Personal View site logo
Speed Booster or Native MFT Lenses?
  • 36 Replies sorted by
  • AdamTAdamT

    @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.

  • eyeBOXeyeBOX

    If you planned to go to GH3, you'd also gain a weather sealed body / lens combo; whereas if you went with non mft, you'd lose that.

  • KokavKokav

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

  • brianlbrianl

    About the weatherproofing, over a 2.5 year period I spend hundreds of hours shooting along the Central California coast. Constant mist, fog, salty air, mildew, rain, spray, and sand. I was typically 10 meters or less from the waterline. I used the Oly 14-54 and Panny 45-210 mostly. I don't think anything was weather sealed. I wasn't exactly that protective of the gear either. I experienced zero weather damage that I know if. Only wear and tear issues unrelated to the elements. Just wondering if this weatherproof thing isn't more marketing sell than anything else. I know, I'm a single data point. Perhaps others have different stories.

  • BaraBara

    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

  • KokavKokav

    @brianl That's interesting to hear. Hey Brian were you the one wanting to know what the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8 AIS was selling for? I think I told you they were selling for $200 but I just got an essentially mint one for $131!

    @Bara Yeah I know what you mean. The Sigma 18-35 looks really good but the only thing I don't like is the size. It seems like It wouldn't be much fun to carry around. The nice thing about the Nikkor primes is that they aren't really that heavy or awkwardly big.

  • vicharrisvicharris

    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.

  • matt_gh2matt_gh2

    @vicharris Do you find the image with the Sigma is the same with and without the booster? In other words, if you shoot a shot with sigma and and booster, and then do another take with booster off, do the 1st and 2nd take basically look identical in terms of the image type, texture, etc? Do they cut well together in editing?

  • KokavKokav

    @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.

  • vicharrisvicharris

    @matt_gh2 Yeah, no problem. Though if you shoot with the SB wide open, the bokeh does change but not as much as the non specific boosters. With the lenses I use on the BMPCC booster, I don't need to shoot wide open though. The Sigma is just fine at 1.8 and it's paired with the Sigma 50mm 1.4 that's good at 1.8 as well. I always intended to use the speedbooster to get me back to a normal FOV with glass so I could retain how the glass was intended in the first place. For example, actually be able to shoot handheld with a 50mm and it look good!

  • matt_gh2matt_gh2

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

Add a Comment