michael_nash1

<blockquote> <p>This is not a good idea. My reasons:<br />Lens compatibility: The lens would not AF on that camera, and aperture would have to be set using a very awkward ring built into the adapter.<br />Size: The lens size is out of whack for a small M4/3 camera and when you put an adapter between the lens and the camera the total size is not really smaller than the same lens on a DSLR.<br />Speedbooster is <em>not</em> for that lens: A Speedbooster reduces the size of the image circle projected by a lens. You need to start with an FX lens to have a large enough image circle to cover an M4/3 sensor.<br />Also, Speedbooster plus a small sensor is not better than putting the lens on a large sensor camera. A Speedbooster does not add light or image quality, it only compensates for the effects of using a smaller sensor. If you really want to use that lens, which is a nice lens if you really like the 18-35mm range and don't mind the size, instead of buying a Speedbooster, spend the same money on a D5000 series camera and you will have a much better experience.</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Thanks for the concern, but this is only true if I use the nikon version, although the nikon version wouls still have manual aperture.<br /><br />The lens will be able to autofocus with the metabones adapter, and I will be able to control aperture.<br /><br />The EF lens to EF/MFT Speedbooster that is.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Picking it up in a few days, then grabbing the speedbooster two weeks after on payday! Will post back here with results.<br /><br /><br />Just wanted to say thanks for all the help guys, even though I decided to go pretty well against what everyone said, I at least got some good feedback and learned some stuff. First few posts to a forum ever really, I've always been the guy too impatient to wait for responses. Thanks for the solid advice.</p>

<p>Is V log really worth all the hype? I hate monitoring such flat video, and from the tests I see theres usually not any vast improvement after applying a lut - maybe a small increase in Dynamic Range, but in some cases I actually preferred the Cinelike D shots.<br> Maybe it would work in the future if I was able to afford an EVF that would let me monitor with a LUT, but right now, I think I prefer the simpler workflow of Cinelike D.<br> Is it just me or does it seem like a lot more work for not much of an improvement?<br />What do you guys think.</p>

<p>Hey guys, I really am set on going with a Nikon or EF mount as it is then adaptable to other cameras I might work with as I do videography/cinema type stuff, not to mention I can get the lens at almost half price used in nikon or canon mount right now (through some haggling on craigslist) I have seen amazing results from the combo so I think I am going to go with it as in the end it is cheaper and I believe, more suited to video, I realize the cons but weight is not an issue as it will be on a railrod rig setup, and from what I have seen and heard, the new version of the speedbooster has immensely better optics which actually would improve the lens center sharpness, almost no CA, and just an all round better build, not to mention it would be the only zoom I could really comfortably use in low light, as well as the extra stop of light from the speedbooster.<br /><br />I don't mean to ask for advice and not take it but I just feel better about that route, so I am going to head out tomorrow to grab the EF mount lens and report back with whether I've made a grave mistake! :)<br />If I don't like it I can always sell at a profit considering I am getting a great deal!<br /><br />Dieter - the issue with the fly by wire focus is that I am using the setup for video and it does not work exceptionally well when focusing in video. Quite the opposite. </p>

<p>I have finally decided on a lens to go with for the GH4. I'm going to suck up the cost and go for the well talked about Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 ART, but now cannot decide which version (Canon or Nikon) adapted will work better.<br /><br />With the canon EF mount and metabones EF to MFT speedbooster the advantages are the lens will have communication with the camera, although I will almost never use auto focus, It will let me use the lens aperature from the camera.<br /><br />With the Nikon F mount and metabones Nikon to MFT speedbooster the advantages are the cheaper price of the speedbooster ($479 vs $649 USD) and I will have a manual aperture control (built into the speedbooster) although I am not sure if this is much of a plus. The metabones website brags of their aperture ring, although I cant imagine it being better than the aperture ring built into the sigma. Correct me if I am wrong on that. <br />On the other hand, for video, it would be very nice to have manual aperture control.<br /><br />Which is going to be a better combo? I like the idea of camera and lens interfacing, but I don't honestly use auto focus, and I think it would be nicer to have manual aperture, although possible at the expense of a worse aperture ring (not certain of this though)<br /><br />Any help is immensely appreciated. Sorry if my terminology is of, I'm somewhat of an amateur.<br />Thanks,<br />Michael</p>

<p>Thanks for the help guys, given me a lot to think about, but I am still fairly confused on what is going to work best. I have looked at Nikkors to adapt, and people are saying why why why when there are great native lenses, but these are most all fly by wire focus which makes focusing a nightmare especially for repeatable focus. I have also checked out some nice vintage Rokkors which look great, but then I'm being told why adapt. I want something ideally sharp. The reason I like the idea of the Nikkors is they seem great for bieng high quality, easily compatible glass with future cameras/rentals. If this was you and you needed one decent prime, and $500 to $600 to spend, what would you go with? <br /><br />Ideally something around a 15-25mm prime to bring a normal focal length when used with crop sensor.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>Don't get me wrong on DOF, I don't see it as the be all and end all of every shot, but I think some people like it for example, shooting weddings and such, I'm going to use it more for some artistic shots etc. So I'd like to have at least some depth of field/background blur (sorry if my terms are fof I'm somewhat of an amateur) but right now I can only afford one lens. I need a good sharp all rounder.<br />Is there anything that jumps to mind?<br /><br />Also, I get that nikkor lenses arent always the sharpest and best but I'm sure they are sharp enough for me and I just keep hearing such good things about them! I don't mind going for something else if it is very obviously better though, price and performance wise, by all means.<br /><br />Thanks so much for the response!</p>

<p>Sorry if my terms are off, I am somewhat of an amateur.<br />Yes I have looked into m43 lenses, but the majority are fly by wire focus, and even the ones with hard stops are fly by wire, this doesn't work well with a follow focus and causes flickering while focusing in video, they're a no go for me.<br /><br />What I mean by terrible DOF is I think if I go with the 28mm f2.8 AI on the gh4 without a speedbooster I would likely get most everything in focus and have a lens more suited for landscapes etc, when I need something good all round, and wouldn't be able to achieve at least some DOF/ out of focus areas.<br />If I go with the 50mm f1.2 nikkor AI I could at least get some out of focus background blur I would think, even on a micro 4/3 sensor.<br /><br />Am I right thinking I would get almost no DOF/background blur with the 28mm f/2.8 on the gh4 without a speedbooster?</p>

<p>Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster. I am really at a crossroads here. I have just bought the GH4 and need a lens sharp enough to complement the 4k video. I am looking to nikon SLR lenses for best sharpness for the price. I like the AI and AIS 28mm 2.8 and the 50mm 1.2, although the crop factor on the gh4 would make that 50mm in telephoto range! And I think with the 28mm, at 2.8 doubled I would get terrible DOF when needed.<br />I can unfortunately only afford one lens.<br />I would buy a speedbooster / focal reducer to compensate but cannot afford one for at least another two months.<br />Would 100mm even be useable for a month? I feel like I'd be constantly running backwards! Would the DOF really be terrible with 2.8 on m43?<br />Is there a sharp Nikkor lens anyone could recommend that would work well with the GH4 under $600? maybe something 24/28 that is reasonably fast and great sharpness? I really am set on trying to get a sharp lens with low CA.<br />Thank you so much for your help guys.</p>

<p>Hi guys, long time reader, first time poster. I am really at a crossroads here. I have just bought the GH4 and need a lens sharp enough to complement the 4k video. I am looking to Nikon SLR lenses for best sharpness for the price. I like the AI and AIS 28mm 2.8 and the 50mm 1.2, although the crop factor on the gh4 would make that 50mm in telephoto range! And I think with the 28mm, at 2.8 doubled I would get terrible DOF when needed.<br />I can unfortunately only afford one lens.<br />I would buy a speedbooster / focal reducer to compensate but cannot afford one for at least another two months.<br />Would 100mm even be useable for a month? I feel like I'd be constantly running backwards!!! Would the DOF really be terrible with 2.8 on m43?<br />Is there a sharp Nikkor lens anyone could recommend that would work well with the GH4 under $600? maybe something 24/28 that is reasonably fast and great sharpness? I really am set on trying to get a sharp lens with low CA.<br />Thank you so much for your help guys.</p>