Other Nikon and Panasonic lens brands (read so it makes sense)

[Daniel Rutter]

Hey guys;

I'm looking at expanding my lens collection to add some form of wide angle lens and a decent portrait that I can use in low light.

My problem is that I'm unsure of what other types of lens brands out there can fit Nikon mounts and Panasonic/Olympus M43 mounts. I have a Nikon lens adapter for my Panasonic, and I'm looking into adapting other brand lenses (Pentax, Canon etc) if the price is right. What other brands are out there for these mounts?

I'm right now looking for a good wide angle lens for my Panasonic that won't cost me anything more than $250. That's all my current "pocket money" can spare, and I can atleast shoot wides and portraits with my two lenses (I already have a 28-80mm Nikon lens now).

I'm also looking at a nice 50mm portrait lens that I can shoot head and shoulders shots indoors, as it may be needed for my work. I know these can be had from anywhere close to $100 right up to $400 or more. This one isn't so important, the wide angle is.
Would I be best getting one of the kit lenses for a Pentax camera (14-42) or Canon (18-55) and using the wide end on that? I only really plan on shooting outdoors with it.

[net]

If you have $250, you might want to consider one of the Panasonic Lumix lenses - either get a cheap one now or save up for the pancake 1.7/20mm lens for $400.

You wouldn't need a mount and you would get the auto focus and maybe OIS, depending on which lens. (The pancake doesn't have OIS, the 14-42 does,)

[drapeama]

Well, the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 is a must (bokeh, low-light ability) then I'd suggest to get a wide enough lens: the T2i kit lens is wide enough for me, 18mm on a 1.6x crop factor is roughly 28mm, which is ok for me. Otherwise you can try to pick a 10 or 14mm lens but they're expensive.
Other than this, my vivitar 70-150mm f/3.8 is nice for both zooms and macro use.
Also, the Hoya 28mm f/2.8 has a nice lookin' lens flare and is quite wide too, not as much as the canon 18-55mm but good enough.

[Daniel Rutter]

If you have $250, you might want to consider one of the Panasonic Lumix lenses

I've had a look, and autofocus might be nice... but I'm happy with manual lenses for now. I just want cheap, but decent wide angle that will still be wide enough considering my GH1 has the 2x crop.

[drapeama]

...considering my GH1 has the 2x crop.

Ouch, 28mm is now 56mm...you'll need a quite wide lens to achieve something wide enough...

[Daniel Rutter]

I was recommended the 14-45mm Panasonic lens by a friend, although it comes in at a hefty $300AU... I'm considering it, but it's a high price to pay in order to have my camera properly control the lens. I'm considering it though, if it can be a good all-rounder lens for outdoors shooting.

[cgbier]

Daniel, quality wide angle and cheap is an oxymoron. Especially for small sensors like the 4:3, it is hard to make wide angles.... the cheapest Olympus, the 9-18/4-5.6, costs close to 600 bucks.

A good source for second hand glass is KEH if you want to order with real dollars. They underrate their offerings oftentimes.

[Daniel Rutter]

Thanks CG I'll keep this site bookmarked.

[net]

I was recommended the 14-45mm Panasonic lens by a friend, although it comes in at a hefty $300AU... I'm considering it, but it's a high price to pay in order to have my camera properly control the lens. I'm considering it though, if it can be a good all-rounder lens for outdoors shooting.

You might be able to get it even cheaper.

Would be good to have a native Panasonic lens.

[cgbier]

If 28mm (in 135 speak) is wide enough for you, you could look into the Olympus 14-42 for the standard 4:3 mount. It goes for 220 bucks in the US. I'm not sure if you need an adaptor, though, from Zuiko to m.Zuiko.

The Panasonic lenses without the Leica sticker are all rebadged Olympus Zuikos, btw. (consumer grade lenses are made by Sigma, the middle and gold class are made on the Olymp itself).

[Daniel Rutter]

Will check it out and post back with my thoughts.

[kenkyusha]

...considering my GH1 has the 2x crop.

Take heart, it's only a crop factor of 1.9 . Seriously though, folks have been raving about the Nokton 25mm f.95, but it is spendy (as is the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8).

It's too bad that "C"-mount lenses don't play nicely with the G series- they are inexpensive and plentiful (fast fixed-aperture 12-70mm zooms retail for $45 US +/-, adapters to M4/3 are another $15).

[Daniel Rutter]

Would anyone recommend primes over zooms for short film and web-content work?

[cgbier]

Depends on your light. Primes are normally faster and sharper than (consumer-) zooms. In regards to sharpness, I doubt though that you see a big difference with video footage. The advantage of zooms is that you get a couple of focal lengths for, normally, less money.

[Daniel Rutter]

So if I was to buy myself a 14-45 panasonic or 14-42 olympus as opposed to some form of 50mm, I would be best off? If I decide to shoot in mostly natural lighting, would I be best with primes?

I'm considering buying some Canon FD's or something for my GH1, one of these lenses being a 50mm 1.8 or similar. Also looking at a 14mm f2.something Panasonic lens. This whole lens thing is shitting me big time, I'm completely lost as to what would BEST suit my needs at the prices I can currently afford. I can and do shoot with my lowly 28-80 f3.5 - 5.6 Nikkor, but it's a pain in the butt to use indoors without inducing grain and I'm looking for a lens that will give me decent mid range indoor shooting with little grain (my research leads me to 50mm f1.8's and so on).

Let me try and break it down so maybe someone with much better knowledge than I can reccomend me the absolute number 1 lens to get. I'm going to be doing a featurette in a few months, I won't be doing much in the way of lighting as I have neither the equipment nor the time for extensive setups. If I can get away with shooting indoors in low-lit scenes with natural and otherwise bear-minimal light (reflecter, lamp and work lights)... this would be great. My mind wanders to a 50mm f1.8 at the friendly price of $50-70AU. I also want to do plenty of wide shots indoors (I want some really nice perspective shots of inside a church etc etc) and looking at a 14mm panasonic for this reason, also the price is somewhat steeper. I'm inclined to purchase these lenses ASAP (as in, within the next two months). What reason would there be to NOT buy these? Will they do the job I'm intending them to do without too much (or any) grain/iso bumping?

Sorry guys, I know I'm frustrating... but I'm frustrating myself with all this choice and no knowledge. I know what I want to do, but have no idea what lenses will help me do it.

[cgbier]

Daniel, I think one problem you have is that you think that you have to shoot wide open. To be honest, I cannot stand paper thin DOF. The idea behind these lenses is that you CAN do it, but not must....
The Panasonic/Olympus/Sigma 14-42 is a terrific lens. It is a bit more expensive than its Nikkor or Canon counterparts, but is sharper and has more than enough resolving power for video. I'd rather spend less money on lenses and invest in some light.

If you know how to light your scene, you can get shallow DOF even from an HVxx. Don't they teach the basics of photography in your film school?

[kenkyusha]

Since you already have the Nikon adapter, finding some inexpensive primes will be helpful (50 1.8 works as a 95mm equivalent for close-ups, and a 28 2.8 is a 53mm equivalent)- there are deals to be had as folks go digital, some are abandoning legacy glass that's just waiting to be picked-up for a song.

Panasonic glass- I have the 14-45 and it is a nice little lens (OIS works reasonably well) but isn't ideal for indoor unless you add supplimentary lighting; the 20mm (1.7, 38mm equivalent) pancake is a great little lens and shoots indoors, but manual focus is the way- autofocus is loud and inaccurate.

Gotta second CG though, even some kluged stuff (AA battery-powered ufo camping lights and broomsticks) make any lenses that you purchase look better and improves the process in post. Also, even a couple of proper lighting instruments make set-ups and striking much faster, simpler and more efficient.

[cgbier]

There actually is only one thing that really speaks for fast lenses: The sweet spot.

In portrait photography you normally shoot in f/4 and down (even f/11 is not rare). The sweet spot of a lens is normally about 2 stops closed down. That means, if you need f/4, a lens with max f/2 would be the sharpest.
Weirdly, the cheap Nikkor 50/1.8 is seen as seen by many people as sharper than the 400some dollar 1.4 in a portrait setting...

[kenkyusha]

Weirdly, the cheap Nikkor 50/1.8 is seen by many people as sharper than the 400-some dollar 1.4 in a portrait setting...

Yeah, but I still wish I had access to my father's old medium format lenses (Hasselblad and Bronica) to test out on these Panasonics.

[zagnut]

Older Canon FD mount lenses can be used on M43 with a simple adapter containing no optics while retaining infinity focus. So can Pentax K mount lenses. Not sure about other mounts since I don't own M43.

As for what can be adapted to Nikon mounts? Honestly I'm not sure. If you really wanted to dig deep into this subject, head over to the www.fredmiranda.com photography forums and ask in the Alt Lens sub-forum. Those guys can tell you just about anything when it comes to adapting a lens to another mount.


Oooo...this reminds me. Now that I'm back in Detroit, I can raid my fathers FD lenses to see what he's got!

[Daniel Rutter]

So can Pentax K mount lenses.

I bought myself a nice 50mm 1.7 K mount the other day for $50 inc postage. I'm yet to receive the mount I bought as well, so I can actually use it.

[drapeama]

I bought myself a nice 50mm 1.7 K mount the other day for $50 inc postage.

Sounds nice, like my Nikon lens. If the pentax has similar specs as the Nikon, you should be able to get a nice bokeh using it:

[zagnut]

Those lights, in the background, edges are too defined. You should be able to get better bokeh than that with 7 blades, shouldn't you? I'm just nit picking here and being curious. It still looks good.
Then again, I like doughnut shaped boken from mirror lenses.

[drapeama]

Those lights, in the background, edges are too defined. You should be able to get better bokeh than that with 7 blades, shouldn't you? I'm just nit picking here and being curious. It still looks good.
Then again, I like doughnut shaped boken from mirror lenses.

1) When the lens is fully opened (f/1.8) the bokeh is plan circle:

The previous one was set to something like f/2.8, hence the shaped bokeh, which I find pretty good lookin'.
2) Round bokeh are nice, but I liked that shaped bokeh which fit more the short from which that still has been taken.

[zagnut]

1) When the lens is fully opened (f/1.8) the bokeh is plan circle...
The previous one was set to something like f/2.8, hence the shaped bokeh, which I find pretty good lookin'.
2) Round bokeh are nice, but I liked that shaped bokeh which fit more the short from which that still has been taken.

I thought it may be due to being stopped down and not open all the way. I never really cared for "shaped" bokeh, I find it too distracting. But, most people hate the doughnut bokeh a mirror lens gives. So, to each his own. Nice looking shots nonetheless!