Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Why Nikon mounts instead of the 4/3
  • i just saw a Olympus/ Four Thirds fitting ,SAMYANG 35mm, why do ppl recommend Nikon mounts instead of the 4/3, for the GH2, or am i missing something here :!?

  • 7 Replies sorted by
  • If Four Third lenses 'talk' to micro Four Thirds (GH2 enables this for some lenses, if I am not mistaken) then a Four Thirds lens could be a worthy option for AF etc., if it applies to the lens at hand. OTH, Four Thirds hardly took off, so the lens system is also not so successful, limiting their worth.

    For a fully manual lens, Micro Four Thirds is almost like an universal recipient, but the adapter need some careful evaluation to see if it limits the functionality.

  • I love my old nikkor glass. I have a 24mm, 50mm and the ultimate portrait 105mm. I didn't take the 105 out much until back at Christmas when I fell in love with it all over again. I had been using the 25mm Voigt and the 50mm nikkor mostly the 6 months before. I came from a film background using arri, so I am more used to all manual glass.

    When my cam is really locked down on a tripod, I can use the 105 more like a tele lens...

    Screen shot 2012-02-26 at 2.19.27 PM.png
    1280 x 800 - 1M
  • @simple: No, you see, Samyang's lenses as I said are manual. They lack both AF and the aperture is on a ring on the back of the lens. There is nothing for the camera to talk to. This is why adapting old lenses are easy, as they lack auto-focus and all have manual aperatures. Canon EF lenses on the other hand are harder, as they have electronic apertures. RED for example makes a fully functioning EF adapter on their cameras, allowing the body and the lens to "talk" to each other.

  • Yep, what those other guys said.

  • oki thanks, for fast replys

    so the nikon mount "talks" whit GH2 ? i mean AF and AP, just dobble checking im still learning :)

  • Exactly. Micro four thirds and four thirds, with their short flange distance and what not are very easy to adapt too, but because of their lack of lenses (and almost all of them with smaller image circles, so they don't cover larger camera sensors) makes them bad for adapting to other cameras. The beauty of manual lenses is that they last FOREVER, as long as they can be adapted. Next time you get a camera, it might not be a Panasonic or an M4/3s camera. Then you can't adapt a lens like that to it, while Canon EOS (to an extent, aperture not counted) and especially Nikon are extremely easy to adopt. Almost any camera will take Nikon-mount lenses, so that's why people recommend getting it. Plus they're more common and you might already have an adapter for it.

  • It was new to me till I was told, but Nikon lenses could be adapted for Canon and the opposite is either difficult or not possible. Nikon+Canon would cover major chunk of camera ecosystem and thus you get more resale value and potential.

    Still you'd be better off hearing it from someone more knowledgeable :)