| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
 Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:02 am Post subject: best budget option for 1" wide/fast c-mount zoom for m4 |
 |
|
rozroz wrote:
Hi.
i'm currently searching for the cheapest option widest/fastest c-mount zoom to use on GH2 without the need for ETC mode.
there's also the issue of infinity focus, right? some lens aren't able to ?
the only option i know of is the Apollo 18-90 that is 1" and also pretty cheap.
did anyone have a chance to use those lens on m4/3?
i'll appreciate any more info on Apollo or other lens,
also this infinity focus issue,
or maybe other thread links concerning this?
thanks  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rbelyell
Joined: 13 Oct 2009
Posts: 4269
Location: somewhere in the mountains of central NY
Expire: 2014-01-31
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rbelyell wrote:
in my experiemce with several wide zooms, none ever worked properly on my m4/3. this is probably because the widest FL that is really useable without horrible vignetting is 25mm. none of the 'wide' zooms i ever bought focused properly, andeven if they had, the amount of vignetting was wholly unacceptable.
_________________
Epson RD1 + Elmarit 21/2.8; Summarit 50/1.5; Summarit 75/2.5; Elmar-c 90/4; Sankyo Komura 135/2.8, Hektor 135/4.5; Braun Paxina 29 6x6; Photax Boyer Paris; Holga 120 Pano
GREAT STUFF FOR SALE:
Contax T
Hasselblad XPan + 45/4, 90/4
Kodak Retina Reflex IV + full set of Schneider Krueznach lenses
Mercury 2 half frame 35mm
Kodak Pro slr/n
Fuji GM670+100/3.5+65/8!
Praktisix 6x6 medium format + ZeissBiometar 120/2.8
Bessa T 101 Anniversary Edition in Navy Blue
Mamiya Six Folder with Zuiko 75/3.5
Adaptall: Tamron SP 28-85 macro
Cameras: Canon IX
PM for more complete descriptions/pix. All in great shape!
_________________________
'buy me a drink, sing me a song,
take me as i come 'cause i can't stay long' |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| rbelyell wrote: |
| in my experiemce with several wide zooms, none ever worked properly on my m4/3. this is probably because the widest FL that is really useable without horrible vignetting is 25mm. none of the 'wide' zooms i ever bought focused properly, andeven if they had, the amount of vignetting was wholly unacceptable. |
i realize that, but on most of them you have to use the EX-TELE mode of the GH2 that uses only 1920X1080 of the sensor.
this is the case for all the 1/2" or 2/3" c-mounts.
but the Apollo is 1" so it can be used without the EX-TELE mode. there is little vignetting left but minor.
i don't know about the focus issues though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1827
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
Quick ebay search brings 3 results for around $274-499.
Is this cheap ?
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| std wrote: |
Quick ebay search brings 3 results for around $274-499.
Is this cheap ? |
this is a reasonable price if they work really good (the 274$ especially  )
but i was wondering if there are any other similar options on the 1".
and if anyone did some tests with them.. this is almost buying blindfold.
also the infinity focus problem- i need some explanation on that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1827
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 3:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
Maybe it depends from the lens. I have only one c-mount zoom and it is motorized one - on it the infinity is changing while you change the focal length so yes i guess you may stumble to this problem.
Btw why you are looking for c-mount zoom? All other 35mm zooms will certainly fill the m4/3'ds frame and will be less expensive. Fast zoom for c-mount (contrary to c-mount primes) will not be very light, and will not cover the sensor completely.
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| std wrote: |
Maybe it depends from the lens. I have only one c-mount zoom and it is motorized one - on it the infinity is changing while you change the focal length so yes i guess you may stumble to this problem.
Btw why you are looking for c-mount zoom? All other 35mm zooms will certainly fill the m4/3'ds frame and will be less expensive. Fast zoom for c-mount (contrary to c-mount primes) will not be very light, and will not cover the sensor completely. |
but i need it not for stills.
i thought that 35mm film lens are MORE expensive..
you mean there are 35mm that are fast, keep focus and light enough?
keeping the focus and aperture is most important for me cause i need to shoot while zooming.
can you link me to any 35mm options please?
tnx. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1827
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
You are right most of the 35mm zoom lenses are not very fast. You can get a constant f 2.8 zoom and this will be some of the fastest.
I think you can get better performance from f 2.8 lens with high iso than with 1.2 or 1.8 c-mount zoom. Those cine zooms were very new technology at the time when released and most of them (even ones from reputable makers like Schnider and Angeniuex) will have so-so quality in compassion to the more modern and later zoom lenses.
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I have tried at least a dozen c-mount zooms, they were all crappy IQ and small image circles.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| I have tried at least a dozen c-mount zooms, they were all crappy IQ and small image circles. |
so what about this then?
https://vimeo.com/35958714
(watch all the way, video footage is after a few minutes) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
std
Joined: 09 Feb 2010
Posts: 1827
Location: Bulgaria
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
std wrote:
As the guy says there it is very soft at f1 and used with the ETC Crop. I'm not impressed by the amount of flare and the colors.
So if you need something wide you should look at similar range (8-48mm) which will become 21-125mm mft equivalent, otherwise the lens will become too long after cropping. Also this looks like fairly late TV lens, i guess the old ones will be even worse.
_________________
Stefan
My lens list:
SLR MD: Rokkor 1,7/50 Exakta: Kilfitt-Makro-Kilar E 3.5/4cm; CZJ 2/50 Pancolar;M42: CZJ 2.8/50 Tessar; Mir-1B 2.8/37; Jupiter-9 2/85 T-mount: Tamron 5.9/200; Tamron 6.9/300; Tamron 7.5/400 C-mount: Cosmicar 1.8/50 Y/S: Sun 3.5/38-90, Sun 4/70-210 RF Contax RF: Jupiter-8 2/50; Contax G:CZ 2,8/21 Biogon T; CZ 2,8/28 Biogon T; CZ 2/35 Planar T; CZ 2/45 Planar T; CZ 2,8/90 Sonnar T |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edz
Joined: 20 Aug 2009
Posts: 82
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
edz wrote:
| rozroz wrote: |
| rbelyell wrote: |
| in my experiemce with several wide zooms, none ever worked properly on my m4/3. this is probably because the widest FL that is really useable without horrible vignetting is 25mm. none of the 'wide' zooms i ever bought focused properly, andeven if they had, the amount of vignetting was wholly unacceptable. |
i realize that, but on most of them you have to use the EX-TELE mode of the GH2 that uses only 1920X1080 of the sensor.
this is the case for all the 1/2" or 2/3" c-mounts.
but the Apollo is 1" so it can be used without the EX-TELE mode. there is little vignetting left but minor.
i don't know about the focus issues though. |
1" is about 16mm diagonal and m43 is about 22mm diagonal so I'd expect some noticeable vignetting. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| edz wrote: |
| rozroz wrote: |
| rbelyell wrote: |
| in my experiemce with several wide zooms, none ever worked properly on my m4/3. this is probably because the widest FL that is really useable without horrible vignetting is 25mm. none of the 'wide' zooms i ever bought focused properly, andeven if they had, the amount of vignetting was wholly unacceptable. |
i realize that, but on most of them you have to use the EX-TELE mode of the GH2 that uses only 1920X1080 of the sensor.
this is the case for all the 1/2" or 2/3" c-mounts.
but the Apollo is 1" so it can be used without the EX-TELE mode. there is little vignetting left but minor.
i don't know about the focus issues though. |
1" is about 16mm diagonal and m43 is about 22mm diagonal so I'd expect some noticeable vignetting. |
hmmm.. thanks.
ok, so if 1" doesn't give that much more coverage than 1/2" or 2/3", it's not really practical 
(unless i there is a REALLY WIDE 1" lens around 10mm so i could zoom in a bit- right?) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The best I had was a huge Canon TV-16 zoom, I forget the exact specs now but it was something like 11-110mm. It didn't cover M4/3 and the IQ, while the best of all the C-mount zooms I tried was only as good as the crappest SLR zooms.
What exactly do you need for a lens? Parfocal? Some of the Tamrons are parfocal, fast? Forget it for a zoom, 2.8 is the fastest, clickless aperture? Easy to take the ball bearing out and make it clickless.
Why spend a few hundred dollars on something that may work and may have decent IQ when you can spend a few tens of dollars for an SLR lens that you know will work and will have good IQ.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
What exactly do you need for a lens? Parfocal? Some of the Tamrons are parfocal, fast? Forget it for a zoom, 2.8 is the fastest |
exactly. all modern SLR lens are not parfocal because they're not made for video capture.
those are far more expensive.
and i need to shoot video while zooming in and out A LOT, and feel decently comfortable while operating.
i can compromise a bit on fastness.
still, what are my cheapest options then? what Tamron's are parfocal? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I can't remember now, but there are a few options for parfocal zoom lenses, do a search of the forum, it's been discussed before.
_________________
I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Fri Apr 13, 2012 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
| iangreenhalgh1 wrote: |
| I can't remember now, but there are a few options for parfocal zoom lenses, do a search of the forum, it's been discussed before. |
tried the search option on all possible words but most times it came up with no options (parfocal, zoom etc).
am i doing something wrong? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekoe
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2012 11:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ekoe wrote:
Hey there Roz.
I know you are already aware of my parfocal zoom m4/3 modification because we've been in
email contact, but I wanted to clarify for others here as well.
I can modify the 1" video zooms for full m4/3 coverage while retaining parfocal
performance and accurate focus marks.
I'm in the late stages of development and have a functional prototype that I have successfully tested with several 1" video zooms.
I will be offering the 1" video parfocal zoom - m4/3 modification service mid-summer.
The range of the modified zooms is 25-125/f2.5, varying on original model.
This modification will deliver full m4/3 coverage parfocal zoom for significantly more affordably than previous options.
If interested, you can get in touch with me through www.ekoecamera.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Sun May 13, 2012 6:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
well, i guess i'll settle for using only ETC and find the easy to mount Rainbow 8-48mm as cheap as possible.
i don't have money, and i don't want heavy lens. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekoe
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 1:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ekoe wrote:
Parfocal zooms that cover the m4/3 sensor are quite expensive, yes. And for good reason.
What I'm trying to do is offer parfocal solutions for non-ETC m4/3 users for thousands of dollars below the cost
of previous solutions. ETC with video zooms is a sound cost-savings approach if you're alright with a lot of depth of field.
In our emails, you mentioned you're looking for a solution offering no distortion. The Rainbow 8-48 will cover the ETC sensor area, but it does suffer distortion in the corners because it's a 1/2" video zoom. You can see it in this mod tutorial/review you linked to: http://vimeo.com/35958714
Again, you'll get a much better ETC image from a 2/3" video zoom in the range of 12-75mm.
I can relate to not having money, and wanting to do it yourself. If you decide to go with the Rainbow 8-48, do take my advise to NOT use superglue (cyanoacrylate) as that person does in the video. The off-gases of cyanoacrylate can fog nearby surfaces, in this instance it could fog your lens, sensor or both.
It's really frustrating to see someone advocate gluing a lens to begin with, let alone advising people to use something like cyanoacrylate which could ruin both their lens and camera sensor. It's irresponsible.
Also, that video does not demonstrate how to collimate and adjust for parfocal performance as he claims. What he shows in that video will achieve very little in terms of adjusting the lens to hold focus or to have accurate focus marks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rozroz
Joined: 28 Dec 2010
Posts: 13
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
rozroz wrote:
thanks for pointing out those important things..
however, i DO think that at slightly closed apertures (2.4 and above) those aberrations suppose to be almost gone.
and anyway it's just at the closed end of the zoom so it's not the end of the world.
(don't forget that he shot most of the footage at 1.4 aperture)
and it's also the lightest option around.
what i DO get only from the 8-48mm is a 20mm wide end, that i WON'T get with a 12mm c-mount (that's around 32mm ETC no?).
about the superglue, i tend to agree
but there are other options (drilling 3 screws into the m43 adapter etc..)
again, with around 100-200$ budget there's not much else a could do, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekoe
Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Posts: 47
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2012 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ekoe wrote:
You'll get better results from a 1/2" Fujinon-TV zoom like one of these:
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Fujinon-TV-ZOOM-LENS-1-1-4-7-3-88mm-D12x7-3A-AMS1-1-Japan-EXCELLENT-2-available-/160741932654?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item256cf73e6e#ht_1077wt_1165
or the 7.5-105/1.4 you were inquiring about. These are ENG broadcast lenses, not just a CCTV zoom like the Rainbow.
All around better lens.
Talk to me once you get a lens, maybe I can work out a rate for the mod and adjustment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
