My DMC-G1 with manual focus lenses

[Jonas]

I don't know of any RF lenses of that focal length ...the photos I investigated on flickr had some WA RF lenses that didn't smear, I'll have to go back and look at my previous post...

C-mounts are of course welcome as well. I appreciate any tip! I think the G 7-14/4 is a bit expensive for my needs and the other option I'm contemplating right now is the Olympus ZD 9-18. But I really wouldn't mind anything smaller and manual.

Thank you, /Jonas

 

[monza]

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.

 

[Jonas]

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.

35mm Arri, well... I would like to buy a Canon 50/0.95 and if I find one there will certainly be no Arri 35mm lens.

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.

 

[petermcwerner]

I have not tested the 35mm but will

I have tested eight different 35mm lenses today (including the kit lens and some zooms at 35mm); I shall publish the results when I get down to it.

Lenses tested:

- 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)

Regards
Peter

 

[petermcwerner]

Yup; landscapes, documentary in general, architecture, panoramas...
Then again, for other images I really don't care about the corners:

You are right, Jonas,
for that portrait sharpness in the corners is not an issue.
Peter

 

[monza]

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?

 

[Jonas]

You are right, Jonas,
for that portrait sharpness in the corners is not an issue.
Peter

I should have mentioned that the image was taken with the G1 and the Pentax CCTV 25/1.4 - a smeary lens.

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.

regards, /Jonas

 

[apicius9]

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...

Thanks,

Stefan

 

[petermcwerner]

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

I did not know such an adapter existed. You will then need another adapter, c-mount to mft. If it is a long or heavy lens, it might put more strain on the lens mount of the G1 then if you go through adapters with bigger diameter, e.g.

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.

Cheers
Peter

 

[apicius9]

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.

Stefan

 

[woodyspedden]

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...

Thanks,

Stefan

Stefan

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.

Best

Woody

 

[emory]

Heavy Zoom lens on g1?

I have the Tamron 70-210 3.5 SP with a Canon FD adapter:

http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/19AH.html

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.

emory

 

[petermcwerner]

Re: Heavy Zoom lens on g1?

I have the Tamron 70-210 3.5 SP with a Canon FD adapter:

http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/19AH.html

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?

emory,

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.

Peter

 

[djonesii]

Dear all;

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:
http://www.jonesii.net/2009%2003%2019%2012mm%2025mm%20cine/index.html

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?

Dave

 

[petermcwerner]

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?

Just my very personal appreciation that in the portrait it doesn not disturb me, I could not explain why. After all, "portrait" lenses in the 1930es, like the 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...

 

[woodmancy]

Dear all;

got my englet 12mm, and wollensak 25.... the 25 rocks, the 12 is fun, but does not cover sensor.

djonseil, my 25/1.5 Wallensak projects by about two threads beyond the bottom of my Hawk adapter, and I think it is hitting the light baffle on the G1 - do you have the same problem?

 

[monza]

I have lost the link to the spread sheet, can someone start a thread with only the sheet in it?

The link is here:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=p9kkgjwEQQQ-HJwvNDobeEw

Also started a new thread.

 

[monza]

Just my very personal appreciation that in the portrait it doesn not disturb me, I could not explain why.

OK...still curious why lack of corner sharpness disturbs you in the other photo, when there is essentially nothing in focus in the corners anyway, making it difficult to even recognize any lack of sharpness.

 

[petermcwerner]

OK...still curious why lack of corner sharpness disturbs you in the other photo, when there is essentially nothing in focus in the corners anyway, making it difficult to even recognize any lack of sharpness.

I cannot explain why, aesthetically it hurts me :banghead:, but I would not know how to put it in words. I guess everyone's sense of harmony or beauty is different. I respect your view although at times we disagree. Why do some people like a Picasso and others not?

 

[monza]

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?