Hmm. Once you factor in the speed booster price, it might be smarter just to get the better camera body/format, that 'natively' fits the desired lens? I was looking to get the GX85 as my "starter rig" and get the best 1 to 5 x "fast" zoom lens. Looks like Sigma is the way to go if you care about Quality. My specific (amateur) use case is getting good shots of The Young Children when at school awards/performances. You are often 15-20 meters away from stage (crammed up back with other parents) so no chance to use a Prime up close, and in poor/challenging light. The a6500 with the Sigma looks like a 'smarter' option? I'm a geek, so fiddling around with a challenging menu system, fiddly buttons and a useless daylight screen doesn't scare me, if the trade off is great IQ. Better order your book then.
For anyone watching this video in 2020 please keep in mind that both Panasonic and Olympus have made giant steps in lens offering since this video was published. My point being that unless you have an on-hand supply of high quality APS-C or Full Frame lens you want to use on you Micro Four Thirds bodies, it makes no sense to buy these lens and these expensive adapters when native PRO MFT lens are available for less money these days.
Perhaps this has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments (I stopped reading after a few pages) but that "rattle" in the Sigma lens is completely normal, and is made by the un - energized internal stepper motor. Connect it to the camera and turn on the power and the energized motor moves in to a ready state. For someone who supposedly knows a lot about lenses I am somewhat surprised that you are not familiar with the use of stepper motors in Sigma lenses. If I owned Sigma you would be hearing from me.
I, too, disagree about the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 pro lens. It is very sharp, focuses very closely, is able to handle shooting in the rain, has low aberrations, low distortion, and is a nice size and weight.
Hi Darell...so you thin k that the 12-40 worth the price? i have a 12-32 from panasonic on my em1 mark 2, i ordered a 12-40 cause a lot of people sya it's a very good and sharp lense...i'm starting to think that maybe i didn't really need to put money in a 12-40 and maybe put it in fix focal...for now i have oly 45mm 1.8 and oly 40-150mm... what do you think? the 12-40 i ordered it for 550€ new (sale)...woth keep it or cancell the order (not sent yet)???
Happy to see a video on adapting lenses to mirrorless bodies. It's how I shoot my apsc body 99% of the time. Plus the fun of collecting vintage primes (exclusively locally in my case), has added another dimension to my enjoyment of the overall hobby. I hope that this video will help others discover a world of lens possibilities and that they'll click through your link to buy they're adapters.
Great video, Tony. I agree that the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is costly, but it is the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time and that is because it is not only fast, but the focus ring allows me to set it when I pull back the clutch. This is a very important feature for me because I do a lot of low light photos. I bought mine used for half the price - that's the way to get around that obstacle.
Genuinely expert advice about exactly the equipment I use. So valuable! Really appreciate your skill set and ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in the complex world of photography.
Hello. Just thought I would weigh in on Tony's comment about the Olympus 12-40. I have the 12-40 and a Panasonic G85. I also have a Canon 6D + 24-105L. My Olympus 12-40 is WAY sharper in the center and into the corners at all comparable focal lengths compared to my 24-105L. And even when I stop the 24-105L down to f/5.6 to match the Olympus, the 12-40 is still sharper (the 24-105L catches up a little bit, but not enough to quite match the 12-40). I have sold my 6D and am in the process of selling the 24-105L, I am all in with the M4/3 system.
if you have troubles focusing on the eye(s) just use the eye detection feature, select your preferred eye to focus on and forget about it - it works better than about anything a DSLR is capable of...
Just wanted to say that this was the most informative, clear and in-depth coverage of this subject that I have ever seen. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom and experience, and doing such a well presented video in a totally humble and to the point fashion made it a pleasure to watch. You have an office full of new subscribers here-- thanks again!
I appreciate that Tony addresses the auto-focusing problems (8:58) with MFT here. For awhile I thought I was doing something wrong or had a defective camera, but I eventually figured out that it was the gear, with both my Panasonic G6 and GX-7 bodies having the same issue. I've found that the "pinpoint focus" setting, with the camera electronically zooming in on the subject, can be helpful with this in many situations.
Hey Tony, Great Video, this what makes the internet so special. I am just getting into photography. Instead of me finding out the hard way with money this video help me to not make mistakes and take your advice and move forward. Keep the hard work up.
thanks for this video. as a beginner thinking about getting the panasonic lumix G7 I learned a lot about lenses in 30 minutes AND that there is a lot more to learn to know what you're doing
Tony, your Sigma 30mm 2.8 is the mk 1 version. It has been replaced by the new Art Series in 19mm, 30mm and 60mm 2.8 versions. When you shake the lenses you will here something clunking around loosely inside. This is floating lens element. The rattle will disappear when you turn the camera on and activate the lens.
Nando, the rattle is not a feature. It is not a selling point. It is just the loose element floating/banging around prior to the camera turning on. Once the camera has been turned on and there is power in the lens, the rattling will stop.
Great summary! I looked at the 20/1.7, but decided the middleground 40mm equivalent was still a little awkward for me (but the size and IQ are terrific). However, I subsequently found a used copy of the Panasonic/Leica 15mm/1.7, and I'm totally in love with it as a walk-around and it is almost always my single lens or one of two (with the 45, 75, or 60 macro as a second). While 35mm equivalent was never comfortable for me, somehow 30mm equivalent works well and is possibly even more comfortable than my standard 28mm workhorse on full frame. The 15/1.7 is technically better than any I've ever used on any format (well, OK, along with the 75/1.8). It is the first lens that exhibits zero CA that I can spot (well sub-pixel level @ 16 Mpixels). It also exhibits terrific subjective "microcontrast" or whatever you want to call it. Almost no additional sharpening or structure needs to be added. Anyway, thanks for the review.
+Douglas Knisely - Good points about the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7. It's technically excellent and creates a great look - color, contrast, sharpness, blur, etc. The lens is small and doesn't have overwhelming specs so it tends to be underrated. With regular use it becomes clear the PL 15mm is a unique lens.
I gotta say, I absolutely love your channel. You two have great personalities, always make me laugh, and continue to inspire me. Keep up the great work!
You just opened my eyes to something I hadnt thought about fully. I have an old FD zoom lens. Now, I know the lenses from the old manual days arent as sharp, generally. And they are full frame and I have an aps-c Sony A6000. It's still pretty sharp for what it is....but I just realized that if I can get a speedbooster , I can take advantage of the full capability of that lens. I know some people love using them on aps-c because the old lenses are soft in the corners, but taking advantage of all the light gathering with the speedbooster is a plus too.
+The Post Color Blog (Dave's Tuts) I play with many manual focus lenses ..Yes a lot of old zooms are very average may be most.. but there are gems about ..my minolta MD35-70 f3.5 macro out resolves my 16mp sony nex.. i have 4 or 5 MF zooms that are very good .i probably try 30 to find them .but i am a prime man most of the time
I have both the 12-40 and 40-150. The 12-40 is super sharp, fast and made my EM-5 an absolute joy to use. The 40-150 F2.8 is probably 1/3 the size of an equivalent F2.8 lens on DSLRs, half the the price and focuses super fast. In fact it has no equivalent for size and capability.
Ah but Tony is one of these people who believes that it’s not really an f/2.8 lens, but rather an f/5.6 lens masquerading as one.😂 I guess his light meters all have a setting for sensor size on them? I’ve never seen one that does.
I honestly can't believe that a professional photographer like you doesn't get that an F2.8 on a full-frame camera is effectively the same as an F2.8 on a micro four-thirds body.
Exactly. He fell for the dpreview full frame propaganda. f/2.8 on mft equals f/2.8 on “full frame”, for exposure. If it didn’t, your hand held light meter would have a sensor size setting.
He clarifies a couple of times that he's referring to depth of field and 'total light gathering capability, not your settings', ie lens and sensor light gathering capability combined. How does that change if the settings don't change? He eludes to it in the crop factor section of the video - f stop numbers refer to the total amount of light gathered per square inch, so an f2.8 m43 lens is sending 1/4 of the light to the m43 sensor as an f2.8 full frame lens on a full frame body, but the light per square inch is the same. Then the smaller sensor compensates by cranking up the gain so its usually more noisy at a given iso than a full frame, although it doesn't always translate exactly to a 2 stop difference, just roughly 2 stops. I love M43 btw, just made the switch to a Panasonic G85 after 10 years with a Canon APSC DSLR. Love the size and weight benefits, the sensor stabilization + lens stabilization combined, and quality video to top it off (not to mention the awesome price on these). I hope Panasonic and OM system keep pushing the technology forward on this format.
This was a really great and informative video. I've been having issues using some of my full-frame Nikon lenses and felt like I just could not get a sharp image out of them. The explanation here makes perfect sense when you calculate the equivalent pixel density of the MFT sensors vs the Full-frame glass. When my G7 gets back from warranty I think I'm going to pickup a speed booster and see what kind of improvement I see with both my DX and FX lenses. One thing you mention a few times in this video though is your studio setup and using GH2s for various angles. This is something that is absolutely killing me trying to film for my RUclips channel. The FoV when shooting 4K on my G7 even with the 14mm kit lens requires me to put my camera against the far wall just to get in frame. I'm filming in an ~10ft wide space and I have to do gymnastics propping my tripod in weird ways to get the shots I want. Often times I can't even get them. I decided to give the olympus 9mm a shot and while I can get more of the scene I want in frame the distortion is just too much. Do you have any videos which show the layout of your studio for these videos? I'm interested to see how far back your cameras are or if you have any other tips for trying to shoot MFT in small spaces. I know there's just the limits of physics but it's really causing me some issues. One thing I can't control is how wide the walls of my garage are!
Saying an f/2.8 mft lens “gathers the same total light as a full frame f/5.6 lens” is meaningless because it only has to project an image circle onto the much smaller mft sensor. The last time I checked there is no setting for sensor size on any handheld light meter. To sum up: an f/2.8 lens for mft really is f/2.8 for exposure, but is f/5.6 for equivalent depth of field in 35mm terms.
Dear Tony, I like your videos a lot. Only, I wonder how it is possible that the entire world of Olympus MFT users is very, very enthusiastic about the 12-40 "PRO" lens, whereas, in your opinion it is more like a kitlens with kitlens quality. I don't understand that.
I've talked to quite a few pros who experimented with MFT and had the same feelings about those lenses... but they didn't keep shooting with MFT. So by sampling MFT users, you're talking only to people who love the system. We've done side-by-side tests, but you can also look up sharpness tests on DxOMark if you want an outside opinion.
@@TonyAndChelsea (or anyone else) Disclaimer: I don't own any of these cameras or lenses and probably will ever own one that's half, the cheapest one mentioned here. So, no. I can't prove or show that A is better than B. I just like to know and understand a bit of everything and to crunch some numbers while I search for information. I'll just use DxOMark "data" since it was the source mentioned to be checked Can you Tony or anyone explain how - according to DxOMark- the same lens in 2 different FF camera bodies has 2 different scores? The sharpest lens on DxOmark database is the Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM Art on a Nikon D800E Now take that same lens and put it on a Nikon D800 body and see the difference. Ok... It might have been a typo while publishing the numbers. So take the same lens and put it on a D610 and D750 and see how the numbers are different. - On a D610 it has a score of 44 with a sharpness of 22 P-Mpix - On a D750 it has a score of 45 with a sharpness of 24 P-Mpix - On a D800E or a D810 the sharpness jumps to... 36 P-Mpix I'm already hearing someone typing "D810 is a 36.3 Megapixel camera while the D750 is just a 24.3 Megapixel body.". Yeap... but both D610 and D750 are 24.3 Megapixels cameras. Does the same lens change it's sharpness by "walking" a couple feet to the next body? If I wait and buy a future 94.2 Megapixel FF body will that lens become sharper than a scalpel or an obsidian knife? Let's just hope Sigma will be able to make that lens for a FF 645 body. It will be sharper than a laser cutter or a plasma torch :) I don't know about everyone else but when I compare A with B, I like to compare apples with apples and not apples with potatoes just because they might have the same shape so, let's compare some lenses attached to a similar X Megapixel camera body. - Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM from 2010: US$ 669 (for a APS-C 1.5x crop factor body) - Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 PRO launched in 2013: US$ 1000 - Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. launched in 2012: US$ 1129 - Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art launched 2017: US$ 1300 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR launched in 2015: US$ 2400 - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM launched in 2012: US$ 2299 and put them all in "apples to apples". How about 2016 harvested apples? - Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II = 20.4 Megapixel MFT (US$ 2000) - Nikon D500 = 20.9 Megapixel APS-C (US$ 2000) - Canon EOS-1D X Mark II = 20.2 Megapixel FF (US$ 6000) - Nikon D5 = 20.8 Megapixel FF (US$ 6500) Nikon D500 + Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM * = 13 P-Mpix (US$ 2669 total) Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + Olympous 12-40mm F2.8 PRO = 12 P-Mpix (US$ 3000 total) Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 = 12 P-Mpix (US$ 3129 total) Nikon D500 + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art ** = 10 P-Mpix (US$ 3300 total) Nikon D500 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR ** = 9 P-Mpix (US$ 4400 total) Canon EOS-1D X Mark II + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Art = 17 P-Mpix (US$ 7300 total) Nikon D5 + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art = 15 (US$ 7800 total) Canon EOS-1D X Mark II + EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM = 16 P-Mpix (US$ 8299 total) Nikon D5 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR = 13 (US$ 8900) * With 1.5x crop factor becomes 25.5-75? ** Due to 1.5x crop factor this lens becomes a 36-105? Or I got this part wrong?? And did they get a lemon with that Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR or are all they lemons?? Everyone's pockets have their own depth (mine are as shallow as a 5 gallon water bottle filled with just 1 inch of water) and everyone have their wants, likes and needs but I wonder if the diference between DoF and a few more P-Mpix (how is it measured btw? I couldn't find a "formula" ) worth a diference of US$ 4300 or around US$ 4600 (diference between a D500 + 17-50 and a 1D X + Sigma 24-70) or even more if we take the Nikon D5 . Btw @Tony & Chelsea Northrup DxOMark doesn't show data for the Olympus E-M5 Mark II or for the Panasonic GH4 but they do regarding the original E-M5 and the GH3. Olympus E-M5: - Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched in 2012: US$ 1129) = 10 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched 2013: US$ 920) = 7 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 ASPH (launched back in 2009: US$ 850) = 5 P-Mpix Panasonic GH3: - Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched in 2012: US$ 1129) = 9 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched 2013: US$ 920) = 6 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 ASPH (launched back in 2009: US$ 850) = 5 P-Mpix Here I can only figure 2 scenarios: or you (and probably everyone else) has to do a harder pixel peeping or DxOMark needs to re-test every single lens and camera body possible with a new "industry standard". The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art although cheaper (US$799), yes according to DxOMark it seems to be sharper than the Panasonic 12-35 or the Olympus 12-40 which are similar in focus length if you take the crop factor in consideration (no test yet for the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4 which was the perfect "contender")". Sharper but not by much. Just by 1 or 2 P-Mpix (whatever that percentual value is and means). Speaking of which... hasn't DxOMark data been contested in the past by some people who knows about optics?
@@carlosbarradas7425 dxomark is a bunch of pseudoscience nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with photography. Period. If Tony can’t take great photos with the 12-40 and mft, that’s on him not the gear. I’ve shot events with it on my EM5iii, fantastic results.
I wonder if your example of the M.Zuiko 12-40 f/2.8 Pro (24-80mm full-frame equivalent on m43) is not somehow flawed. I own this lens and find it to be tack sharp even wide open. Given that I also own a number of Canon lenses, I do have other glass to compare it to. Take for example Canon's EF 17-40 F/4.0 L (27.2-64mm full-frame equivalent on APS-C). There is nothing particularly wrong with that lens, but the Olympus is much better in almost every way, in my opinion. In fact, I would say that the M.Zuiko 12-40 is at least as sharp, or sharper, than any of my Canon lenses, with the possible exception of the EF 400mm f/5.6L, which is a gorgeously crisp, though dated and heavy, telephoto. I would say the same for the M.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 Pro - a superb performer in terms of sharpness, contrast and detail in my experience. I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on Canon here, because that company produces very solid and reliable cameras and lenses, I just happen to think that the Olympus Pro series lenses are really very very good optics.
Good to know that the first gen 20mm f/1.7 tested slightly sharper, saved money on my GX7 by getting the body only and keeping my old 20mm. The only thing it loses out to the newer lenses on is AF speed, but it doesn't really need it in most cases.
I have to disagree with you where focusing is concerned on M43. I have an EM1 and friends with 70D's and 5DM2's are amazed by how quickly the EM1 locks focus with no hunting. There are many examples online which shows how quickly and spot on the focusing system in the EM1 is or I could post examples of my own. I don't understand how such an experienced photographer as yourself ends up with such blurry out of focus images from M43.
ChriSmith Everything depends on your point of reference. If you compare the E-M1 to the 70D, which is a third of the price, then focus is great. Of you compare to the D500, then the E-M1 won't hold up.
I've put my EM-1 Mk.2 against my friend's D500 at a dirt bike race ..... Not much of a difference, and I'd rather have the EM-1's pre-burst and higher overall burst rate. M4/3 has come an incredibly long way since the G1/EP1 days
Tony, I'm somewhat bewildered about your comments of using FF lens on a MFT body. You mentioned the sharpness will not be as good as if it were on a FF camera. After all, aren't the adapters built to give you the same focal plane distance as a FF? I can understand the crop factor being half of the FF camera but how does this effect sharpness? Currently I use a dumb adapter and a Metabones Speed Booster Ultra on my E-M1 with Canon EF and FD lenses and find the image quality quite good. BTW the new software release (V1.82) from Metabones has made their adapter quite nice and the AF is fast. Coupled with the Phase detection on the E-M1 I am very pleased with it. The V1.8 introduced this feature to the Olympus while the V1.82 increased it stability. Not sure what's more stable but, that is all the text Metabones provided on the site. Thanks for all you good advise!
Hey Tony... I was aware of the MetaBones Speedbooster since it's was first released. Almost bought one a couple of times for the GH4, but they just keep improving it! My kit is Nikon and I've been waiting for MetaBones to release an AF Speedbooster for a MFT to Nikon lenses as they have with Cannon. I'm glad you explained the different crop factors and proper MFT Speedbooster for the Sigma 18-35mm F1.4 as I could have easily ordered and bought the wrong one as this is the next Lens I will own. Thanks for your time on this great indepth review :)
There is youtube video shot with GH5 and Olympus 40-150 and it looks amazing. It's quite interesting what you said about the lens and focusing. To me it looks like GH5's best lens for sports. Now I'm not so sure...
Once again epic review! Covering all the lenses you've saved me watching 3 or 4 videos! Keep on crushing! p.s. the 20mm f1.7 Panasonic looks amazing, thank you!
f2.8 is f2.8, regardless of full-frame, APS-C, or Micro 4/3. The depth of field is shallower, yes, but the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same. f2.8 on a micro 4/3 body doesn't equate to f5.6 in terms of how much light is allowed to hit the sensor.
Awesome vid Tony! Put out more content!!! You and Chelsea are so amazing and it is evident how much work is put into just a small video, but more content=more views. Love you guys though; you're the only reason I got into photography (Been photographing for ~3 months: Nikon d7200 w/Sigma 18-35 f/1.8). You guys are the best!
The equivalent aperture is kind of a killer of this system for me. I'm glad that you mention that with every lens you talk about. No one else would even mention the difference.
great video - yes the Oly 45m F1.8 is a gem - but now with the Pani 42.5 F1.7 with IS is even sharper and better and yes a bit more but still one heck of a nice little lens - and yes I likewise love the Oly 75mm - just awesome - and very nice backed - I do have the EM5 and Em1 but now just love using my GX8 so the 75mm is on their most of the time - I need to upgrade my 140-140mm Pani as my older version is to heavy :) new so much lighter - I picked the Pani 35-100mm F2.8 over the Oly, not drastically better but heavier and no IS - The Pani so light - I do like my Pani 7-14mm F4 for wide angle shots - but now Oly out with a 7-14mm F2.8 - might upgrade later your videos are always top notch video and sound -
I use a Konica Hexanon 35mm 2.8 on a Gh4 which is amazingly good. All metal solid construction with a long focusing ring makes it easy to focus without drifting. Very sharp with shallow dof and it cost me £50 with a 35-70 Hexanon, a Konica film body and case thrown in.
Interesting to see different opinion on the 30mm Sigma 2.8 prime. I like that lens and the range (althou taken I have the aps-c e-mout version on 6300, so it's wider), but for the image quality it's very good. Also the rattling noise I think it has to do with the focusing motor. Once the lens is on the body and turned on, the noise disappears.
I have the Sigma 19mm and 30mm primes - the third in the series being the 30mm - and these are both insanely sharp, even wide open. This is why I was a bit surprised to hear you say your 30mm isn't very sharp. Maybe you just have a bad one. Further to your comments about use of full frame lenses on M43, in my experience, modern glass tends to be more successful in this respect, possibly due to tighter manufacturing tolerances these days.
One of the big advantages of native lenses is the camera bodies can correct for things like Chromatic Aberration. How is the focus speed on your Sigma lenses?
Thanks for the m4/3 love Tony! Surprised you don't find the Oly 12-40mm f2.8 sharp, I found it much sharper than the slower kit zooms when I upgraded. However, you can only speak as you find! Another sharp bargain is the Sigma 60mm f2.8, not that fast but very very sharp. I await the subsequent equivalence debates on DPR with interest... ;^)
Tony, thanks for the great video! Q: From 9min-10min you discuss missing the focus on the eyes often. Im so glad to hear you mention this as this happens to me more times than I would prefer and it is very frustrating to say the least. Im on the EM1 and it seems to happen more on the Oly 25 and 45 than on the 75. Even at a fast shutter speed with good technic, it still happens. Is there a video you have produced that goes into why this is and/or do you have any suggestions of how to curb this? Thanks for the time you put into all of this.
+Ian Cassanova Then you are out of luck since at least half the information in this video is unreliable. For example saying that the 12-40 Pro or the 12-35 Pana aren't that sharp is just false, period. It seems that Tony has just too much work to properly explore the potential of a system that he considers at best as worthy of amateur photography. Now you have no reason to believe me over him. Just research the photos captured with m4/3 and make your own mind.
+Jean Montambeault Well he is saying that they are not sharper then the 14-140mm. Which is excellent for a lens with that zoom range. Stopped down to F5.6 they're a bit sharper probably but that would be pixelpeeping range. While the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a 24mp Nikon D5500 would be night and day differens. I think the argument about comparing it to fullframe prices isn't really that fair. They can be build to half the tolerances and still be twice as good due to the 4x larger sensor. But you have to pay a LOT of money for that fullframe sensor. As a Gx7 owner i have to say that primes are the way to go in m43. The 20mm and 45 F1.8/42.5 F1.7(new pana). And i like the 14mm not becouse it's excellent but at that price and you can just put it away pretty much anywhere. I've seen people use EM-1 in sport environments though. And they did work very well 9 fps with good continuous AF is nothing short of great. But the users said they would never attempt to use it in dim conditions with the same demanding conditions. The Phase detect points just don't work in low light which translates to fails reliably in that case.
+Jean Montambeault As +1barnet1 mentioned, I was discussing their sharpness relative to the more versatile and less expensive 14-140. Looking at the sharpness profiles at DxOMark, I can see that the shorter zooms are a hair sharper in their overlapping range. At the same time, we had done side-by-side testing and hadn't noticed any sharpness difference. So, it's there, but it wasn't enough for us to detect. DxOMark rates the 12-35 and 12-40 at 9 perceptual megapixels... which is the same as the $200 Canon 18-55... which goes for $50 used. And that's really my problem with those two lenses; they're so expensive that unless you really need to be in the MFT world, your money would be better spent on a different system. How can I possibly recommend them over the Sigma 18-35, which is more than a stop faster, $200 cheaper, and pulls 18 perceptual megapixels? It's *twice* as sharp, which is a massive leap. Re: "It seems that Tony has just too much work to properly explore the potential of a system that he considers at best as worthy of amateur photography." Please don't put words in my mouth. We've used the system for our professional videos for a couple of years now, and I even specifically suggested it for professional product photography. I wouldn't shoot a football game or a wedding with it, though. You can't argue that I haven't properly explored the system--we own and use more bodies and lenses than almost anyone else, and I've done a deep analysis of almost all of it.
+Tony Northrup Let's start again on a better foot: I bought and read three of your books. I respect your expertise but I've been raised to keep a critical eye on everything. I do not believe that you are that kind of stupid who needs to be right all the time so I expect that you won't get all offended. I will leave the discussion at that. You make excellent points, as usual, but these need to be contrasted with the equally valid field experience of thousands of daily users who are not fanboys. You know, so many present m43 users come from a larger sensor format system; quite a few still own them; not so many are actually using them anymore. They use(d) the best lenses (myself Canon with Canon, the 20-70 f/2.8 II, best lens ever, and Sigma lenses, the 18-35 and the Art 35mm among them) and are at awe with the Pro line of Oly lenses overall capabilities to put these users in doubt. Now, I'd rather go out and shoot some rather than argue any further. I still appreciate your scientific critical approach as a balance to my more intuitive view of things and I'll always keep abreast with the information that you put at our disposal. Regards, Jean P.S. The 20mm f/1.7, which I use and love for street and flower shows is a really slow focuser. The 75mm f/1.8 is all that you said but not infinitely so. IQ in the Pro line rivals most of the primes. The information you gave about adapting lenses is of the greatest usefulness. The part about pixel density is crucial while often left out of the discussions around adapted lenses. However one doesn't adapt a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 or a Minolta Rokkor for any other reason than an irrational need for such a look. You can't fight that. ;)
@@TonyAndChelsea comparing mft to FF lenses is silly. They’re twice the size and weight, and usually twice the price for equivalent build and aperture. The Olympus and Panasonic 12-xx pro zooms are weather sealed and rugged great build quality, and on mft they produce phenomenal results… I don’t care what dxomark said 5 years ago. Those 18-55 kit lenses were cheap plastic junk. “Perceptual megapixels” has zero to do with photography. And not everyone wants to carry and pay for a “full frame” camera.
great video always Tony - thanks your video quality and sound is always tops The 25mm F1.4 Panasonic is fantastic - also the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 with IS - I see the 12-35mm F2.8 can now be had for $650-850 no problem - so a good value now - also the 35-100mm F2.8 - can be found for under $1000 - Of course the Oly 75mm F1.8 is fantastic - but a limited focal length - of course the 45mm F1.8 is a no brainer - just find the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 with IS to be just as sharp and it has IS and is same size - what a difference in prices buying M43 lenses vs Sony FE mount :) Have you used the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 ? just a pleasure to use - so sharp
My compact system is the E-M1. I'm using OLY 4/3 DSLR lenses with an adapter. The 12-60 f2.8, 50-200 f2.8 and 50 f2.8 macro are sharper with greater range and better build quality than the m4/3 equivalent.
With the EM-1 I can't tell the difference between my adapted lenses and native 4/3. With the new EM-1 MkII focusing is supposed to be much faster but I'm in no mood to spend $2k on a m4/3 body.
I did get an EM-1; it's been great. With the Olympus Adapter. Certain lenses that I've seen listed as "won't work" (for AF) work fine - in fact, they work great! As for the continuous AF with 4/3 lenses - that also works. Either a software update fixed that or it's just a rumor also.
Hi Tony. I own this lens and couple it with my Olympus EM1 mk2. I have never had an issue with sharpness with this lens. Why do you appear to bag MFT gear? How many countless people have converted from FF to MFT? I do not see too many stories of the reverse. Please Tony, if you wish to review an item could you please show less bias.
Not many turned to MFT. Only few who couldn't bear the FF weight and didn't need FF performance anymore, those who don't shoot sports and don't need shoot above 1600 iso. The market is captured by inexpensive Apsc cameras and cheap FF cameras.
Ever since I got the 20mm f1.7 it has been my glass of choice for most situations except for portrait, where I stick to the oly 45mm f 1.8, but recently I've been tempted to buy a Samyang 12mm f2, and you just made me want it more.
Its great for landscapes or any time you like manual focus. The 20mm does a pretty good job with manual focus even though it is focus-by-wire, I just prefer actual manual focus on lenses like the 12mm f2. For things like night photography I think the manual is best.
@@A1Bokeh I've got the 50mm f1.4, the 1.8, the 135 2.8, the 28mm 2.8, 100-200 zoom, and a bunch of random other third parties (my favorite is the Sigma 28mm 2.8 mini wide) I only say crazies because of what he said in the video. I love my FD lenses and I have them adapted to all the cameras I have.
@@briandipierro8865 nice I just sold the 50mm 1.4 ..tiny bit of regret lol I did a video on it i may get the 1.2, how does tha 1.8 compare to the 50mm 1.4? the 70-210 is super solid f4 which is meh but it has great images and sharp, I recently got the fd metabones and paired with the 28 its pretty dang sweeeeet I want to get that canon fd 24mm f2!
@@A1Bokeh I want the 50mm 1.2 some day! The 1.8 came with my Canon AE-1 and it's considerably sharper wide open than the 1.4 is. I've got two of them (one has a scratch on the rear element that shows up in bokeh orbs but the performance is still incredible. I don't like those old school 70-210's that seem to be everywhere, I have the Vivitar Series 1 version and it's great for macro shots but still incredibly soft. How well does the metabones adapter work? I may end up getting one for M43 since that's... What I've been using mostly now. The 24 f2 seems like it'd be so nice, I want something a little wider and it'd be perfect to get eventually.
@@briandipierro8865 Wonder how sharp the 1.8 would be at 1.8... i have the 135 2.5 and 70-210 and im selling the 135 i more like primes but i really enjoy that lens. I think the metabones works best with lenses that are a bit wider focal lengths so at 28 it becomes like a 20 and 24 i believe will be around 17 I really like it with the 28 the image still looks great and sharp I wouldnt really use it much on the longer focal lengths tried it on the 135 i wasnt really liking it ... I know man that 24mm! little expensive at f2 but it seems to be solid
I show an aperture of f/1.1 with my Sigma 18-35mm lens wide open on my GH4. It works out to 26.5mm-51.5mm focal lengths with a .64 Metabones Speed Booster. A somewhat narrow zoom range. Testing against a 25mm f/1.4 prime, the same shot f/1.4 with the Sigma lens varies yields one camera at 1/5 of a second and the other at 1/6 of a second--both camera's see essentially the same light with similar ISO and white balance. I fail to see how crop factor has any effect on increasing aperture, as you stated. It was interesting the test the lens, but I prefer my Pan/Leica primes, and find the auto-focus loud on the Sigma (Canon Mount), and manual focus difficult for rapidly moving subjects at wide apertures.
Right at the top of the video, you say that it's fine to use the Panasonic stabilized lens on the Olympus stabilized body and that performance is improved through use of the stabilized lens. I'd always been told to turn off the stabilization of the Panasonic lens on the Olympus, as failure to do so would screw up both stabilization systems and the results would be rubbish. What's the scoop?
I haven't ever gotten into 4/3's but I would take it for video. For photography, I really enjoy the full frame. It would be really cool if technology would figure out a way to mimic the full frame shallow depth of field with smaller sensors. Something other than the speed booster. As far as mimicking the amount of light, it seems ISO technology keeps getting better and better. I have a 1" sensor in my Sony 4k AX100 for video and it does amazing in low light, it has a BSI sensor and then they probably have all types of other wizardry.
Thanks Tony, great to see more m43 material on your channel! I wonder if besides the speedbooster + sigma 18-35 there are other good combinations for videography. Any tips?
hmmmmm so 12-40 is sharp as kit lens ???? in what parallel universe ?? 12-40 Pro is sharp as any prime lens ( 12 F/2.0, 20 f/1.7, 25 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8 ) and is about 3-4x sharper than 12-50 or 14-42 but as always Tony ( i like you videos even got your book but ) get how sharp is lens by looking at DXO mark and as 4/3 got small sensor the results will be low and 12-40 got 9mpix but superduperultra sharp 75 1.8 got 11mpix and 14-42 got 5mp and 12-50 4mp and 40-150 PRO was as sharp as 75 ( on 75mm ) on every test they made so i would also like to go to FF to D750 from E-M1 12-40, 40-150 but as much picture I look from FF none is as tack sharp as a lot of them from E-M1 and PRO zooms...
I support your point. The 12-40 pro really is waaaay superior to any kit lens in every aspect except for its price tag. It surprises me to hear this from Tony, who frequently refers to the DxoMark tests and scores to compare gear.
I enjoy watching your videos re-Micro 4/3, I'm no professional but I have stumbled across the M4/3 platform, and for what I do it suits me well....I still have a lot of learning to do though......but still can't help thinking does he actually think they're (sorta ok) ??
Tony, great video! Hypothetically, let's say I have no lenses and plan on purchasing the Panasonic LUMIX GH6. Which two lenses should I buy for video & wildlife photography? Thanks.
marcus hawkins you think the kit lens is good enough or should I buy a 12-35 2.8? I was dead set on that lens until tony reminded me it's like a 5.6 lens
Ryan Thomas I would love to have the option to have more light . It's great outside and in controlled light situations but anything past 12mm inside is tough
i just purchased the g80 with 12-60mm and thinking to add 2 lenses . i totally agree with marcus hawkins . what would be a good set up for video and photography a swell ? i was thinking to add the 42.5mm f1.7 and i am thinking what else could help me that also doesn't break the bank
Tony, I have just graduated to owning my first interchangeable lens camera, the Panasonic Lumix GH3. I have the Lumix 12-35 zoom lens. My main interest is in shooting close-ups of falling water from a distance- mountain waterfalls in particular- I can't get physically close to these but I need to get extreme close-ups. Years ago I had some experience producing videos with the Sony VX1000 video camera using a wide angle lens to get those close-up water shots from a distance. What telephoto lens would you recommend for the GH3 to get up close with sparkling clarity?
I'm a novice with a Panasonic G85 looking for a 3rd, maybe 4th lens. Currently have the kit H-FS12060 12-60mm and H-FS45150 45-150mm lenses. My primary search is for one or two telephoto lenses that reach out further then the 150mm lens. The other limitation of the camera (micro four thirds) from my understanding is low light situations but from this video it sounds as though there are adapter and lens combinations that do a good job of overcoming that. I figured it was something I was just going to have to live with but if there's an economical solution to take some astro photography and similar photos I'd highly consider it. Any adapter / lens suggestions to overcome these limitations for the budget minded consumer would be greatly appreciated.
The weird rattle inside your Sigma 30/2.8 isn't a quality issue as such - it's how Sigma designed this entire series (19,30 and 60/2.8). Don't ask me why, but they all have floating elements which only stop rattling when powered up. And the ART versions of the 19 and 30 are the same as the originals internally. I found my 30mm a very sharp lens. The 60mm is better still.
Tony, I would ♡ to see an in-depth comparison between Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs Sigma 18-35/1.8 on Canon DSLR. I owned Canon 17-55/2.8 and I think Olympus is the sharper of the two.
I just purchased about $17,000 in full frame camera gear about a year ago but because of a long story short, a bad rear end car accident the Canon's and their lens are to heavy for me because that and 72 years of age. I really have been looking into the OM 1 Mark II and lens for everything from bird photography to doing newspaper photos work from time to time. This would be amazing for mobility in so many ways. What would be a good source for a good deal on trade-ins. Hopefully, you can help. I'm older, not done. Sincerely Julius Williams
What we care with Aperture is depth of field and brightness. Now if you take photo in FF camera and crop that picture to MFT size. Is there any difference with dof and exposure? No. Besides, Aperture is given by the focal length and the diameter of the entrance pupil (effective aperture).
+Taka's 4K lab The brightness does stay the same, but the image noise changes, and the depth of field changes with an equivalent field of view. If you're interested in learning more, visit sdp.io/crop.
+Tony Northrup I understand where you come from, and there is logic behind that. I give you that. But it is very misleading and confusing people as you can see here. That is my point. And noise cannot standardized. Again, if you take photo in FF camera and crop that picture to MFT size. Is there any difference with noise? No.
Wow. Thank you so much for going through all that. I just recently purchased a GH5 / .64 adapter to use with old full frame Nikkor lenses. This has been the best guid forward.. I think I made a good choice for video work. Curious if you know any downfalls with the camera? Thank you again for the great walk through.
Hello Tony. Thanks for the DxOmark video (had seen it already in the past). The problem is that all the new Olympus lenses from this year were not tested (8mm fish eye, 40-150 F2.8, 7-14 F2.8, new 14-140mm F4-F5.6 II, etc). The 75-300 was tested and got very low scores for sharpness
Nice videos ,Good information! I'm stumped on lens choices I have the gh 5 And invested in the medanones speedbooster and the sigma 18-35mm because of all the great reviews I've read. The benefits I noticed are bettter in low light and lil more boki , but is that worth the $1400 for the setup? I also have the Panasonic 12-35 with dual IS this lens goes on my zyhriun crane matter of fact this set up is why I bought the camera. I'm now getting a zoom, I already bought the tamron 70-200 vc g2 but I hear so many good things about the Panasonic 35-100 dual ISSo I might buy that too to do a review on this exact setup. If I like the Panasonic 35-100 then I see no need for the medanones and the sigma and I could just buy a 1.4 prime lens for the Low light comparison. I guess my question is should I go nAtive or medanones? Is the 70-200 full frame lens with medanones much better then the native Panasonic 35-100 with dual Is? The tameron 70-200 f2.8 with medanones would be 2.0 (full frame conversion would be f4.0) The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (full frame conversion would be f5.6)
That's a bolt statement about the 75/1.8 vs fullframe. I think if you test this lens on de EM5-II with high-res mode versus the 5DsR + Sigma 150/2.8 macro at f/3.5 or the Zeiss 135/2 APO at f/3.5 the Fullframe combo would win. I know that the fullframe combo is much more expensive and bulkier, but it's about your statement. The 4k mode with 2.3x doesn't change anything with respect to the normal 2x crop when comparing sharpness. Because it's also less megapixel and of course exactly the same pixeldensity (the sensor doesn't change). Another remark about the pixeldensity problem: you're using the sweet spot of the lens, so that makes things quite a bit better for fullframe lenses adapted to a aps-c or m4/3 body (the difference between these 2 isn't so big). Look at reviews of full frame lenses used on aps-c bodies and you'll see that those lenses keep up really well.
+UCreations We haven't tested it against the 5DS-R (because we did our tests before) but here's our test against the D810: ruclips.net/video/FlGffGBz8uQ/видео.html It beats the D810 by a far bigger margin than the 5DS-R ever has. The key (I think) is that each of the resulting pixels has gathered red, blue, and green light, so each pixel is cleaner and more meaningful.
+Tony Northrup I've seen that video. About cleaner: meh, the D810 has native iso64 vs native iso200 of the EM5-II, which you actually said in that video. BTW: what lenses did you use in that test? That's quite important in the discussion.
Helped sort this mess out a lot. Thank you. I still can't find a use for this format though. I can almost hit your video specs using video equipment without (what seems to me) to be a real force fit of terrible still cameras into video. I guess I take the old saw about image quality be the most important consideration. I will use cheaper video gear and keep waiting for Nikon to make me a 70-200 f2.8 and a 5X macro. God i hope I live that long!
You can pick up a Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 mark I nowadays for about $600--a difference of $400 from the time this video was published--which is nearly at the same price point as the 14-140. Still a cautious recommendation?
Despite the video bizarrely saying that the Oly 40-150f2.8 is a bit pointless and maybe one should consider getting a FF camera instead, I did the opposite. I already have plenty of FF kit, but the main reasons I got an EM5II was to be able to use this amazing zoom lens. And this comes from someone who uses a 16-35mm for most of his work on a FF camera. Being able to so very easily carry an equivalent to an 300mm f2.8 lens cannot be overestimated. I would never carry such a long and stupidly heavy FF lens around unless for a specific job, yet I used this as a casual walk around lens on my EM5II and have a Sony RX100 III to complement it for the 24-70mm range in my pocket. My FF Canons with similar coverage would be too heavy and bulky to even consider. I went for an enjoyable stroll over the moors last week getting photos of rutting deer without having to carry a tripod, backpack and being generally weighed down. Made the day out fun and not arduous. The smaller equivalent aperture is also not a drawback at when so very little is in focus at the longest length.
+Jeremy Lawrence "Being able to so very easily carry an equivalent to an 300mm f2.8 lens cannot be overestimated." Correction: equivalent of 300mm *f5.6*.
+Jeremy Lawrence Heya, Jeremy. I don't want to get in the way of you enjoying the equipment you have, because that's the single most important factor to great photography. However, if you're interested in how the math works, we have intense amounts of detail and hours of video here: sdp.io/crop. Somewhere in those videos there's even specific examples showing how the 40-150 and RX100 compare to full-frame equivalent gear.
The f2.8 is still f2.8 when it comes to exposure which is the important thing to get high shutter speeds whilst using a long lens, which is what people seem to continually forget. People get too obsessed with minimal DoF. It is not always required or appropriate I actually mentioned the ADVANTAGE of the smaller equivalent aperture when using such a long lens.
Jeremy Lawrence "The f2.8 is still f2.8 when it comes to exposure" The camera adjusts exposure by boosting the light sensitivity. That's why your pictures are still nicely exposed. You'll notice more noise than if you had a true 300 f2.8 on a FF body, though. And, that's the whole point of doing the conversion: to give an idea of how the actual pictures will look.
Tony Northrup You are completely missing the point by talking maths with regard to how useful such a lens can be. A classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees I'd say. I actually studied optics at University as part of my Astronomy degree as it happens so have no problem with that side of things. FF has its place and I use it a lot for work. But smaller sensors can be beneficial in other ways. Particularly if needing to travel light or be more discreet in what you are doing. The best camera is the one you have with you, so no matter how 'theoretically' better the Canon f2.8 is, the fact that with a body it will probably weigh more than an entire Olympus 16-450mm equivalent lens spread also with a couple of bodies body means it is very limited in other ways. The best kit is the gear you have with you. If I'm shooting mountain bikers somewhere remote that I need to ride to, do I really want to have a backpack that weighs more than my bike does?
Hello. I'm a casual photography enthusiast. I've been enjoying your OM-D E-M videos because I've been thinking about getting one and your videos are very well done. I'll probably choose the older E-M5 mark I, but I'm still looking for the best deals (read: cheapest) in terms of lenses, and it so happens I still have my father's old Yashica MC 28-80mm lens. My question is 1) Is there an adapter to connect it to the OM-D, and if there is, 2) Since the lens has its own mechanical apperture dial, how do I set the OM-D itself so it doesn't conflict with the lens' setting? Thank you.
Next time you do a video about a lens for a full frame camera are you going to say how it is f/2.8 and that's going to behave like a f/5.6 on a medium format camera? If you use an external meter with your micro 4/3 camera and it tells you to set the aperture at 5.6, and you set it at 2.8 your image will be quite overexposed.
+Apreche As I mention in the video, crop factor does not change your camera settings nor the brightness of your photo. It changes your depth of field, your total light gathered, and the total image noise. Medium format cameras have a crop factor of less than 1, like 0.7X, and the math works exactly the same. The photography community has settled on 35mm as the standard for comparing lens performance, so that's why we use it. Even for medium format cameras, their performance (for focal length, aperture, and ISO) is scaled down to 35mm for the sake of comparison. If you're interested in learning more, visit sdp.io/crop.
+Tony Northrup Saying "total light gathered" is just misleading. Some people will take that to mean the same f-stop will result in a 2-stop dimmer image on m4/3 vs FF.
@@sealand000 “total light gathered” is not a thing except in Tony’s mind. Exposure doesn’t change based on sensor size. Aperture doesn’t change based on sensor size. It’s so bizarre that he says this stuff, and what’s worse is his million followers are now believing this nonsense.
I have a GH4 with Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens (Nikon mount) and a Metabones XL SpeedBooster 0.64x (Nikon mount). I lose all auto focus capabilities with this SpeedBooster. Does any know why Metabones hasn't come out with a version for Nikon that supports auto focus? They have it for Canon and other brands but not Nikon. Why?
Excellent video! I'm watching this in 2021 and the cost/benefit considerations are really good. Does the stabilization and focus point regarding MFTs still apply? Thanks!
My favorite lens is mZuiko 17mm/1.8. Since I have it, I stopped to use Panasonic 20mm/1.7, because mZuiko is faster (and quieter). Second is 75mm/1.8, which I usually use for indoor sport shooting (table tennis).
Hello tony, I’m an owner of an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III & I’m not exactly sure which lens I should be looking for to do portrait style/fashion styled photography. I also seek to have full body shots with the lens you recommend to me. So if you could get back to me with some recommended options I’d truly appreciate it.
SO you're saying that on a G7 I shouldn't try to use old canon FD lenses with something such as dumb adapters but it's going to work fine with adapters such as Roxsen Focal Reducer aka Speed Booster, the metabones etc?
Hi Tony, again what a brilliant review ! I just have a quick question. Im having trouble to decide which body should I buy between emd5 ii, emd10 ii, gx8 and gx85. I would like to hear from your experience which one of these cameras has the best AF among them ? Thank you for your respond.
I get why the field of view is different on the smaller sensors with the crop factor , but why is the aperture equivalent different? Hope that's not confusing.
Whoops... You are so wrong! I have great sharpness with my full frame Nikkor legacy manual focus lenses on my GX85! And the RAW megapixel count is the same in post as the M43 lenses. (Why is that?) My 55mm Nikkor is still 55mm on M43. Plus it is extremely sharp! All of my Nikon legacies are sharper than any pro m43s. I have tested and pixel peeped to see it. They do take some time to focus, but it takes practice. Please don't mislead people on this. These prime lenses are cheaper and much better built than the Pannys and Olys. By the way the Oly 12-40 F2.8 is very sharp!
⭐ Our fave lenses for these cameras: ⭐
* 20mm f/1.7 on Amazon help.tc/o20
* 30mm f/2.8 on Amazon help.tc/s30
* 12-35mm f/2.8 on Amazon help.tc/p35
* 12-40mm f/2.8 on Amazon help.tc/o40
* 45mm f/1.8 on Amazon help.tc/o45
* 75mm f/1.8 on Amazon help.tc/o75
* 14-140mm f/3.5-f/5.6 on Amazon help.tc/p140
* 14-140mm (Olympus) on Amazon help.tc/o140
* 40-150mm f/2.8 on Amazon help.tc/o150
* 85mm f/1.4 on Amazon help.tc/r85
* 18-35mm f/1.8 on Amazon help.tc/s35
Hmm. Once you factor in the speed booster price, it might be smarter just to get the better camera body/format, that 'natively' fits the desired lens?
I was looking to get the GX85 as my "starter rig" and get the best 1 to 5 x "fast" zoom lens. Looks like Sigma is the way to go if you care about Quality.
My specific (amateur) use case is getting good shots of The Young Children when at school awards/performances.
You are often 15-20 meters away from stage (crammed up back with other parents) so no chance to use a Prime up close, and in poor/challenging light.
The a6500 with the Sigma looks like a 'smarter' option?
I'm a geek, so fiddling around with a challenging menu system, fiddly buttons and a useless daylight screen doesn't scare me, if the trade off is great IQ.
Better order your book then.
Mmmmmm affiliate links money nom nom nom xD
how does the metabones .71 and sigma work/perform on the gh3? Does the metabones fit properly? would you recommend it?
can 20mm f/1.7 compare to 25mm f/1:2.8 Olympus? im using omd em5. just beginner here, watching your videos really helps
For anyone watching this video in 2020 please keep in mind that both Panasonic and Olympus have made giant steps in lens offering since this video was published. My point being that unless you have an on-hand supply of high quality APS-C or Full Frame lens you want to use on you Micro Four Thirds bodies, it makes no sense to buy these lens and these expensive adapters when native PRO MFT lens are available for less money these days.
Perhaps this has been pointed out elsewhere in the comments (I stopped reading after a few pages) but that "rattle" in the Sigma lens is completely normal, and is made by the un - energized internal stepper motor. Connect it to the camera and turn on the power and the energized motor moves in to a ready state. For someone who supposedly knows a lot about lenses I am somewhat surprised that you are not familiar with the use of stepper motors in Sigma lenses. If I owned Sigma you would be hearing from me.
I, too, disagree about the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 pro lens. It is very sharp, focuses very closely, is able to handle shooting in the rain, has low aberrations, low distortion, and is a nice size and weight.
Remember, the reviewer's experience is limited to the ONE sample he owns.
Hi Darell...so you thin k that the 12-40 worth the price? i have a 12-32 from panasonic on my em1 mark 2, i ordered a 12-40 cause a lot of people sya it's a very good and sharp lense...i'm starting to think that maybe i didn't really need to put money in a 12-40 and maybe put it in fix focal...for now i have oly 45mm 1.8 and oly 40-150mm... what do you think? the 12-40 i ordered it for 550€ new (sale)...woth keep it or cancell the order (not sent yet)???
Happy to see a video on adapting lenses to mirrorless bodies. It's how I shoot my apsc body 99% of the time. Plus the fun of collecting vintage primes (exclusively locally in my case), has added another dimension to my enjoyment of the overall hobby.
I hope that this video will help others discover a world of lens possibilities and that they'll click through your link to buy they're adapters.
Great video, Tony. I agree that the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 is costly, but it is the lens that is on my camera 90% of the time and that is because it is not only fast, but the focus ring allows me to set it when I pull back the clutch. This is a very important feature for me because I do a lot of low light photos. I bought mine used for half the price - that's the way to get around that obstacle.
Genuinely expert advice about exactly the equipment I use. So valuable! Really appreciate your skill set and ability to separate the wheat from the chaff in the complex world of photography.
In 2018 when high-end bodies are equipped with IBIS and superior AF, these lenses have become more serious contenders to their DSLR counterparts.
Hello. Just thought I would weigh in on Tony's comment about the Olympus 12-40. I have the 12-40 and a Panasonic G85.
I also have a Canon 6D + 24-105L.
My Olympus 12-40 is WAY sharper in the center and into the corners at all comparable focal lengths compared to my 24-105L. And even when I stop the 24-105L down to f/5.6 to match the Olympus, the 12-40 is still sharper (the 24-105L catches up a little bit, but not enough to quite match the 12-40).
I have sold my 6D and am in the process of selling the 24-105L, I am all in with the M4/3 system.
if you have troubles focusing on the eye(s) just use the eye detection feature, select your preferred eye to focus on and forget about it - it works better than about anything a DSLR is capable of...
Just wanted to say that this was the most informative, clear and in-depth coverage of this subject that I have ever seen. Thank you so much for sharing your wisdom and experience, and doing such a well presented video in a totally humble and to the point fashion made it a pleasure to watch. You have an office full of new subscribers here-- thanks again!
I appreciate that Tony addresses the auto-focusing problems (8:58) with MFT here. For awhile I thought I was doing something wrong or had a defective camera, but I eventually figured out that it was the gear, with both my Panasonic G6 and GX-7 bodies having the same issue. I've found that the "pinpoint focus" setting, with the camera electronically zooming in on the subject, can be helpful with this in many situations.
Hey Tony, Great Video, this what makes the internet so special. I am just getting into photography. Instead of me finding out the hard way with money this video help me to not make mistakes and take your advice and move forward. Keep the hard work up.
thanks for this video. as a beginner thinking about getting the panasonic lumix G7 I learned a lot about lenses in 30 minutes AND that there is a lot more to learn to know what you're doing
Tony, your Sigma 30mm 2.8 is the mk 1 version. It has been replaced by the new Art Series in 19mm, 30mm and 60mm 2.8 versions. When you shake the lenses you will here something clunking around loosely inside. This is floating lens element. The rattle will disappear when you turn the camera on and activate the lens.
+vincedelapena: It's not a bug, it's a feature! This sound is supposed to happen.
Nando, the rattle is not a feature. It is not a selling point. It is just the loose element floating/banging around prior to the camera turning on. Once the camera has been turned on and there is power in the lens, the rattling will stop.
Thanks Tony, I'm new to Micro four thirds and I really appreciate your informative videos and you sharing your knowledge.
+richdt Glad to help!
Crop doesn’t change light gathering, just DOF. The lens is still a 1.7 in terms of light gathering
Check sdp.io/crop for more information.
Great summary! I looked at the 20/1.7, but decided the middleground 40mm equivalent was still a little awkward for me (but the size and IQ are terrific). However, I subsequently found a used copy of the Panasonic/Leica 15mm/1.7, and I'm totally in love with it as a walk-around and it is almost always my single lens or one of two (with the 45, 75, or 60 macro as a second). While 35mm equivalent was never comfortable for me, somehow 30mm equivalent works well and is possibly even more comfortable than my standard 28mm workhorse on full frame. The 15/1.7 is technically better than any I've ever used on any format (well, OK, along with the 75/1.8). It is the first lens that exhibits zero CA that I can spot (well sub-pixel level @ 16 Mpixels). It also exhibits terrific subjective "microcontrast" or whatever you want to call it. Almost no additional sharpening or structure needs to be added. Anyway, thanks for the review.
+Douglas Knisely - Good points about the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7. It's technically excellent and creates a great look - color, contrast, sharpness, blur, etc. The lens is small and doesn't have overwhelming specs so it tends to be underrated. With regular use it becomes clear the PL 15mm is a unique lens.
I gotta say, I absolutely love your channel. You two have great personalities, always make me laugh, and continue to inspire me. Keep up the great work!
+Courtland Dastyck You will be seeing my portfolio in the future hopefully =D
Excellent, informative video: serious and calm and well-researched.
So incredibly informative. At the same time in-depth and clear.
Keep up the excellent work.
The 45mm is outstanding for photography. I love the focal length for general composition. Shoot at f4.0 for that ultra sharp focus.
You just opened my eyes to something I hadnt thought about fully. I have an old FD zoom lens. Now, I know the lenses from the old manual days arent as sharp, generally. And they are full frame and I have an aps-c Sony A6000. It's still pretty sharp for what it is....but I just realized that if I can get a speedbooster , I can take advantage of the full capability of that lens. I know some people love using them on aps-c because the old lenses are soft in the corners, but taking advantage of all the light gathering with the speedbooster is a plus too.
+The Post Color Blog (Dave's Tuts) Old lenses are awesomo (just dont tell anyone) ;)
+The Post Color Blog (Dave's Tuts) I play with many manual focus lenses ..Yes a lot of old zooms are very average may be most.. but there are gems about ..my minolta MD35-70 f3.5 macro out resolves my 16mp sony nex.. i have 4 or 5 MF zooms that are very good .i probably try 30 to find them .but i am a prime man most of the time
+david appleton i have loads os 1.4s and they all give me extreme sharpness
I have both the 12-40 and 40-150. The 12-40 is super sharp, fast and made my EM-5 an absolute joy to use. The 40-150 F2.8 is probably 1/3 the size of an equivalent F2.8 lens on DSLRs, half the the price and focuses super fast. In fact it has no equivalent for size and capability.
Ah but Tony is one of these people who believes that it’s not really an f/2.8 lens, but rather an f/5.6 lens masquerading as one.😂
I guess his light meters all have a setting for sensor size on them? I’ve never seen one that does.
I honestly can't believe that a professional photographer like you doesn't get that an F2.8 on a full-frame camera is effectively the same as an F2.8 on a micro four-thirds body.
Exactly. He fell for the dpreview full frame propaganda.
f/2.8 on mft equals f/2.8 on “full frame”, for exposure. If it didn’t, your hand held light meter would have a sensor size setting.
He clarifies a couple of times that he's referring to depth of field and 'total light gathering capability, not your settings', ie lens and sensor light gathering capability combined. How does that change if the settings don't change? He eludes to it in the crop factor section of the video - f stop numbers refer to the total amount of light gathered per square inch, so an f2.8 m43 lens is sending 1/4 of the light to the m43 sensor as an f2.8 full frame lens on a full frame body, but the light per square inch is the same. Then the smaller sensor compensates by cranking up the gain so its usually more noisy at a given iso than a full frame, although it doesn't always translate exactly to a 2 stop difference, just roughly 2 stops. I love M43 btw, just made the switch to a Panasonic G85 after 10 years with a Canon APSC DSLR. Love the size and weight benefits, the sensor stabilization + lens stabilization combined, and quality video to top it off (not to mention the awesome price on these). I hope Panasonic and OM system keep pushing the technology forward on this format.
This was a really great and informative video. I've been having issues using some of my full-frame Nikon lenses and felt like I just could not get a sharp image out of them. The explanation here makes perfect sense when you calculate the equivalent pixel density of the MFT sensors vs the Full-frame glass. When my G7 gets back from warranty I think I'm going to pickup a speed booster and see what kind of improvement I see with both my DX and FX lenses. One thing you mention a few times in this video though is your studio setup and using GH2s for various angles. This is something that is absolutely killing me trying to film for my RUclips channel. The FoV when shooting 4K on my G7 even with the 14mm kit lens requires me to put my camera against the far wall just to get in frame. I'm filming in an ~10ft wide space and I have to do gymnastics propping my tripod in weird ways to get the shots I want. Often times I can't even get them. I decided to give the olympus 9mm a shot and while I can get more of the scene I want in frame the distortion is just too much. Do you have any videos which show the layout of your studio for these videos? I'm interested to see how far back your cameras are or if you have any other tips for trying to shoot MFT in small spaces. I know there's just the limits of physics but it's really causing me some issues. One thing I can't control is how wide the walls of my garage are!
Wow. Every video of yours is like a master class.
Saying an f/2.8 mft lens “gathers the same total light as a full frame f/5.6 lens” is meaningless because it only has to project an image circle onto the much smaller mft sensor. The last time I checked there is no setting for sensor size on any handheld light meter.
To sum up: an f/2.8 lens for mft really is f/2.8 for exposure, but is f/5.6 for equivalent depth of field in 35mm terms.
Dear Tony, I like your videos a lot. Only, I wonder how it is possible that the entire world of Olympus MFT users is very, very enthusiastic about the 12-40 "PRO" lens, whereas, in your opinion it is more like a kitlens with kitlens quality. I don't understand that.
I've talked to quite a few pros who experimented with MFT and had the same feelings about those lenses... but they didn't keep shooting with MFT. So by sampling MFT users, you're talking only to people who love the system. We've done side-by-side tests, but you can also look up sharpness tests on DxOMark if you want an outside opinion.
@@TonyAndChelsea (or anyone else)
Disclaimer: I don't own any of these cameras or lenses and probably will ever own one that's half, the cheapest one mentioned here. So, no. I can't prove or show that A is better than B.
I just like to know and understand a bit of everything and to crunch some numbers while I search for information.
I'll just use DxOMark "data" since it was the source mentioned to be checked
Can you Tony or anyone explain how - according to DxOMark- the same lens in 2 different FF camera bodies has 2 different scores?
The sharpest lens on DxOmark database is the Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM Art on a Nikon D800E
Now take that same lens and put it on a Nikon D800 body and see the difference.
Ok... It might have been a typo while publishing the numbers. So take the same lens and put it on a D610 and D750 and see how the numbers are different.
- On a D610 it has a score of 44 with a sharpness of 22 P-Mpix
- On a D750 it has a score of 45 with a sharpness of 24 P-Mpix
- On a D800E or a D810 the sharpness jumps to... 36 P-Mpix
I'm already hearing someone typing "D810 is a 36.3 Megapixel camera while the D750 is just a 24.3 Megapixel body.". Yeap... but both D610 and D750 are 24.3 Megapixels cameras.
Does the same lens change it's sharpness by "walking" a couple feet to the next body?
If I wait and buy a future 94.2 Megapixel FF body will that lens become sharper than a scalpel or an obsidian knife? Let's just hope Sigma will be able to make that lens for a FF 645 body. It will be sharper than a laser cutter or a plasma torch :)
I don't know about everyone else but when I compare A with B, I like to compare apples with apples and not apples with potatoes just because they might have the same shape so, let's compare some lenses attached to a similar X Megapixel camera body.
- Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM from 2010: US$ 669 (for a APS-C 1.5x crop factor body)
- Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 PRO launched in 2013: US$ 1000
- Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. launched in 2012: US$ 1129
- Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art launched 2017: US$ 1300
- Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR launched in 2015: US$
2400
- Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM launched in 2012: US$ 2299
and put them all in "apples to apples". How about 2016 harvested apples?
- Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II = 20.4 Megapixel MFT (US$ 2000)
- Nikon D500 = 20.9 Megapixel APS-C (US$ 2000)
- Canon EOS-1D X Mark II = 20.2 Megapixel FF (US$ 6000)
- Nikon D5 = 20.8 Megapixel FF (US$ 6500)
Nikon D500 + Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM * = 13 P-Mpix (US$ 2669 total)
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + Olympous 12-40mm F2.8 PRO = 12 P-Mpix (US$ 3000 total)
Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 = 12 P-Mpix (US$ 3129 total)
Nikon D500 + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art ** = 10 P-Mpix (US$ 3300 total)
Nikon D500 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR ** = 9 P-Mpix (US$ 4400 total)
Canon EOS-1D X Mark II + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Art = 17 P-Mpix (US$ 7300 total)
Nikon D5 + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art = 15 (US$ 7800 total)
Canon EOS-1D X Mark II + EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM = 16 P-Mpix
(US$ 8299 total)
Nikon D5 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR = 13 (US$ 8900)
* With 1.5x crop factor becomes 25.5-75?
** Due to 1.5x crop factor this lens becomes a 36-105?
Or I got this part wrong??
And did they get a lemon with that Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR or are all they lemons??
Everyone's pockets have their own depth (mine are as shallow as a 5 gallon water bottle filled with just 1 inch of water) and everyone have their wants, likes and needs but I wonder if the diference between DoF and a few more P-Mpix (how is it measured btw? I couldn't find a "formula" ) worth a diference of US$ 4300 or around US$ 4600 (diference between a D500 + 17-50 and a 1D X + Sigma 24-70) or even more if we take the Nikon D5
.
Btw @Tony & Chelsea Northrup DxOMark doesn't show data for the Olympus E-M5 Mark II or for the Panasonic GH4 but they do regarding the original E-M5 and the GH3.
Olympus E-M5:
- Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched in 2012: US$ 1129) = 10 P-Mpix
- Panasonic 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched 2013: US$ 920) = 7 P-Mpix
- Panasonic 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 ASPH (launched back in 2009: US$ 850) = 5 P-Mpix
Panasonic GH3:
- Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched in 2012: US$ 1129) = 9 P-Mpix
- Panasonic 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched 2013: US$ 920) = 6 P-Mpix
- Panasonic 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 ASPH (launched back in 2009: US$ 850) = 5 P-Mpix
Here I can only figure 2 scenarios: or you (and probably everyone else) has to do a harder pixel peeping or DxOMark needs to re-test every single lens and camera body possible with a new "industry standard".
The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art although cheaper (US$799), yes according to DxOMark it seems to be sharper than the Panasonic 12-35 or the Olympus 12-40 which are similar in focus length if you take the crop factor in consideration (no test yet for the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4 which was the perfect "contender")". Sharper but not by much. Just by 1 or 2 P-Mpix (whatever that percentual value is and means).
Speaking of which... hasn't DxOMark data been contested in the past by some people who knows about optics?
@@carlosbarradas7425 dxomark is a bunch of pseudoscience nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with photography. Period.
If Tony can’t take great photos with the 12-40 and mft, that’s on him not the gear. I’ve shot events with it on my EM5iii, fantastic results.
Can you do an updated review of these systems and lenses? I appreciate your reviews.
.
I wonder if your example of the M.Zuiko 12-40 f/2.8 Pro (24-80mm full-frame equivalent on m43) is not somehow flawed. I own this lens and find it to be tack sharp even wide open. Given that I also own a number of Canon lenses, I do have other glass to compare it to. Take for example Canon's EF 17-40 F/4.0 L (27.2-64mm full-frame equivalent on APS-C). There is nothing particularly wrong with that lens, but the Olympus is much better in almost every way, in my opinion. In fact, I would say that the M.Zuiko 12-40 is at least as sharp, or sharper, than any of my Canon lenses, with the possible exception of the EF 400mm f/5.6L, which is a gorgeously crisp, though dated and heavy, telephoto. I would say the same for the M.Zuiko 7-14mm f/2.8 Pro - a superb performer in terms of sharpness, contrast and detail in my experience. I don't mean to sound like I'm picking on Canon here, because that company produces very solid and reliable cameras and lenses, I just happen to think that the Olympus Pro series lenses are really very very good optics.
Good to know that the first gen 20mm f/1.7 tested slightly sharper, saved money on my GX7 by getting the body only and keeping my old 20mm. The only thing it loses out to the newer lenses on is AF speed, but it doesn't really need it in most cases.
I have to disagree with you where focusing is concerned on M43. I have an EM1 and friends with 70D's and 5DM2's are amazed by how quickly the EM1 locks focus with no hunting. There are many examples online which shows how quickly and spot on the focusing system in the EM1 is or I could post examples of my own. I don't understand how such an experienced photographer as yourself ends up with such blurry out of focus images from M43.
ChriSmith Everything depends on your point of reference. If you compare the E-M1 to the 70D, which is a third of the price, then focus is great. Of you compare to the D500, then the E-M1 won't hold up.
I've put my EM-1 Mk.2 against my friend's D500 at a dirt bike race ..... Not much of a difference, and I'd rather have the EM-1's pre-burst and higher overall burst rate. M4/3 has come an incredibly long way since the G1/EP1 days
Tony, I'm somewhat bewildered about your comments of using FF lens on a MFT body. You mentioned the sharpness will not be as good as if it were on a FF camera. After all, aren't the adapters built to give you the same focal plane distance as a FF? I can understand the crop factor being half of the FF camera but how does this effect sharpness? Currently I use a dumb adapter and a Metabones Speed Booster Ultra on my E-M1 with Canon EF and FD lenses and find the image quality quite good. BTW the new software release (V1.82) from Metabones has made their adapter quite nice and the AF is fast. Coupled with the Phase detection on the E-M1 I am very pleased with it. The V1.8 introduced this feature to the Olympus while the V1.82 increased it stability. Not sure what's more stable but, that is all the text Metabones provided on the site.
Thanks for all you good advise!
Hey Tony... I was aware of the MetaBones Speedbooster since it's was first released. Almost bought one a couple of times for the GH4, but they just keep improving it! My kit is Nikon and I've been waiting for MetaBones to release an AF Speedbooster for a MFT to Nikon lenses as they have with Cannon.
I'm glad you explained the different crop factors and proper MFT Speedbooster for the Sigma 18-35mm F1.4 as I could have easily ordered and bought the wrong one as this is the next Lens I will own.
Thanks for your time on this great indepth review :)
I keep coming back to this video. So useful!
There is youtube video shot with GH5 and Olympus 40-150 and it looks amazing. It's quite interesting what you said about the lens and focusing. To me it looks like GH5's best lens for sports. Now I'm not so sure...
Once again epic review! Covering all the lenses you've saved me watching 3 or 4 videos! Keep on crushing! p.s. the 20mm f1.7 Panasonic looks amazing, thank you!
That 75/1.8 always did look tasty.
I could see an Olympus with a few of the primes as being a really nice travel kit. Delightfully small.
f2.8 is f2.8, regardless of full-frame, APS-C, or Micro 4/3. The depth of field is shallower, yes, but the amount of light hitting the sensor is the same. f2.8 on a micro 4/3 body doesn't equate to f5.6 in terms of how much light is allowed to hit the sensor.
@@nerdMike assuming the same sensor tech and pixel pitch, if you cropped the FF photo to match the mft photo, you would see the exact same noise.
I use an E-M1 and would add two more lenses to your favorites: the Lumix/Leica 25 mm f1.4, and the Tamron 14-150 f3.5-5.8 (for walking around).
The Olympus 17mm f1.8, 25mm f1.8 and Panasonic 15mm f1.7 & 25mm f1.4 are awesome walk around lenses (Great for Street Photography)
Awesome vid Tony! Put out more content!!! You and Chelsea are so amazing and it is evident how much work is put into just a small video, but more content=more views. Love you guys though; you're the only reason I got into photography (Been photographing for ~3 months: Nikon d7200 w/Sigma 18-35 f/1.8).
You guys are the best!
+Tom Dwyer Thanks, Tom! We're cranking out as much as we can over here :).
The equivalent aperture is kind of a killer of this system for me. I'm glad that you mention that with every lens you talk about. No one else would even mention the difference.
The aperture doesn’t change because of the sensor size. Only for depth of field.
great video - yes the Oly 45m F1.8 is a gem - but now with the Pani 42.5 F1.7 with IS is even sharper and better and yes a bit more but still one heck of a nice little lens - and yes I likewise love the Oly 75mm - just awesome - and very nice backed - I do have the EM5 and Em1 but now just love using my GX8 so the 75mm is on their most of the time - I need to upgrade my 140-140mm Pani as my older version is to heavy :) new so much lighter - I picked the Pani 35-100mm F2.8 over the Oly, not drastically better but heavier and no IS - The Pani so light - I do like my Pani 7-14mm F4 for wide angle shots - but now Oly out with a 7-14mm F2.8 - might upgrade later
your videos are always top notch video and sound -
Nn
I use a Konica Hexanon 35mm 2.8 on a Gh4 which is amazingly good. All metal solid construction with a long focusing ring makes it easy to focus without drifting. Very sharp with shallow dof and it cost me £50 with a 35-70 Hexanon, a Konica film body and case thrown in.
Add the Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8 to your list. Amazing lens!
Interesting to see different opinion on the 30mm Sigma 2.8 prime. I like that lens and the range (althou taken I have the aps-c e-mout version on 6300, so it's wider), but for the image quality it's very good. Also the rattling noise I think it has to do with the focusing motor. Once the lens is on the body and turned on, the noise disappears.
I have the Sigma 19mm and 30mm primes - the third in the series being the 30mm - and these are both insanely sharp, even wide open. This is why I was a bit surprised to hear you say your 30mm isn't very sharp. Maybe you just have a bad one. Further to your comments about use of full frame lenses on M43, in my experience, modern glass tends to be more successful in this respect, possibly due to tighter manufacturing tolerances these days.
One of the big advantages of native lenses is the camera bodies can correct for things like Chromatic Aberration. How is the focus speed on your Sigma lenses?
Fast!
Thanks for the m4/3 love Tony! Surprised you don't find the Oly 12-40mm f2.8 sharp, I found it much sharper than the slower kit zooms when I upgraded. However, you can only speak as you find! Another sharp bargain is the Sigma 60mm f2.8, not that fast but very very sharp. I await the subsequent equivalence debates on DPR with interest... ;^)
Thanks for the video. I am new to MFT and really appreciate the lesson. It has helped a lot. Thanks for all the hard work you put into the class.
Tony, thanks for the great video! Q: From 9min-10min you discuss missing the focus on the eyes often. Im so glad to hear you mention this as this happens to me more times than I would prefer and it is very frustrating to say the least. Im on the EM1 and it seems to happen more on the Oly 25 and 45 than on the 75. Even at a fast shutter speed with good technic, it still happens. Is there a video you have produced that goes into why this is and/or do you have any suggestions of how to curb this? Thanks for the time you put into all of this.
Thanks for a great overview on the micro for thirds lenses and other option. just the information I have been after.
+Ian Cassanova
Then you are out of luck since at least half the information in this video is unreliable. For example saying that the 12-40 Pro or the 12-35 Pana aren't that sharp is just false, period. It seems that Tony has just too much work to properly explore the potential of a system that he considers at best as worthy of amateur photography.
Now you have no reason to believe me over him. Just research the photos captured with m4/3 and make your own mind.
+Jean Montambeault
Well he is saying that they are not sharper then the 14-140mm. Which is excellent for a lens with that zoom range. Stopped down to F5.6 they're a bit sharper probably but that would be pixelpeeping range. While the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a 24mp Nikon D5500 would be night and day differens.
I think the argument about comparing it to fullframe prices isn't really that fair. They can be build to half the tolerances and still be twice as good due to the 4x larger sensor.
But you have to pay a LOT of money for that fullframe sensor. As a Gx7 owner i have to say that primes are the way to go in m43. The 20mm and 45 F1.8/42.5 F1.7(new pana). And i like the 14mm not becouse it's excellent but at that price and you can just put it away pretty much anywhere.
I've seen people use EM-1 in sport environments though. And they did work very well 9 fps with good continuous AF is nothing short of great. But the users said they would never attempt to use it in dim conditions with the same demanding conditions.
The Phase detect points just don't work in low light which translates to fails reliably in that case.
+Jean Montambeault As +1barnet1 mentioned, I was discussing their sharpness relative to the more versatile and less expensive 14-140. Looking at the sharpness profiles at DxOMark, I can see that the shorter zooms are a hair sharper in their overlapping range.
At the same time, we had done side-by-side testing and hadn't noticed any sharpness difference. So, it's there, but it wasn't enough for us to detect. DxOMark rates the 12-35 and 12-40 at 9 perceptual megapixels... which is the same as the $200 Canon 18-55... which goes for $50 used.
And that's really my problem with those two lenses; they're so expensive that unless you really need to be in the MFT world, your money would be better spent on a different system. How can I possibly recommend them over the Sigma 18-35, which is more than a stop faster, $200 cheaper, and pulls 18 perceptual megapixels? It's *twice* as sharp, which is a massive leap.
Re: "It seems that Tony has just too much work to properly explore the potential of a system that he considers at best as worthy of amateur photography."
Please don't put words in my mouth. We've used the system for our professional videos for a couple of years now, and I even specifically suggested it for professional product photography. I wouldn't shoot a football game or a wedding with it, though.
You can't argue that I haven't properly explored the system--we own and use more bodies and lenses than almost anyone else, and I've done a deep analysis of almost all of it.
+Tony Northrup
Let's start again on a better foot: I bought and read three of your books. I respect your expertise but I've been raised to keep a critical eye on everything. I do not believe that you are that kind of stupid who needs to be right all the time so I expect that you won't get all offended.
I will leave the discussion at that. You make excellent points, as usual, but these need to be contrasted with the equally valid field experience of thousands of daily users who are not fanboys. You know, so many present m43 users come from a larger sensor format system; quite a few still own them; not so many are actually using them anymore. They use(d) the best lenses (myself Canon with Canon, the 20-70 f/2.8 II, best lens ever, and Sigma lenses, the 18-35 and the Art 35mm among them) and are at awe with the Pro line of Oly lenses overall capabilities to put these users in doubt. Now, I'd rather go out and shoot some rather than argue any further.
I still appreciate your scientific critical approach as a balance to my more intuitive view of things and I'll always keep abreast with the information that you put at our disposal.
Regards,
Jean
P.S. The 20mm f/1.7, which I use and love for street and flower shows is a really slow focuser.
The 75mm f/1.8 is all that you said but not infinitely so. IQ in the Pro line rivals most of the primes.
The information you gave about adapting lenses is of the greatest usefulness. The part about pixel density is crucial while often left out of the discussions around adapted lenses. However one doesn't adapt a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 or a Minolta Rokkor for any other reason than an irrational need for such a look. You can't fight that. ;)
@@TonyAndChelsea comparing mft to FF lenses is silly. They’re twice the size and weight, and usually twice the price for equivalent build and aperture. The Olympus and Panasonic 12-xx pro zooms are weather sealed and rugged great build quality, and on mft they produce phenomenal results… I don’t care what dxomark said 5 years ago. Those 18-55 kit lenses were cheap plastic junk. “Perceptual megapixels” has zero to do with photography. And not everyone wants to carry and pay for a “full frame” camera.
How about the 25 mm f/1.8 from Olympus in comparison to the 20 mm f/1.7, I mean is it a huge difference that makes you want to change?
great video always Tony - thanks
your video quality and sound is always tops
The 25mm F1.4 Panasonic is fantastic - also the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 with IS -
I see the 12-35mm F2.8 can now be had for $650-850 no problem - so a good value now - also the 35-100mm F2.8 - can be found for under $1000 -
Of course the Oly 75mm F1.8 is fantastic - but a limited focal length -
of course the 45mm F1.8 is a no brainer - just find the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.7 with IS to be just as sharp and it has IS and is same size -
what a difference in prices buying M43 lenses vs Sony FE mount :)
Have you used the Panasonic 42.5mm F1.2 ? just a pleasure to use - so sharp
My compact system is the E-M1. I'm using OLY 4/3 DSLR lenses with an adapter. The 12-60 f2.8, 50-200 f2.8 and 50 f2.8 macro are sharper with greater range and better build quality than the m4/3 equivalent.
I've been looking into going mirrorless, and this was one of my major questions. Particularly the effect on AF. How is it?
With the EM-1 I can't tell the difference between my adapted lenses and native 4/3. With the new EM-1 MkII focusing is supposed to be much faster but I'm in no mood to spend $2k on a m4/3 body.
With four thirds lenses and using an adapter you can't use continuous autofocus and the lenses can also unbalance the camera somewhat.
True, but at 1/3 the price I can live with that.
I did get an EM-1; it's been great. With the Olympus Adapter. Certain lenses that I've seen listed as "won't work" (for AF) work fine - in fact, they work great! As for the continuous AF with 4/3 lenses - that also works. Either a software update fixed that or it's just a rumor also.
Hi Tony. I own this lens and couple it with my Olympus EM1 mk2. I have never had an issue with sharpness with this lens. Why do you appear to bag MFT gear? How many countless people have converted from FF to MFT? I do not see too many stories of the reverse. Please Tony, if you wish to review an item could you please show less bias.
Not many turned to MFT. Only few who couldn't bear the FF weight and didn't need FF performance anymore, those who don't shoot sports and don't need shoot above 1600 iso.
The market is captured by inexpensive Apsc cameras and cheap FF cameras.
@@DeepteshLovesTECH I don't agree
The 20mm f1.7 Panasonic has been my favorite lens for years. Though I just picked up the new Rokinon 12mm f2 and it is amazing.
Ever since I got the 20mm f1.7 it has been my glass of choice for most situations except for portrait, where I stick to the oly 45mm f 1.8, but recently I've been tempted to buy a Samyang 12mm f2, and you just made me want it more.
Its great for landscapes or any time you like manual focus. The 20mm does a pretty good job with manual focus even though it is focus-by-wire, I just prefer actual manual focus on lenses like the 12mm f2.
For things like night photography I think the manual is best.
I'm one of those crazies that uses old FD lenses on my GX85 but they actually look amazing for video.
Crazies ?! The canon fds are awesome
I use them often!
What lenses do you have ?
@@A1Bokeh I've got the 50mm f1.4, the 1.8, the 135 2.8, the 28mm 2.8, 100-200 zoom, and a bunch of random other third parties (my favorite is the Sigma 28mm 2.8 mini wide)
I only say crazies because of what he said in the video. I love my FD lenses and I have them adapted to all the cameras I have.
@@briandipierro8865 nice I just sold the 50mm 1.4 ..tiny bit of regret lol I did a video on it i may get the 1.2, how does tha 1.8 compare to the 50mm 1.4? the 70-210 is super solid f4 which is meh but it has great images and sharp, I recently got the fd metabones and paired with the 28 its pretty dang sweeeeet I want to get that canon fd 24mm f2!
@@A1Bokeh I want the 50mm 1.2 some day! The 1.8 came with my Canon AE-1 and it's considerably sharper wide open than the 1.4 is. I've got two of them (one has a scratch on the rear element that shows up in bokeh orbs but the performance is still incredible. I don't like those old school 70-210's that seem to be everywhere, I have the Vivitar Series 1 version and it's great for macro shots but still incredibly soft. How well does the metabones adapter work? I may end up getting one for M43 since that's... What I've been using mostly now. The 24 f2 seems like it'd be so nice, I want something a little wider and it'd be perfect to get eventually.
@@briandipierro8865 Wonder how sharp the 1.8 would be at 1.8... i have the 135 2.5 and 70-210 and im selling the 135 i more like primes but i really enjoy that lens. I think the metabones works best with lenses that are a bit wider focal lengths so at 28 it becomes like a 20 and 24 i believe will be around 17 I really like it with the 28 the image still looks great and sharp I wouldnt really use it much on the longer focal lengths tried it on the 135 i wasnt really liking it ... I know man that 24mm! little expensive at f2 but it seems to be solid
19:45 Adapters if anyone was wondering
I show an aperture of f/1.1 with my Sigma 18-35mm lens wide open on my GH4. It works out to 26.5mm-51.5mm focal lengths with a .64 Metabones Speed Booster. A somewhat narrow zoom range. Testing against a 25mm f/1.4 prime, the same shot f/1.4 with the Sigma lens varies yields one camera at 1/5 of a second and the other at 1/6 of a second--both camera's see essentially the same light with similar ISO and white balance. I fail to see how crop factor has any effect on increasing aperture, as you stated. It was interesting the test the lens, but I prefer my Pan/Leica primes, and find the auto-focus loud on the Sigma (Canon Mount), and manual focus difficult for rapidly moving subjects at wide apertures.
Conrad Senior you might want to look into the newer Panasonic 12-60 also. I haven't used it and I know nothing about it but you might want to consider
absolutely amazing information mate , thank you !!!
Right at the top of the video, you say that it's fine to use the Panasonic stabilized lens on the Olympus stabilized body and that performance is improved through use of the stabilized lens. I'd always been told to turn off the stabilization of the Panasonic lens on the Olympus, as failure to do so would screw up both stabilization systems and the results would be rubbish. What's the scoop?
I haven't ever gotten into 4/3's but I would take it for video. For photography, I really enjoy the full frame. It would be really cool if technology would figure out a way to mimic the full frame shallow depth of field with smaller sensors. Something other than the speed booster. As far as mimicking the amount of light, it seems ISO technology keeps getting better and better. I have a 1" sensor in my Sony 4k AX100 for video and it does amazing in low light, it has a BSI sensor and then they probably have all types of other wizardry.
Thanks Tony, great to see more m43 material on your channel! I wonder if besides the speedbooster + sigma 18-35 there are other good combinations for videography. Any tips?
hmmmmm so 12-40 is sharp as kit lens ???? in what parallel universe ??
12-40 Pro is sharp as any prime lens ( 12 F/2.0, 20 f/1.7, 25 f/1.8, 45 f/1.8 ) and is about 3-4x sharper than 12-50 or 14-42 but as always Tony ( i like you videos even got your book but ) get how sharp is lens by looking at DXO mark and as 4/3 got small sensor the results will be low and 12-40 got 9mpix but superduperultra sharp 75 1.8 got 11mpix and 14-42 got 5mp and 12-50 4mp
and 40-150 PRO was as sharp as 75 ( on 75mm ) on every test they made so i would also like to go to FF to D750 from E-M1 12-40, 40-150 but as much picture I look from FF none is as tack sharp as a lot of them from E-M1 and PRO zooms...
I support your point. The 12-40 pro really is waaaay superior to any kit lens in every aspect except for its price tag. It surprises me to hear this from Tony, who frequently refers to the DxoMark tests and scores to compare gear.
I recently bought the lumix 25mm 1.7 and the 35-100mm 2.8
Look into the 7-14mm zoom. It's a very useful lens.
I enjoy watching your videos re-Micro 4/3, I'm no professional but I have stumbled across the M4/3 platform, and for what I do it suits me well....I still have a lot of learning to do though......but still can't help thinking does he actually think they're (sorta ok) ??
Tony, great video! Hypothetically, let's say I have no lenses and plan on purchasing the Panasonic LUMIX GH6. Which two lenses should I buy for video & wildlife photography? Thanks.
Had to come back to this video! I just got the g85 with the 12-60 and a zhigun crane .
I think you will love that setup Marcus. Congratulations and enjoy.
literally just did the same haha
marcus hawkins you think the kit lens is good enough or should I buy a 12-35 2.8? I was dead set on that lens until tony reminded me it's like a 5.6 lens
Ryan Thomas I would love to have the option to have more light . It's great outside and in controlled light situations but anything past 12mm inside is tough
i just purchased the g80 with 12-60mm and thinking to add 2 lenses . i totally agree with marcus hawkins . what would be a good set up for video and photography a swell ? i was thinking to add the 42.5mm f1.7 and i am thinking what else could help me that also doesn't break the bank
Tony, I have just graduated to owning my first interchangeable lens camera, the Panasonic Lumix GH3. I have the Lumix 12-35 zoom lens. My main interest is in shooting close-ups of falling water from a distance- mountain waterfalls in particular- I can't get physically close to these but I need to get extreme close-ups. Years ago I had some experience producing videos with the Sony VX1000 video camera using a wide angle lens to get those close-up water shots from a distance. What telephoto lens would you recommend for the GH3 to get up close with sparkling clarity?
I'm a novice with a Panasonic G85 looking for a 3rd, maybe 4th lens. Currently have the kit H-FS12060 12-60mm and H-FS45150 45-150mm lenses. My primary search is for one or two telephoto lenses that reach out further then the 150mm lens. The other limitation of the camera (micro four thirds) from my understanding is low light situations but from this video it sounds as though there are adapter and lens combinations that do a good job of overcoming that. I figured it was something I was just going to have to live with but if there's an economical solution to take some astro photography and similar photos I'd highly consider it. Any adapter / lens suggestions to overcome these limitations for the budget minded consumer would be greatly appreciated.
The weird rattle inside your Sigma 30/2.8 isn't a quality issue as such - it's how Sigma designed this entire series (19,30 and 60/2.8). Don't ask me why, but they all have floating elements which only stop rattling when powered up. And the ART versions of the 19 and 30 are the same as the originals internally. I found my 30mm a very sharp lens. The 60mm is better still.
Oh, I see someone explained the rattle to you four years ago. Oh well. I can't always be ahead of the curve...
Tony, I would ♡ to see an in-depth comparison between Olympus 12-40/2.8 vs Sigma 18-35/1.8 on Canon DSLR. I owned Canon 17-55/2.8 and I think Olympus is the sharper of the two.
I just purchased about $17,000 in full frame camera gear about a year ago but because of a long story short, a bad rear end car accident the Canon's and their lens are to heavy for me because that and 72 years of age.
I really have been looking into the OM 1 Mark II and lens for everything from bird photography to doing newspaper photos work from time to time. This would be amazing for mobility in so many ways.
What would be a good source for a good deal on trade-ins.
Hopefully, you can help.
I'm older, not done.
Sincerely
Julius Williams
What we care with Aperture is depth of field and brightness. Now if you take photo in FF camera and crop that picture to MFT size. Is there any difference with dof and exposure? No. Besides, Aperture is given by the focal length and the diameter of the entrance pupil (effective aperture).
+Taka's 4K lab The brightness does stay the same, but the image noise changes, and the depth of field changes with an equivalent field of view. If you're interested in learning more, visit sdp.io/crop.
+Tony Northrup I understand where you come from, and there is logic behind that. I give you that. But it is very misleading and confusing people as you can see here. That is my point. And noise cannot standardized. Again, if you take photo in FF camera and crop that picture to MFT size. Is there any difference with noise? No.
Wow. Thank you so much for going through all that. I just recently purchased a GH5 / .64 adapter to use with old full frame Nikkor lenses. This has been the best guid forward.. I think I made a good choice for video work. Curious if you know any downfalls with the camera? Thank you again for the great walk through.
Hello Tony. Thanks for the DxOmark video (had seen it already in the past). The problem is that all the new Olympus lenses from this year were not tested (8mm fish eye, 40-150 F2.8, 7-14 F2.8, new 14-140mm F4-F5.6 II, etc).
The 75-300 was tested and got very low scores for sharpness
+Ezra Koper Ah, yeah, it seems like DxOMark has just completely stopped lens testing... it's really too bad!
Thank you for your great video and explanation.
Thanks for the awesome video!!!
Does every micro four thirds lens compatible with my lumix gf7 micro four thirds camera?
Have a nice day 😊!!!
Nice videos ,Good information! I'm stumped on lens choices I have the gh 5 And invested in the medanones speedbooster and the sigma 18-35mm because of all the great reviews I've read. The benefits I noticed are bettter in low light and lil more boki , but is that worth the $1400 for the setup? I also have the Panasonic 12-35 with dual IS this lens goes on my zyhriun crane matter of fact this set up is why I bought the camera. I'm now getting a zoom, I already bought the tamron 70-200 vc g2 but I hear so many good things about the Panasonic 35-100 dual ISSo I might buy that too to do a review on this exact setup. If I like the Panasonic 35-100 then I see no need for the medanones and the sigma and I could just buy a 1.4 prime lens for the Low light comparison. I guess my question is should I go nAtive or medanones? Is the 70-200 full frame lens with medanones much better then the native Panasonic 35-100 with dual Is? The tameron 70-200 f2.8 with medanones would be 2.0 (full frame conversion would be f4.0) The Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 (full frame conversion would be f5.6)
Try out the eye detection focus on both the GX8 and GH4 to get sharp photos with a wide m43 prime
That's a bolt statement about the 75/1.8 vs fullframe. I think if you test this lens on de EM5-II with high-res mode versus the 5DsR + Sigma 150/2.8 macro at f/3.5 or the Zeiss 135/2 APO at f/3.5 the Fullframe combo would win. I know that the fullframe combo is much more expensive and bulkier, but it's about your statement.
The 4k mode with 2.3x doesn't change anything with respect to the normal 2x crop when comparing sharpness. Because it's also less megapixel and of course exactly the same pixeldensity (the sensor doesn't change). Another remark about the pixeldensity problem: you're using the sweet spot of the lens, so that makes things quite a bit better for fullframe lenses adapted to a aps-c or m4/3 body (the difference between these 2 isn't so big). Look at reviews of full frame lenses used on aps-c bodies and you'll see that those lenses keep up really well.
+UCreations We haven't tested it against the 5DS-R (because we did our tests before) but here's our test against the D810: ruclips.net/video/FlGffGBz8uQ/видео.html
It beats the D810 by a far bigger margin than the 5DS-R ever has. The key (I think) is that each of the resulting pixels has gathered red, blue, and green light, so each pixel is cleaner and more meaningful.
+Tony Northrup
I've seen that video. About cleaner: meh, the D810 has native iso64 vs native iso200 of the EM5-II, which you actually said in that video. BTW: what lenses did you use in that test? That's quite important in the discussion.
Helped sort this mess out a lot. Thank you.
I still can't find a use for this format though. I can almost hit your video specs using video equipment without (what seems to me) to be a real force fit of terrible still cameras into video.
I guess I take the old saw about image quality be the most important consideration. I will use cheaper video gear and keep waiting for Nikon to make me a 70-200 f2.8 and a 5X macro.
God i hope I live that long!
You can pick up a Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 mark I nowadays for about $600--a difference of $400 from the time this video was published--which is nearly at the same price point as the 14-140. Still a cautious recommendation?
Despite the video bizarrely saying that the Oly 40-150f2.8 is a bit pointless and maybe one should consider getting a FF camera instead, I did the opposite. I already have plenty of FF kit, but the main reasons I got an EM5II was to be able to use this amazing zoom lens. And this comes from someone who uses a 16-35mm for most of his work on a FF camera.
Being able to so very easily carry an equivalent to an 300mm f2.8 lens cannot be overestimated. I would never carry such a long and stupidly heavy FF lens around unless for a specific job, yet I used this as a casual walk around lens on my EM5II and have a Sony RX100 III to complement it for the 24-70mm range in my pocket. My FF Canons with similar coverage would be too heavy and bulky to even consider. I went for an enjoyable stroll over the moors last week getting photos of rutting deer without having to carry a tripod, backpack and being generally weighed down. Made the day out fun and not arduous.
The smaller equivalent aperture is also not a drawback at when so very little is in focus at the longest length.
+Jeremy Lawrence
"Being able to so very easily carry an equivalent to an 300mm f2.8 lens cannot be overestimated."
Correction: equivalent of 300mm *f5.6*.
+Jeremy Lawrence Heya, Jeremy. I don't want to get in the way of you enjoying the equipment you have, because that's the single most important factor to great photography. However, if you're interested in how the math works, we have intense amounts of detail and hours of video here: sdp.io/crop.
Somewhere in those videos there's even specific examples showing how the 40-150 and RX100 compare to full-frame equivalent gear.
The f2.8 is still f2.8 when it comes to exposure which is the important thing to get high shutter speeds whilst using a long lens, which is what people seem to continually forget. People get too obsessed with minimal DoF. It is not always required or appropriate
I actually mentioned the ADVANTAGE of the smaller equivalent aperture when using such a long lens.
Jeremy Lawrence
"The f2.8 is still f2.8 when it comes to exposure"
The camera adjusts exposure by boosting the light sensitivity. That's why your pictures are still nicely exposed. You'll notice more noise than if you had a true 300 f2.8 on a FF body, though. And, that's the whole point of doing the conversion: to give an idea of how the actual pictures will look.
Tony Northrup
You are completely missing the point by talking maths with regard to how useful such a lens can be. A classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees I'd say.
I actually studied optics at University as part of my Astronomy degree as it happens so have no problem with that side of things.
FF has its place and I use it a lot for work. But smaller sensors can be beneficial in other ways. Particularly if needing to travel light or be more discreet in what you are doing. The best camera is the one you have with you, so no matter how 'theoretically' better the Canon f2.8 is, the fact that with a body it will probably weigh more than an entire Olympus 16-450mm equivalent lens spread also with a couple of bodies body means it is very limited in other ways.
The best kit is the gear you have with you. If I'm shooting mountain bikers somewhere remote that I need to ride to, do I really want to have a backpack that weighs more than my bike does?
Hello. I'm a casual photography enthusiast. I've been enjoying your OM-D E-M videos because I've been thinking about getting one and your videos are very well done.
I'll probably choose the older E-M5 mark I, but I'm still looking for the best deals (read: cheapest) in terms of lenses, and it so happens I still have my father's old Yashica MC 28-80mm lens.
My question is 1) Is there an adapter to connect it to the OM-D, and if there is, 2) Since the lens has its own mechanical apperture dial, how do I set the OM-D itself so it doesn't conflict with the lens' setting? Thank you.
Next time you do a video about a lens for a full frame camera are you going to say how it is f/2.8 and that's going to behave like a f/5.6 on a medium format camera? If you use an external meter with your micro 4/3 camera and it tells you to set the aperture at 5.6, and you set it at 2.8 your image will be quite overexposed.
+Apreche As I mention in the video, crop factor does not change your camera settings nor the brightness of your photo. It changes your depth of field, your total light gathered, and the total image noise.
Medium format cameras have a crop factor of less than 1, like 0.7X, and the math works exactly the same.
The photography community has settled on 35mm as the standard for comparing lens performance, so that's why we use it. Even for medium format cameras, their performance (for focal length, aperture, and ISO) is scaled down to 35mm for the sake of comparison.
If you're interested in learning more, visit sdp.io/crop.
+Tony Northrup Saying "total light gathered" is just misleading. Some people will take that to mean the same f-stop will result in a 2-stop dimmer image on m4/3 vs FF.
@@sealand000 “total light gathered” is not a thing except in Tony’s mind. Exposure doesn’t change based on sensor size. Aperture doesn’t change based on sensor size. It’s so bizarre that he says this stuff, and what’s worse is his million followers are now believing this nonsense.
I have a GH4 with Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 lens (Nikon mount) and a Metabones XL SpeedBooster 0.64x (Nikon mount). I lose all auto focus capabilities with this SpeedBooster. Does any know why Metabones hasn't come out with a version for Nikon that supports auto focus? They have it for Canon and other brands but not Nikon. Why?
I wonder that, too. Maybe Nikon is harder to reverse-engineer... it's really hard to figure out all those lens communications.
Thank you for this video . Very much info I needed.
Excellent video! I'm watching this in 2021 and the cost/benefit considerations are really good. Does the stabilization and focus point regarding MFTs still apply? Thanks!
My favorite lens is mZuiko 17mm/1.8.
Since I have it, I stopped to use Panasonic 20mm/1.7, because mZuiko is faster (and quieter).
Second is 75mm/1.8, which I usually use for indoor sport shooting (table tennis).
Hello tony, I’m an owner of an Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III & I’m not exactly sure which lens I should be looking for to do portrait style/fashion styled photography. I also seek to have full body shots with the lens you recommend to me. So if you could get back to me with some recommended options I’d truly appreciate it.
SO you're saying that on a G7 I shouldn't try to use old canon FD lenses with something such as dumb adapters but it's going to work fine with adapters such as Roxsen Focal Reducer aka Speed Booster, the metabones etc?
Fantastic review great performance!!!!! Thanks a lot!!!
Hi Tony, again what a brilliant review ! I just have a quick question. Im having trouble to decide which body should I buy between emd5 ii, emd10 ii, gx8 and gx85. I would like to hear from your experience which one of these cameras has the best AF among them ? Thank you for your respond.
maybe an update is necessary.
also a proper test of the M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8...
I get why the field of view is different on the smaller sensors with the crop factor , but why is the aperture equivalent different? Hope that's not confusing.
It’s not. Tony’s wrong.
Whoops... You are so wrong! I have great sharpness with my full frame Nikkor legacy manual focus lenses on my GX85! And the RAW megapixel count is the same in post as the M43 lenses. (Why is that?) My 55mm Nikkor is still 55mm on M43. Plus it is extremely sharp! All of my Nikon legacies are sharper than any pro m43s. I have tested and pixel peeped to see it. They do take some time to focus, but it takes practice. Please don't mislead people on this. These prime lenses are cheaper and much better built than the Pannys and Olys. By the way the Oly 12-40 F2.8 is very sharp!
I know you aren't asking but I'd recommend having the background in focus