I suppose the only real option besides the 7-14 for full sensor coverage, fast, and wide will be 35mm Arri lenses. Unfortunately I don't have the budget to experiment with these...
What is the price of the 7-14? I haven't seen an indication of where that might end up.
The 7-14 may cost around USD 1.200. That's a figure I saw mentioned at DPR. It may be a rumor only, or the estimated list price, or the actual price. With Panasonic I never really know. A company charging USD 10 for a rear lens cap can do anything I guess.
- The kit lens
- 3 Leica R zoom lenses: Vario Elmar 21-35, 35-70, Elmarit 35-70
- Angenieux 35-70 for Leica R
- Nikkor 35mm/2.0
- Ultron 35mm/1.7
- Zeiss Jena Flektogon 35mm/2.4 (M42)
To make a long story short:
All lenses were compared at f/5.6 (same as the kit lens). All of them provided good results on the G1; differences were small except for the Nikkor, which was not sharp, I might have a Monday-morning lemon.
My biggest surprise was the Ultron, which showed no smearing at f/5.6 and very little at 1.7, contrary to the 28mm I had tested earlier, which displayed heavy smearing.
Details will follow when I can upload more pictures. Right now I have reached my upload limit.
In terms of money, the M42 Flektogon seems the best buy ($100-200 on ebay)
Peter, I'm curious why the corner sharpness (or lack thereof) is not a problem in the portrait shot, but is in Deepdiver's 35/1.2 photo?
The problem for me is that I feel a bit limited when mounting lenses that don't cover the sensor, or produces a lot of smear. The little Pentax 25/1.4 is good for parties and pubs and such. But if I do anything else, if so only have a walk with the camera, I prefer a lens I know delivers.
BTW, I also have the CV35/1.7. With my copy borders are OK at f/4 and corners at f/8. That is when looking really critically allowing some CA only and no general smearing at all.
Thank you for this discussion, very interesting, especially because the CV 35/1.7 is also on my list. I have only had the G1 and adapters (Canon FD & c-mount) for a very short time and as a beginner feel a bit intimidated by all the beautiful pics posted here but I will eventually post some when a few of the cine lenses I snatched up will come in.
Here is a naive question that may not be worth a new thread: If I get other lenses, say an Exakta lens, and use an adapter Exakta to c-mount to get it on my G1, will that be better or worse than using any other adapter route? I would just rather invest in more glass than in more adapters...
Exacta->Leica M (if such an adapter exists) + Leica M->mft
My preference is to always go through 2 adapters, standardizing on Leica M as common denominator
1. Lens to Leica M
2. Leica M to mft
The first type of adapter is usually both cheaper and easier to find than the direct Lens->mft adapters and I can leave the first adapter on the lens and the second one on the body if I want. Like that I can change lenses quite fast.
I know there are different opinions whether to use one or two adapters, it is a personal choice, others prefer to always use direct adapters.
Danke Peter! I have direct G1 adapters for c-mount and Canon FD, and I find there is a large variety of - very affordable - adapters to c-mounts (more than to Leica M, for example). But I see the point that a heavier lens might benefit from stronger connection with a wider diameter, I will keep that in mind.
You may also want to consider the CV Nokton 35 1.2. While much larger and heavier and more expensive than the 35 1.7 it gives you much more creative flexibility since you can shoot in much lower light at lower ISO and also for portraits you can do a better job of separating the subject from the background.
I have the Tamron 70-210 3.5 SP with a Canon FD adapter:
It weighs 30.3 oz. (860g) and does not have a tripod socket of its own.
My question: Has anyone tried mounting a heavy lens of this sort on the G1 via an FD adapter? With the G1 mounted on a tripod, would the heavy lens damage either the G1's mount or the adapter? Which of the FD adapters available would be preferable?
Thanks for your thoughts.
I once mounted a Kinoptik Tegea weighing 1400g, but I felt very uneasy and would not repeat the experience.
In the first English G1 manual that was on the net but not printed, they had a warning stating a max. lens weight of 1000g. I would still be careful not to make any brusque movements, like moving the tripod without supporting the lens.
OTOH I doubt whether your adaptall lens will deliver sufficient sharpness on the small G1 sensor.
got my englet 12mm, and wollensak 25.... the 25 rocks, the 12 is fun, but does not cover sensor.
Englet 12mm cropped pretty heavily
Wollensak 25mm 1.5
The whole set is here:
The 25mm 1.5 covers very close to full frame at 4/3, no machining
The 12 has a nice big black circle at 4:3 (see first photo in set), and severe vignetting at 16:9, no machining
(feel free to add to spread sheet)
I have lost the link to the spread sheet, can someone start a thread with only the sheet in it?
Leitz Thambar or later the Rodenstock Imagon, etc. were reliying on undercorrected spherical aberration.
However, I do not think I would knowingly buy and use such a lens nowadays. I have a 73mm/1.9 Hektor of about 1938 vintage, I must try it on the G1...
Also started a new thread.
I completely understand why some like a Picasso, and some not...what I'm having a hard time wrapping my brain around, is being disturbed by something that can't be seen...if one doesn't like the photo on its own merits, then there is no need for further discussion. But not liking it due to invisible aberrations?
The only place to add a DIY tripod mount ring on the Tamron would be on the breech mount ring itself, and that appears to be a precarious solution at best.
I guess I'll have to make tests with the G-1 (or GH-1) when I finally get one, but I always found the Tamron SP to be quite sharp. At any rate, the thought of having a de facto 140-420 zoom with a constant maximum aperture of 3.5 is intriguing, isn't it?
Have a great weekend.
I have taken a few shots at infinity, and without a great deal of analysis at this point, I would say it has infinity focus. Take that with a grain of salt as I have not finished looking at it.
Are we still posting C-mount lens pictures in this thread? I'll assume we are; having received notice that my RJ Camera adapter was on the way (we probably should stop calling it the 'jinfinance' adapter, since he has gone to the trouble of having 'RJ Camera' engraved on them!) I made an expedition to a used-camera sale last weekend.
One vendor who attends these sales regularly has tables and tables of old video gear, old projectors, and other old stuff that I generally had classified as "junk" until I was in the position to start playing the C-mount game!
I went through his tables looking for candidate lenses, keeping in mind three criteria: (1) the lens had to be "interesting" somehow (wide maximum aperture, focal length not close to something I had already, etc.); (2) the base diameter couldn't exceed 37mm, to avoid mounting issues (I actually carried a caliper with me and measured them); and (3) it had to be cheap. How cheap is cheap? Read on...
Most of the lenses I found were either bulky video-camera zooms that didn't pass the 37mm-base-diameter test, or cine lenses that didn't meet the "cheap" criterion. So I only came home with two:
12.5mm f/1.9 Cosmicar: There's already an f/1.4 Cosmicar on the C-mount spreadsheet, but the f/1.9 version caught my eye because, unlike the f/1.4, its base diameter is well under 37mm so it doesn't require machining to mount on my G1 adapter. I suspected that it wouldn't cover the full format, since the f/1.4 version doesn't either, but I thought it still might be useful enough to be worth the asking price of $15.
36mm f/1.1 GE: I presume "GE" stands for "General Electric," and that this battered optic had spent its working life on the front of surveillance camera. Its focal length and aperture were similar to the 35mm f/1.2 Voigtlander Nokton I already own, but I picked it up anyway for two reasons: it's very compact, which the Nokton certainly isn't, and at a price of $7, I figured it was worth trying.
I didn't have a chance to try out either one until this evening, when I took them to the ISCA "World of Wheels" hot-rod show. Sample pics and a brief writeup on each lens follow.
Last edited by Ranger 9; 20th March 2009 at 19:36.
I figured the Cosmicar wouldn't cover the full format, and it doesn't, but I bought it with the idea that it might make an interesting "point-of-view" lens. With its relatively small but protruding front element, its 10-inch minimum focusing distance, and its nearly-90-degree angle of view (if you use the full round image) I thought it would be good for sticking into confined spaces to see what they might look like from a bug's-eye view.
I wound up not using it that way at World of Wheels... instead I just used it as a conventional if peculiar wide-angle. I apologize that the caliber of sample pictures that follows isn't up the the standard set by butterdada and some of our other C-mount buffs, but still...
I decided to rationalize that the eccentric round view field was appropriate for shooting in the "trad-rod" section, since these are somewhat eccentric cars. Their builders go to tremendous effort to research and reproduce the worn, beat-up look of early hot rods; some trad-rod builders take pains to keep everything absolutely period-correct, while others incorporate state-of-the-art components that are completely hidden from view! The Cosmicar seems to have low linear distortion, and sharpness (at least in the center) seems good considering that I was shooting at f/1.9, as I was for all the pictures in this post.
Even cooler than the trad rods was this collection of bizarrely artistic trophies. The Rebels rod club, whose members were responsible for the most fascinatingly over-the-top trad rods, was having its own show-within-a-show and would award the trophies to members whose cars were judged best (however they decide that!)
Whoever thinks up these trophies has an amazing sense of humor, along with fabulous craft skills. It would just about be worth the effort of building a trad rod just to have the chance to win one of these...
Although all these images are pretty blurry once you get out to the edge of the circle, the central sections seem quite usably sharp. Contrast looks good and it seems reasonably resistant to specular flare, as in this pointy Cadillac grille:
Conclusion: All in all, seems like a good $15 worth as long as a round image is acceptable. Of course I could crop out the edges to get a rectangle, but then the angle of view is considerably less than that of the 14-45 kit lens. I suspect I'll reserve it for situations in which an oddball look is appropriate -- trad-rod shows, for instance!
Last edited by Ranger 9; 20th March 2009 at 19:45.
This lens turned out to be a pleasant surprise: it seems well-made, operates smoothly, and covers pretty much the full G1 frame. Its performance isn't bad, either, for an f/1.1 lens; I didn't try it at any smaller apertures, but imagine it might clean up quite well.
Its biggest limitation is that its minimum focusing distance is only about 8 feet; that seemed to blow my ambitions of using it as a compact portrait lens, although it turned out there's a somewhat dodgy workaround for that which I'll cover shortly.
Here's the nose of the P-32, Chip Foose's new show car. The edges of the image go noticeably soft, but the center section (such as the grille) seems quite crisp even at f/1.1. I'll try to get some 1:1 crops up later for any pixel-peepin' papas who might be interested...
This classic decal, on one of the trad rods, was shot from about 5 feet. That's considerably closer than the GE's mount will focus -- but I realized that since its C-mount threads are of ample length, I could simply unscrew it slightly from the adapter to get closer. Of course I had to keep hold of it to make sure it didn't fall off! But if I did want to shoot head-and-shoulder portraits with this lens -- the image quality looks as if it might be quite pretty -- I could put a shim between the lens and the adapter to hold it more tightly.
Here's another view of the Rebels' fascinating trophy shelf. Barrel distortion is evident in this view, as is the fact that sharpness falls off considerably toward the corners.
But for subjects that don't have a lot of straight lines, center detail and contrast seem respectable.
This is about as close as the lens will focus without unscrewing it from its mount. Obviously the shallow DOF at f/1.1 makes focusing touchy, so I had to use the G1's focus assist for all these closer photos. In this case my focus point was the numerals on the speedometer, and a 1:1 view would show that they're quite sharp.
Everyone likes pictures of... bokeh! So here's one; the fact that it includes Mandi Hanquist, "Miss I-80 Speedway," is just an unavoidable accident of fate. Avid bokologists know that for reasons of geometric optics, you can only have desirably soft bokeh either in front of or behind the main subject, not both. Usually it's considered more desirable to have the smooth bokeh behind the focus plane, but on the GE lens it's the opposite: notice how out-of-focus details behind Mandi and her friend look rather "edgy," while objects in front of them have a nice, smooth blur.
One typical use for wide-aperture lenses is taking pictures in low light, so on the way out I stopped at the sculpture court in front of the arena and made this picture. The barrel distortion noted earlier is evident, but highlight flare seems reasonably controlled -- highlights spread slightly (which should give the lens a nice pearly glow for pretty-girl pictures) but it doesn't seem prone to generate the vivid flare spots that some ultra-speed lenses produce when there's a light source within the picture.
Conclusion: Not only can I say confidently that this is the best $7 f/1.1 lens I own, it looks as if it may be good enough to be of actual practical use!
Ranger, the 36/1.1 certainly is worth $7, maybe even 8 or 10. Vivek has this lens in the database, recording full sensor coverage, he reports it 'glows' wide open, and is soft, but your example might simply be better. I'm curious; if you unscrew the lens for closer focus, can it still reach infinity?
A little "glow" is often nice in a portrait lens, and I suspect this may be the way I'll use it the most.
If I unscrew it for closer focus, I have to screw it back in all the way to get it to focus to infinity. The C-mount thread just acts like an "extension tube"; it has to be de-extended to get back to infinity position.
Canon FD 24mm F1.4 L wide-open
D.O. Industries Navitron TV 75mm F1.3 wide-open
Voigtlander Macro APO-Lanthar 125mm F2.5 M42 mount wide-open
Voigtlander Macro APO-Lanthar 125mm F2.5 M42 mount wide-open
Thank you, cool posts with samples making me salivate a little...
Thank you for all the images,
Kodak Anastimat 25mm F1.9 wide-open
Canon FD 85mm F1.2 L wide-open + iso 1600
Canon FD 135mm F2 wide-open
Elgeet Rochester 1 inch F1.9 wide-open
It's ok to stop down once in a while.
I have a thread of Navitron 75mm F1.3 as below:
Be careful, it can't go to infinity because the rear part is a little bit too big
that is blocked in front of the sensor. Some mod should be done but quite difficult I think.
But as long as you use it as a portrait or close up lens, it is quite usable. Closet focus distance is 1m, extension tube may prefer.
Yes, I remembered there was something about that lens and the mount. I found your thread with the four lenses.
Well, I would be interested if somebody was able to make it work for any shooting distance. As I haven't seen the lens in real life I don't know if that is possible at all. It sounds as it may be undoable.
You are welcome. From the observation, the modification should be
quite precision. I think the diameter of the rear lens should be trimmed
down for 1mm and the about 1mm shorter to prevent it hit the shutter
plane. The standard of C mount lenses are not in consistent standard.
I guess the trimming can be done by somebody with the proper tools. For mechanics I'm a kitchen table guy and so I'm not prepared to do it myself.
It seems as it could be worthwhile provided the rear lens element will stay untouched and if it possible to measure the distances making sure nothing will touch the shutter. I wouldn't mind paying for the work if the modification could be ordered.
thanks again, /Jonas
Post a pic of the rear element of the Navitar 75 in the infinity position... there might be a easy fix...I have modified other Navitars with similar problems.
Last edited by Y.B.Hudson III; 2nd May 2009 at 10:18.
Last edited by pentacon6; 2nd May 2009 at 10:30.
Try this. With the focus ring on infinity, Remove the rear element retainer ring. For test purposes the rear element can then be retained in place with surgical tape. If the removal of the rear element retainer ring provides the required clearance, the rear element can then be cemented in place.
The focus helicoil and c-mount can be removed to provide easier access to the lens...
Last edited by Y.B.Hudson III; 2nd May 2009 at 10:46.
Hope this help. However, the lens seems has no trace of screw on the lens body.
I really have no idea how is the c-mount removable.
May you give me hints, Hudson?
Pentacon6... I will write up the procedure with pics and post it later this evening. (California time )
Infinity of my D.O. Industries Navitron TV 75mm F1.3 is ok
No need for modification~
Last edited by butterdada; 2nd May 2009 at 15:42.
Canon FD 135mm F2 wide-open