Hi Guys,
Old Yashica 28mm f2.8 ML or 24mm f2.8 ML. Both must be ML type.
Two real gems surpassed only by their zeiss counterpart for better coating. They come with a Y/C mount.
The 28mm ML is quite cheap.
@lenuisible Ok, no problem. I did a test with the Canon FD 20mm 2.8 and it is not sharp in corners wide open, but this behavior is shown in full frame still film camera also, maybe it is a bad copy. Just this one shows sharpness problems, all other still lenses i tested perform good. If you can, give a try to your lens in the default rangefinder body, if it performs bad in the original film body it will be lens issue, not gh2 issue, like i found in the Canon 20mm 2.8 test.
The theory is not about all wide angle lens, but RangeFinder ones; I personally noticed really bad results (terrible loss of sharpness not only in the corners, but in 20% of the picture borders) from a leica M mount 35f1.7 Voigtlander supposed to be good , and @bitcrusher shows in his video a highly rated lens performing poorly too.
Using good RF lens is tempting because they are very small and very good for stills (with film bodies). I also have a Voigt 50f1.5, but this one performs well on the GH2.
I can't be sure if my 35mm has a problem, but I think the "theory" is not without foundation
It may be good to note that if lens is less contrasty it appears brighter. Same kind of result could be had by lifting the levels of a more contrasty lens. Not saying that this has to be the case in the comparison you mentioned, but the Rokkors are known to often have plenty of contrast.
Speaking of the sharpness of vintage wide angle, here is just one more sample from a Tokina 17 mm f3.5 that captured detail nicely. Optical resolution is likely to be the same as in Lumix 14 mm, but without sharpening that could not be turned off for video.
@Mirrorkisser I have the 20mm FD lens. It works fine on the GH1 I have and is brighter at f2.8 than the two Minolta Rokkor's at f2.8 I have. I should start using it more, to get a better feel for its strengths and weaknesses. If it's inexpensive and you need a 20mm, then I'd give it a go...
Because the subject was 24 mm and 28 mm lenses, I could provide a fresh sample from a inexpensive Tokina RMC 24 f2.8 in low light at full aperture and other relevant information how the image was produced. These lenses have a bit of cinematic quality.
GH1 camera that I used has a problem known as "fixed pattern noise", the texture of the image is a bit flawed and this flaw becomes visible when the camera turns horizontally. So at the moment I can not produce quite as fine looking video as the stills grabbed from the video.
I am just testing a Tokina RMC 17 f3.5 on the Lumix cameras. Resolution appears to be similar to Lumix 14 mm Pancake, but without digital sharpening. Seems to be pretty close to ideal for video with minor barrel distortion, but no color issues. Tokina RMC 24 f2.8 is not bad either. For both lenses contrast is slightly reduced at full aperture, but manageable.
Vivitar above appears to be nice. If the serial on Vivitar's starts with 37****, then they are supposedly the same lens as the Tokina RMC 24 f2.8. As a sidenote, when using lower contrast lenses, it is a good idea to try other Film Mode than Smooth or Nostalgic (Vibrant, for example) to capture the highest amount of hues.
@apefos thanks a lot.
I believe this theory (old lenses below 35mm performs badly in GH2) is completly wrong. Of course there are lenses better than others. And using the old lenses you need to stop down one fstop to get good sharpness, because m43 sensor enlarge the middle of the lens image and this increases imperfections.
So can the canon fd 20mm 2.8 be recommended on a gh2? I was offered it for little money...It is not the perfect 35mm equivalent, but almost...
Ive just been given an old OM 24mm 2.8 Olympus / Vivatar and for a freebie its pretty darn good! It was made by Cosina in either 1986 or 76 judging by the serial. :-)
Had a 21 mm Konica but F4 - v sharp edge to edge - Lomo 28 F 2.5 is funky and cheap
I have a Rokkor 24mm 2.8 VFC, and that beast is tack sharp from the start.
The 28mm Takumar is only f/3.5, but it's really crazy sharp right at the start. The sharpest i've seen with the 20mm 1.7 pancake, really. Don't really know why it's so underated, cause i also have the 50mm SMC 1.4 and the 24mm 3.5 to compare with.
I've tried the Sigma 20, 24, 28, 30, and 50mm primes in Nikon and Four Thirds mounts. While they're a little soft wide-open for still photography, they're plenty sharp for HD video resolution. The Sigma 20, 24, and 28mm in Nikon mount have manual focus rings with hard stops at each end. making them very usable with follow-focus gears. The Sigma 30 and 50mm have HSM focus rings that lack hard stops. However, the 30mm has virtually no focus breathing and is very fast at f1.4.
One of the sharpest lenses in my collection is the Sigma 24mm ultra wide II. The copy I have is AF, and I use a cheap adapter that has an aperture wheel. It is sharp to the edges even in full frame. For 28mm I use the Vivitar Close Focus SMS, they are hard to find in Pentax but you can sometimes find them in MD mount for a bit less money. Of course, there are pricier alternatives.
I tried a Vivitar (Komine) 28mm f2.0. Almost no contrast and very soft when wide open, and when stopped down a couple of stops still easily beaten by the short end of the14-45mm Lumix. Avoid.
I just tested my Zeiss/Contax 21mm F2.8 (the CY fully manual version made in Japan) and compared with the Panasonic 14-140 at matching focal lengths and from wide open to F11, printed full frame (down rezed in Photoshop) 8x10's and 200% blowups. Little difference. The Zeiss was sharp corner to corner, but to my surprise the 14-140 was as well. Obviously the Zeiss is faster, but lacks zoom and OIS. So not all 35mm wide angles are bad on the GH2.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!