Best Nikkor SLR Glass for M43?

[michael_nash1]

<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>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>Well, IMHO don't get hung up on Nikkor lenses. They are not necessarily better than lenses from other manufacturers, dollar for dollar. In some cases they're worse. I think that you should choose your budget first (which you have) and then choose the most suitable lens.</p>

<p>I very much doubt that the Nikkor 50/1.2 is going to be as sharp as you hope. Even the current Leica 50/1.4 ASPH is not as sharp as you think - the current gold standard at f/1.4 is the Zeiss Otus.</p>

<p>Many cinematographers (who, by necessity, usually have higher standards than photographers for optical qualities) love FD lenses and of course Contax Zeiss lenses. Most would say that FD lenses are superior to EF lenses and I'd concur, based on the fact that several different people have said this.</p>

<p>Other options might surprise you. The manual focus Tamron 17mm is not as cheap as a Yashica 50mm but I have heard very good things about this lens. On Micro 4/3 it will give an equivalent FOV of 34mm on a 'full frame' camera. That's very handy. And it covers the 135 image circle, so you can use it on almost any camera you'll use in the future.</p>

<p>As far as zooms go, have a look at the FD 35-105/3.5. It's equivalent to 70-210. It's heavy but could be the tele-zoom you are looking for. Again, I have heard good things about this one.</p>

<p>The Voigtlander rangefinder lenses are also worth looking at. They're not cheap but very very good.</p>

<p>I don't know what you mean by DOF being 'terrible'. There is nice bokeh and not-so-nice bokeh but DOF is purely quantitative. Don't get hung up on fads like the imbecilic idea that shallow DOF = cinematic. That just makes you a DSLR Kid, not a cinematographer. You might like it, and I won't argue with that, but Citizen Kane is still one of the most cinematic movies ever made. It was shot entirely in deep focus.</p>

[michael_nash1]

<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>

[SCL]

<p>I've found that for the few videos I've done on my M4/3 body, almost any of the Nikon, Canon FD, and Zeiss lenses work fine...most of the Minoltas as well, and the Tamron 17 (I have the Adaptall version) that Karim mentions works pretty well also...not quite as sharp at longer distances (3-400 feet) but on video nobody can tell. I was using it today for some architectural stills...but you do need to stop it down to f/8-11 IMHO. I haven't yet tried my Leica glass on videos, but on stills they all work great.</p>

[david_smith110]

<p>As Karim said, don't get hung up on Nikkor glass. There is nothing mystical about Nikon that makes them better then other makers from the same time period. Canon FD, Minolta, Yashica ML, tons of M42's, Contax Zeiss, Konica Hexanons....the list goes on. So much great old glass to be had at very reasonable prices.</p>

<p>Try this.<br>

http://www.keh.com/213942/canon-24mm-f-2-fd-mount-lens-52</p>

<p>That's just one example. KEH.com is a great place to buy old lenses and they have a industry recognized grading standard as well as an awesome return policy. Look under the different makers (just choose the mount type after you choose a brand) and you can find many, many lenses to choose from.</p>

<p>Have a look at my a7 and NEX 7 folders on flickr for some examples of vintage glass on a modern mirrorless camera. I only shoot with legacy lenses so maybe there is something in there to give you an idea of the look you want. I don't shoot a lot of wide angle stuff tho, only down to 28mm for most of the time. Every pic should have the lens used to shoot it listed.</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/albums/72157641534772013<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/8539414@N07/albums/72157629936411965</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>See also: http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00dfJg.To the OP: forum rules here are to not open two threads for the same subject in two different forums.<br>

<em>(For what it's worth, a good copy of the 50mm f/1.2 is as sharp as you'd think, from f/2 on. Wide apertures are a different story and difficult to focus thanks to some focus shift, but at medium distances to infinity slightly stopped down, it is a very impressive performer. The Otus is probably better, but it is in a different price class alltogether)</em></p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>See my answer in that other thread.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Depth of field depends on the actual focal length of the lens. Thus the 28mm would give the depth of field of a wide angle lens and the field of view of a 56mm lens.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>Mukul, that might be an oversimplification, though, and it depends a lot on aperture vs. "effective aperture" (but only in terms of depth of field, not in terms of actual light gethering ability.<br>

<br />So... if you have a 28mm f2.8 lens and use it wide open on µ43, it is roughly like a 56mm f5.6 in terms of depth of field. The aperture doesn't change, but the way the DOF works does. But if you had a 28mm f0.95, it would "look like" a 56mm f1.8 on µ43.<br /><br />This is why there are some very fast lenses for smaller video sensors, and even quite a few 3rd party f0.95 and such for µ43 video use.</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>Peter, Michael said this: "I like the AI and AIS 28mm 2.8 ...".</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<blockquote>

<p>like the AI and AIS 28mm 2.8</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These employ different optical formulas - with the Ai-S version having something of a cult status (it's great close-up, so-so at infinity).</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>Peter, Michael said this: "I like the AI and AIS 28mm 2.8 ...".</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Yes, and part of my commenting here is to point out what I think the unwiseness of buying such a lens for video use on a µ43 camera.<br>

<br>

And then adding a speed booster or something like that? There are better ways to spend your money if you can only afford one lens.<br>

</p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>In response to questions asked in the Nikon forum: I wouldn't recommend the Ai-S 50mm f/1.2 lens for use on a format as small as 4/3rds. It has a <strong>lot</strong> of spherical aberration wide open, and doesn't really get sharp/contrasty until around f/2.8-f/4. On a full-frame DSLR it gives a "characterful" soft-focus rendering at f/1.2, but I suspect using it wide open on 4/3rds would give totally unacceptable IQ, which makes it a pointless choice over a much cheaper f/1.4 lens.</p>

<p>Almost any of Samyang's modern aspherical wide aperture manual focus lenses would give better results than the older Ai-S MF Nikkor equivalents - except for the Samyang 50mm f/1.4, which isn't that great according to reviews.<br /> I have the 24mm, 35mm and 85mm f/1.4 Samyangs as well as the 135mm f/2. Of them all the 85mm is probably the weakest in terms of sharpness and LoCA at wide apertures, but having said that it's not bad either. The 135mm f/2 is the sharpest lens I've yet come across in its focal length.</p>

<p>If you don't need a wide aperture then a 24mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor has good to excellent central IQ and won't cost a lot either. Having used one and almost immediately sold it on, I'm not convinced that the "legendary" status of the 28mm f/2.8 Ai-S Nikkor is entirely deserved. Sure, it's quite sharp stopped down beyond f/4, but then so are dozens, if not hundreds of other lenses.</p>

<p>BTW, 4K video is only the equivalent of just under 11 megapixels in a 3:2 format ratio still camera, and therefore isn't that demanding on lenses. But lenses designed for full-frame use will not be optimised for use on a tiny sensor like 4/3rds. Why not look at Sony or Fuji's excellent lenses specifically designed for a smaller sensor?</p>

[michael_nash1]

<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>

[rodeo_joe1]

<blockquote>

<p>"....I like the idea of the Nikkors is they seem great for bieng high quality, easily compatible glass with future cameras/rentals."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't bank on that situation staying the same for very long. It seems to me that Nikon are preparing to ditch their famous backward compatibility. Evidence the introduction of E type (electric aperture actuation) lenses that just won't work with older camera bodies. They've already made it as close to impossible as they can to use their older speedlight flashes with modern DSLR bodies.</p>

<p>Not quite as much a clean break as Canon made in the switch from the FD to Eos mount, but still a slow drip, drip, drip of change.<br /> Edit: I looked at some Fuji lenses the other day that appeared to use a traditional helical focus mechanism. No sign of focus-by-wire. I was quite impressed by their all-metal build quality and Fuji have a good reputation for their optical quality. Fairly expensive, but you probably get what you pay for.</p>

<p>Something like this maybe: http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-fuji-16-55mm-f2-8-r-lm-wr-fujinon-lens/p1565919?mkwid=smopu9fjx_dc&pcrid=89741405819&kword=&match=&plid=&gclid=cik-7tp4jsocfuevgwodkvuahw</p>

[Mary Doo]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I only do occasional videos, so I confess I don't understand your need to adapt regular Nikon lenses to your M43 camera, as it appears many video photographers are happily using M43 lenses. Here's <a href="

video of this guy comparing the use of an m43 lens and a much larger Tamron lens</a>. Hope it helps in the braistorm.</p>

<p>If auto-focus is what's bothering you, the Olympus 12-40mm lens toggles between auto and manual easily.</p>

<p>When I was new with the Olympus EM1, I bought adapters to try my gigantic Nikon lenses on it. They look so ridiculous I am not doing it any more. ;-)</p>

[mukul_dube]

<p>There are three auto-focus 25mm lenses available for the mount: f/1.4, f/1.7 and f/1.8; and three manual focus 25mm f/0.95 lenses. Also several which are a little wider. Please see http://hazeghi.org/mft-lenses.html</p>

[Uhooru]

<blockquote>

<p>Depth of field depends on the actual focal length of the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep..</p>

[Uhooru]

<p>Why not get something like the Panasonic 20mm 1.7. It will more than match any Nikkor you could put on the GH4. Also other pony's and Olympus make some fabulous lenses. There's nothing really special about Nikon lenses for 4/3s</p>

[mag_miksch]

<blockquote>

<p> <em>and wouldn't be able to achieve at least some DOF/ out of focus areas.</em><br>

<em> </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you should learn about the basics,<br>

1.DOF is a product from Aperture and Magnification<br>

2. Nikon F Flange distance is much larger than M43, this may be good with Teles but not with Wides, which need a complicated retrofocus design. M43 Wides are better suited for use on M43^^</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>You want a MF lens, you do not want focus-by-wire. I TOTALLY get that.<br /><br />I'd get something like the Voigtlander f0.95 used in that range, but one lens is NOT going to do it.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>I use a GH3 and a G6 at work. It's not 4K but 1080p.</p>

<p>f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of what lens mount you use. Considering the 2x crop you should look at wide angle lenses. I suggest the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AI. It's looks good at f2.8 when shooting video and the price is good. Ai has longer focus throw than AI-S and it's cheaper but optically the same.</p>

<p>The 24mm f2 (which I also have) is more of a specialist lens. It's f2 for when you must have it. It's not great at f2.</p>

<p>If you want to go wider than that I think you should look at wide angle lenses for Nikon DX cameras. Like the 12-24mm f4. The Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 is something I use a lot for video but maybe it's too wide for you.</p>

<p>Also the Sigma 17-50 f2.8 and the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 would be decent options but focusing throw is short. They will turn out to be medium wide to tele on the GH4.</p>

<p>On a $600 budget you should be able to pick up more than one lens if you buy used.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<blockquote>

<p>f2.8 is f2.8 regardless of what lens mount you use. </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Again, to be <em><strong>perfectly clear... </strong></em><br>

<br>

this is true of light-gathering. It is not true of effective depth of field in the final image or video. It just isn't. Generally, you can multiply the f-stop by 2 to get the effective DoF on a crop frame camera compared to 35mm SLR film, just like you do with focal length. There is no free lunch. So a 28mm f2.8 lens on my µ43 behaves like a 56mm f5.6 lens. Yes, I've tested this, but didn't need to as it's self-evident when you think about it.<br /><br>

<br>

Again, photo.net has been asked what time it is and is expounding on the history and philosophy of clock-making.</p>

[ShunCheung]

<p>Please keep in mind that Michael the OP has started another related thread: <a href="/digital-camera-forum/00dfR8">Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 Nikon or Canon Version with speedbooster for GH4?</a></p>

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>I suppose the attraction of old manual focus Nikon glass to cinematographers and videographers is that the lenses work smoothly with a long focus throw and have decent image quality, while being relatively cheap. They also have a long back-focus making it easy to adapt them to the likes of Canon and other bodies. All of which is great for full-frame HD video and to some extent smaller formats where a narrow field angle is needed.</p>

<p>However, small sensor sizes are a different ball game when it comes to wide-angle and standard fields-of-view. To get the utmost quality, a 16 megapixel 4/3rds camera shooting 4K video would demand a lens with a high contrast at 125 cycles/mm, and that's not within the capabilities of most old Nikkors unless they're stopped well down, if at all. As almost the entire concensus of contributers to this thread have already said - You need lenses specially designed for 4/3rds to get the best image quality. Otherwise if you compromise on cost you'll also compromise on quality.</p>

<p>BTW, whatever happened to all the old C mount 16mm ciné lenses?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"So a 28mm f2.8 lens on my µ43 behaves like a 56mm f5.6 lens. Yes, I've tested this, but didn't need to as it's self-evident when you think about it."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's not mathematically possible. Depth-of-field depends on the circle-of-confusion chosen, which scales with format size. Therefore reducing the sensor size, while keeping the same focal length, aperture and subject distance, will result in a <em>shallower</em> depth-of-field, not an increased one. <br>

Just stepping down from full-frame to DX results in an effective one stop <em>decrease</em> in depth of field. 4/3rds will show even more shallowing, maybe to the extent of 2 stops under the same conditions of focus, focal length and aperture.</p>