If there is no "C" in front of the lens data (like C12x6) it doesn't cover. A J for example stands for 2/3 video.

@CFreak my tests with RX vs Standard Kern, says the opposite, my 16mm RX has not blurry corners, no vignette and it is sharper than the AR version. The 25mm 1.4 RX, the same. The 10mm RX Schneider Cinegon, the same but with a little vignette. You can check the Cinegon here:

Also bear in mind that the RX are much brighter, due the reflex prism design that need more light to match the f stops. Pardom my english.

@cantsin SOME LIKE IT SOFT

Nope, I didn't get one. Anyway, I was more interested in those covering wider, at least 11mm.

Have heard good things, though, other than Angie 12-120mm.

Since Angenieux is currently the undisputed leader in cine zooms for 35mm, I wouldn't doubt that their most recent S-16 models should be good too. (OK, Fuji has some nice ones too).

The ones I tested were relatively old constructions.

@nachelsoul are you sure it is 1.8 and not 1.9?.... 5 bucks is indeed extremely cheap, however the lens is not that rare, quite nice and also fully covers 4/3" sensors....

@nachelsoul no problem whatsoever with the mistake, thanks a lot for showing us your video. I just wanted other people to be able to find this very nice lens on Ebay and other places.... one warning: it does fully cover a 4/3" (or m4/3 camera) sensor, however be careful to screw filters on its front because in that case it easily starts vignetting.

@nachelsoul The SK 25mm 1.9 thread size is indeed a bit odd, it is 30.5, a size rarely found, however it is available and is also used for some of the good old Pentax 110 lenses...

I received my pocket cam in November but have not been able to play with it until now. This is basically a test of the Lumix 14-45mm as a walk around hand held lens. Very rough/simple grade and edit. I am usually pretty shaky with handheld and wanted to see if I could pull it off with the OIS. It turned out ok as long as I am stationary, but panning is still jittery, plus I think Vimeo compression is adding some too.(just checked definitely less jitter on download) If I practice more I think it might be usable in certain stealth situations, however I anticipate much more shoulder rig and tripod use. I also tested the internal audio with the Zoom H1 as mic, with internal audio set at 60 and Zoom on auto. It was just for picking up ambient sound but I think it works fairly well. I got this lens for $100 bucks, and I love it (for the price). I'll be doing more cinematic grades with it and my Nikons later.

Did you experience any problems with the 20mm, like sudden changes of aperture or focus?

Now to Russian lenses for the Kiev-16U camera, finally I received the thin, black adapter from rafcamera. He's a very nice guy, BTW, keeping up good communication. I didn't buy my lenses from him, but I would trust him for lenses too.

The adapter fits very well on the BMPCC, a bit tight on the GH2 (which I used for test shots). The only complaint I have that you don't have any grip on the ring, it's just flat and difficult to turn back from a tight fit. It looks really good on the BMPCC with such lenses, though.

MIR-11 12.5mm f2 It covers S-16 indeed, but the corners have massive CA and lack sharpness WO. Plus, there is quite some barrel distortion, it nearly looks a bit "fish-eye". Center is really sharp from the start, contrast aint't bad either, but even at f4 the corners lack sharpness and are still darker. Very long focus throw for a wide, about 270 degrees, with a MFD of 20cm.

VEGA-7-1 20mm f2 Covers well, but corners are soft even at 4, less CA than the 12.5 (but still some) and nearly free of distortion. Long focus throw and MFD of 40cm.

TAIR-41 50mm f2 Covers even MFT with corners a bit darker, shows mild pincushion. Low contrast WO, but pretty sharp into the comers and no CA, better at 2.8 and getting nice and sharp at 4. Focus throw might even be longer than the others, MFD is 70cm.

BTW, while the wider ones have a six-bladed aperture with a sawblade look like some Cookes when stopped down, the Tair has so many that i don't like to count them and stays round whatever you do.

They all have click-stops (which surprises me on Russian lenses) and there is considerable sample variation in centering and color (which doesn't surprise me, my samples are from '67 to '71). While the adapter seems to be high precision, the lenses are not. Flange distance is all over the place and they may need some shimming.

Don't expect modern performance from these lenses, the two wider ones never get really great in the corners on the BMPCC, but they have a very vintage look and nice flares, which would not be so easy to mimic in post. I can imagine quite few situations where I'll like them. The only alternative are the Zeiss (Eastern) Tevidons if you want this look.

These and a BMPCC are much cheaper than a Digital "Bolex" for going vintage ;-)

I am interested in the Olympus or Panasonic 14-42 pancake lenses for this cam - can anyone speak to the functionality of these lenses? Obviously they're slow, but I'm wondering about the ability to retract lens when cam is off since the lenses wont be on manufacturer body... Also, the Panasonic has a lever for focus instead of a ring - what is that like to use, anyone with experience with either of these lenses. Oly seems better but no IS...

I tried a canon B4 zoom video lens (2/3") on the Bmpcc and, as I expected, the vignetting is almost absent. I get black corners only on wide angle, so I assume it is usable if you do a small cropping in post. The overall quality seems better than using such a lens on m43 with Ex tele conv (2x), and the zoom factor is smaller. I will try it better, and post some samples. Did any of you make such a test?