.com/itm/M42-Lens-to-Micro-4-3-M4-3-Adapter-EP1-EP3-EPL1-EPL2-EPL3-G1-GF1-GH1-M42-M43/251677877818?hash=item3a992ba63a:rk:1:pf:0

It's "dumb" and so doesn't have electrical contacts, and also doesn't have a glass element in it, so it crops into the lens making it seem longer.  Ie, a 50mm lens on the GH5 with that adapter would be the same as a 100mm lens on a FF camera.

I've got another one on order that has a focal reducer in it so we'll see how that works when it arrives.

Thanks. Been looking at vintage lenses but I'm not really sure how best to adapt them to MFT. I'm also looking for a good Contax Zeiss but Im not really sure which Contax to MFT will work. With the price of the old Contax Zeiss lenses, I'm afraid to take a risk because it might damage the lenses

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...