These are nice lenses, but they are pretty large and don't come in very wide versions.

Rather go for the Tevidon series from Zeiss Jena, they were made for one inch sensors (or tubes) and start at 10mm. Excellent for the small camera.

For both series keep in mind that production from the communist era has massive sample variation. They were capable of making very good glass, but end control was sloppy (even if Lenin said something like "trust is good, control is better").

These little primes from Canon in the TV-16 line are really special, even the 13mm 1:1.5 covers.

I tested the Canon against the Cosmicar 12.5 and the Lumix 12-35mm @12mm now, and it is definitely softer. It has funky distortion, even more than the uncorrected Lumix and the light-weigt and cheap Cosmicar has less distortion than both. The Cosmicar is sharper from the start than the Canon and has less CA (but still some).

At 2.8 the Cosmicar is at least as sharp in the center as the Lumix! It's always a bit more greenish than the others. it has about the same viewing angle as the Lumix set to 12mm, so either the Cosmicar is wider than 12.5 or the Lumix isn't as wide as it claims.

The Canon never get's too sharp in the corners, but it has "character". It's warmer, has some soft haloes WO and very nice bokeh with it's 10 blades. Very good build quality too, the Cosmicar with it's thin aluminum tube can't stand a bump, the Canon sure does.

Just ordered an adapter from Ciecio7. Communication over ebay messages as been good. The product looks great from the ebay pictures and description/specifications. Though it was not overly expensive (definitely not cheap) it was priced as a professional product. From that standpoint I am expecting a lifetime of quality use.

As far as c-mount to micro 4/3's adapters go, the Metabones looks to be top of the line based on the materials used, not sure about the ramifications of the design. I might try one in the future when the Aluminum ones I have wear in threads. Right now I have been using the one from the Hawk's Factory which allows as much depth as possible to seat the c-mount lens, though it is not a flat/slim adapter. On that note sometimes you have to grind the lens to get it to seat far enough towards the sensor to get focus to infinity, so if you are grinding the lens anyway the Metabones adapter will "most likely" not be a problem, but one will need to test for one's self.

What do you mean by "punch in" ? Quick double-click on "OK" doesn't help ?

@nomad sorry, I just found it on ebay ;o)

Well, my experience with the Fotga is the same, quite tight, no play. All adapters sit a bit looser on the GH2 and some cheap Chinese ones, which fit the GH2, don't fit the BMPCC.

You can either buy a few cheap ones and keep the best or pay considerably more for something like the Metabones or those from ciecio7 (Poland), who has very good adapters of all kinds.

But it seems that all allow to screw the lens in a bit past infinity, so you can go cheap, since shimming is always needed.

I've tried Kipon which had a backlash and fotga which was almost too tight for the camera mount.

For who is using vintage 16mm cine glass (Schneider non RF for example) with the pocket: which c-mount to m43 are you guys using that works better? Thanks.

Hopefully I'll get some footage up soon from this little baby :)

Olympus 11-22mm 2.8-3.5 is ok for the bmpcc??

http://www.lenstip.com/215.1-Lens_review-Olympus_Zuiko_Digital_11-22_mm_f_2.8-3.5_Introduction.html

or tokina 11-16 ?? Thanks

Thanks