Yeah it's time to get my hands on the Sigma 18-35 and MB speedbooster, and start testing. Thanks

@vicharris The difference is that you only put one prime lens on your camera at a time. Nikkors are much lighter and much shorter. It's not a ginormous deal though especially seeing how the Sigma seems to be a super good looking lens.

So you would need a few primes to equal the Sigma. What's the difference? The sigma and the booster literally give you 5 or 6 prime focal lengths. I've been shooting with the BMPCC, speedbooster and the Sigma. It's really too hard to be beat right now.

I had the same idea as you Kokav, but mostly due to the new sigma 18-35. I have been shooting mostly with the 25 mm voigtlaender and the 12 olympus, and I really love them. The rest of my collection are canon FD lenses. (28, 50, 100)

Right now I find myself thinking more and more about selling all of them, buying nikkor glass and the 18-35 sigma. The main reasons were already listed in here, my decision is mostly driven by the loss of value of those glasses and that they only work on mft. And as technology is developing so fast, you will surely love to invest for the long run.

During some shoots I just got sick of changing all the time the lenses. Somehow I realized that it's pretty dumb to work with fixed focal lengths. I know they have better build quality and superior glass, but as long as I am not making any features films, it's just stupid. With the 18-35 zoom I will cover a wider range of focal lengths. When I buy the SB and a normal Adapter, I have even 2 focal lengths! The only bad thing I am worried about is no IS. But you will have the same problem with other nikons or primes, so I will end up working on a tripod. If there is a slight chance I will ever do a feature film, I will make sure to get funds or sponsors to be able to rent a real Film Camera equipment and some nice primes. The only thing I am concerned is about pulling focus with nikon glass :D

@eyeBOX Aren't there only a few MFT lenses that are weather sealed?

@Azo I shot for years (decades, really) with a Nikon FE so I have some experience with Nikon glass -- though not recent glass. I don't deny that there are examples of older lenses that are fine wide open (especially the slower variants). It's just been my experience that with a lot of the older Nikon and Canon lenses, when I lens had a f/1.4 aperture it often wasn't much good until f/2.8 or above.

In contrast, virtually all of the MFT lenses I've used (except the Voigt 25mm) are not just useable but actually very good at full aperture. That includes the 12-35, Oly 45/1.8, 20/1.7, 14/2.5, 100-300, 45-150, and 7-14.

But I agree that the AF lenses purely suck for manual focus.

@Xenocide38 I read your blog and I'm surprised at how well that cheap speed booster performs. I wonder if its all that worth it to go for the 'real' speed booster...

@AdamT

My copy of the Tokina AT-X PRO AF 28-70mm 1:2.6-2.8 Angenieux optical formula (Pro I with screw on hood) WIDE OPEN is really sharp. The first copy of Tokina AT-X PRO that I purchased was not of the Angenieux pedigree (Pro I with screw on hood) and sucked ass so I sold it right after I bought it. This is actually a good point for other lenses as well because sometimes the copy of the lens itself is shitty and I speak from experience from purchasing the same exact lens. I am anal as all get out when it comes to lens quality.

I have an old Nikkor 70-210 F/4 that cost me a measly $175.00 bones that is sharp as fuck WIDE OPEN throughout the whole zoom range with almost no distortion. I really like this lens because it is small and compact and does not weigh a ton like my 80-200 F/2.8. I have also had and sold many other Nikon lenses such as the Nikkor AIS 105 F2/5, Nikkor 85mm F/2 AIS, Nikon 50mm 1.8 AIS, etc etc. I have personally tested each of these lenses on a full frame cameras and they were all excellent even wide open.

Do you own a Nikon film camera or Nikon full frame camera? Did you get a chance to shoot with any of these lenses on a Nikon full frame camera or Panasonic GH2? I have and let me tell you they are excellent lenses and in my opinion are better then the Panasonic lenses for video for several different reasons.

1. Build quality: Most of the older Nikon lenses are built with precision and do not have any electronics that will eventually fail on you.

2. Manual focus: Nikon wins hands down providing you get a good copy of the lens with a smooth focus action.

3. Versatility: Nikon lenses will fit on many different cameras some of which are Canon, Sony, Panasonic etc. Panasonic and Olympus M/43 lenses will only work on the M/43 cameras.

4. Resale-ability: Nikon/Nikkor lenses have a broader demographic due to the flexibility of the mount itself and also due to the reputation of the Nikon/Nikkor brand of lenses which is outstanding.

I do agree with you though that the Panasonic lenses are really super sharp wide open and have better coatings then the older Nikon lenses. I also think that the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100 are great lenses due to the OIS and super sharp resolution, but other then those 2 lenses I would not invest in any other M4/3 lenses. Here is a quick video that I shot to illustrate how sharp the Tokina 28-70 is wide open in comparison to the Panny 20mm, keep in mind that the Tokina was attached to a cheap Mitakon speed booster and it is still really sharp in the center.

@BurnetRhaodes Great video, fascinating that even at the highest levels of Hollywood they still experiment and find out surprising things with their gear. Btw, I'm thinking of bidding on this, anyone know if it covers the Pocketcam sensor? ;) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Cooke-S4-HD-Cine-8-46mm-T1-7-B4-Mount-Lens-Used-/130439722954?_trksid=p2054897.l4275

Woah..I'll take your Canon glass :-)....FDs are hands down my favourite glass I've ever used.

Sorry guys, but for the most part those old Nikon lenses are NOT as good optically as the better Panasonic lenses. In fact they are quite inferior even after the Panny lenses are corrected for distortion. The Nikon lenses may look more "natural" or "cinematic" simply because they aren't as sharp and have lower contrast. Most of those older lenses are lousy wide open and have subpar coatings relative to Lumix or Olympus MFT lenses.

Of course a true manual focus lens has one major advantages for video over any by-wire lens ... unless you want AF....

@Xenocide38 @CFreak Thanks, that's helpful to know.

@brianl They seem to sell somewhere in the $125-200 range, used. I'm trying to find one for under $150.

I use both:

Where visual style isn't the 1st priority (ex: doc or events, with hand held/run & gun): Electronic MFT lenses.

Where it a priority (Interviews, Narrative, Music video, Commercials, etc.): The widest, fastest lenses (Usually Nikkor AIS, I invested long, long ago in the analog era) I can get. I haven't invested in the MB SB yet.

I also own some C mount lenses (ditto on the investment side) , some cover MFT, and provide an interesting look.

Note: With manual glass wide open you really, really, need focus confirmation. peaking in camera, on a monitor or the GH2 magnification feature (which doesn't work while recording). This is the single biggest reason I am looking to upgrade from the GH2.