Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Nikon or Canon Version with speedbooster for GH4?

<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>

The Nikon version of the Sigma does not have an

aperture ring - you need to use the one on the

adapter (which likely is a coarse affair that doesn't

even allow adjustments in full stops). If the Canon

version allows aperture control from the camera,

that would be the one to go for.

 

Not so sure if a native m4/3 lens isn't a better

solution - adding an adapter with glass elements

behind the Sigma certainly won't improve the lens'

optical performance.

<p>Michael, my personal opinion is that generally one is much better off using lenses natively designed for a particular mount. If you already own Canon or Nikon lenses, getting an adapter maybe a reasonable work around. Spending a few hundred dollars on an adapter is just a major overhead on the cost of the lens and may lead to future compatibility issues. In particular, the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 lens is heavy for a short zoom. Adding an adapter will make it a very front-heavy set up on your GH4.</p>

<p>Experienced photographers such as <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2196965">Peter Hamm</a> and <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=291498">Mary Doo</a> have made similar suggestions on your previous thread: http://www.photo.net/digital-camera-forum/00dfJi<br>

So did Dieter in the post right above.</p>

<p>Of course it is your money to spend and your camera/lens to use, and that combo may work for you. But at a minimum, I would suggest visiting a camera store and trying the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 in person and see whether the weight is an issue on the set up you have in mind.</p>

<p>I predict that you will not be satisfied with this solution. Honestly. But if you are, we want to know about it.</p>

<p>Voigtlander has a set of 4 micro-4/3 manual focus lenses (no electronic connection to the camera whatsoever - so no EXIF info either) with de-clickable aperture rings that appear to be ideal for your application - but they do come with a hefty price tag (10.5mm, 17.5mm, 25mm, 42.5mm - all f/0.95; cost between $800 and $1100). Substantially cheaper are the Samyang/Rokinon/Bowers lenses.</p>

<p>What exactly is the issue with focus-by-wire? That one cannot reliably pre-set focus distance? Note that the focus scale of adapted lenses is usually off too - sometimes quite a bit (due to the tolerances of the adapter (often made a bit too short to assure infinity focus can be attained). </p>

<p>Michael, I agree with others - do not do buy the Sigma. Get native 4/3 lenses. In your other thread on Nikon glass I recommended two m43 lenses for $650 that will suite you much better.</p>

<p>I've adapted a lot of lenses to Four Thirds & Micro Four Thirds. I'm heavily invested in Olympus 4/3 DSLRs and I have a Pen m43 camera as well. Using lenses designed for m43 from the get go is the best path to choose.</p>

<p>There are some exceptions. I use a T-Mount FF 500mm mirror lens on my Olympus E-5 DSLR with great results. But that's an extreme telephoto with a fixed aperture. Not your usual situation.</p>

<p>Let us know how the Sigma works out for you AFTER you have shot 50 hours of video with it.</p>

<p> </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>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't mean to ask for advice and not take it but I just feel better about that route</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, that is perfectly fine. It is actually typical that you may get many different opinions on a choice, and obviously you can't listen to all of them. Eventually, only one opinion matters: yours. Perhaps 99% of the people will not like the particular choice you make, but as long as you are in the other 1%, you will be fine.</p>

<p>However, I feel that at least I, and perhaps many others feel the same way, should point out an obvious potential issue with your choice so that hopefully you are making an informed decision. And in case it indeed doesn't work out for you, it isn't like nobody has pointed it out to your beforehand.</p>

<p>Good luck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In particular, the Sigma 18-35mm/f1.8 lens is heavy for a short zoom. Adding an adapter will make it a very front-heavy set up on your GH4.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shun, the Metabones Speed Booster has a built-in tripod mount so this should not be an issue. On the other hand, for almost every other adapter out there this is something to really keep in mind, especially when adapting heavy lenses from larger formats to smaller cameras with flimsier construction.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Shun, the Metabones Speed Booster has a built-in tripod mount so this should not be an issue.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is not an issue only if you always use the set up on a tripod (or other support), which may well be the case for video shooting in the OP's situation. Otherwise, a tripod totally negates one of the major advantage for Micro 4/3: small size and light weight.</p>

<p>Shun, I was responding to the OP's situation only; I should have been clear about this. Based on his posts he appears to be focused on video.</p>

<p>However, micro 4/3 offers flexibility, in that it's very portable but with the option of occasionally using heavier lenses and a tripod. For instance, almost all of my shooting in this format has been handheld with lenses of reasonable weight. Nevertheless, I've also used a tripod on a couple of occasions with heavier lenses (full 4/3 or Nikkor) adapted to the camera via an adapter with a tripod mount. That kind of supplemental equipment can stay in the trunk on an auto trip, where it's available for special situations but is not otherwise an encumbrance when one is out and about on foot.</p>

<p>I think we can agree that for handheld use, a heavy adapted lens on a light camera will tend to be ergonomically awkward.</p>

<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>You need to start with an FX lens to have a large enough image circle to cover an M4/3 sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe, maybe not: http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPNFG-M43-BM3:</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Speed Booster ULTRA m43 will also work extremely well with many DX and APS-C format lenses provided the image circle of the lens is large enough.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also,</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>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>The OP has a Panasonic GH4 for its video abilities, so he's not looking for a Nikon DSLR.</p>

<p> </p>

<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>

The AF performance will be terrible. Look, this is just me talking, but I have a lot of experience in the adapted lens area.

They underperform expectations. Always. Speedboosters and Sigma lenses are great generators of marketing hype but

unless you have very particular, very narrow requirements you're wasting your time and money on this stuff. You could get

4K video and good lens performance in many other ways that are not so impractical.

<p>Ok I think I need to chip in here.<br>

Firstly certain things we look for in photo work are not as important for video. For instance autofocus is almost never used for serious video work. Also the use of lens mount adapters is very prevalent in the video domain. <br>

With regards to the Metabones speedbooster adapter with the Sigma this is a very popular combo for video work. Many pros swear by that combo for the GH-4 and various Blackmagic cameras. The adapter works fine with crop lenses on the m4/3 mount with no coverage issues. Also the aperture ring on the adapter works in 1/2 or 1.3 F-stop increments. It also has the option of declicking so changing aperture during shooting does not create any jumps in exposure and is smooth. <br>

As for choosing between mounts, The Nikon is cheaper with a manual aperture ring, but the Canon version is thinner and supports aperture control from the camera with autofocus and IS support. Another factor is in the video world there are alot of pro spec cameras using the Canon mount, but virtually none use the Nikon mount. My suggestion is firstly do you have any lenses you want to use, or have good friends shooting Canon or Nikon? If your answer is no to all of that then starting off I would say the Canon mount makes more sense.</p>

<p>Shun: Adapting the Sigma 18-35/1.8 via a Speed Booster is the *only* way to get an f/1.2 zoom for m43. In this case its 12.8-25mm f/1.2 . And the image quality is extremely high even wide open all the way to the corner. There is nothing "native" in the m43 world that is remotely close to it.<br>

Andy L: All Canon EF lens mount Metabones m43 Speed Boosters (even the old ones) have been upgraded to have excellent AF performance. Here is an autofocus test with this a Speed Booster + EF version of the Sigma 18-35 using a a slightly older version of the firmware:

<blockquote>

<p>Shun: Adapting the Sigma 18-35/1.8 via a Speed Booster is the *only* way to get an f/1.2 zoom for m43. In this case its 12.8-25mm f/1.2 . And the image quality is extremely high even wide open all the way to the corner. There is nothing "native" in the m43 world that is remotely close to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ok, but I do not at all care about using an f1.2 zoom. If I am after high quality all the way to the corner, I would use a much smaller aperture to get more inside the depth of field. f1.2 is meaningless to me.</p>

<p>Meanwhile, I dislike another mechanical interface between two components, adding to more play between things. I also dislike mounting a 18-35mm/f1.8 lens designed to clear the mirror inside a DSLR and is already considered heavy for APS-C DSLRs onto a smaller Micro 4/3 body. One advantage for mirrorless is that wide lenses don't need to make the compromise to clear the mirror.</p>

<p>Shun: Regarding lens speed, fair enough - slow lenses will work in many situations. But they won't work in all situations, and many photographers really do need fast lenses, especially for micro four thirds.</p>

<p>Regarding the 18-35 being designed to clear the reflex mirror, that's certainly true. However, adding a Speed Booster amounts to what is a pretty effective optical re-design, increasing the aperture, increasing the field of view, shortening the physical length, and increasing the sharpness and contrast. The resulting high speed lens takes full advantage of the extra room available in m43 cameras.</p>

<p>Brian, this is the OP Michael's thread. Since he posted to this forum a couple of times, seeking suggestions, a number of us have already expressed our opinions to him. Years ago when I was a young engineer in AT&T, once in a meeting, our director (at that time a director in AT&T would typically have 500 engineers in the organization) pointed out that we can debate all we want. Once a decision is made, we should all follow that decision as a team. In case you don't like that decision, it would be your choice to leave the organization (team).</p>

<p>Therefore, since the OP has already made a decision, I think it is inappropriate for me to discuss this further unless Michael changes his mind. He knows very well what my opinion is, but in this case the only opinion that counts is his own.</p>