"Panasonic G series" Owners Thread

Cagey75 said:
Why would you use the A7 if you wanted sharp? if anything, M43 is much better suited to macro with film lenses, as you're just making use of the sharpest central area of the lens.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, this theory isn't necessarily always true, it's very lens specific. There is a Youtube Channel run by Christopher Frost who specialises in lens testing, currently he has 167K subscibers. He's a Canon shooter and most of his later lens tests are conducted on his Canon 6D and also on both a Canon APSC DSLR and sometimes on his EOS M3. His reviews are very clear and well illustrated, in some reviews, the FF lens in question might not be recommended for APSC sensors whilst performing just fine on a FF camera. M43 will use an even smaller chunk of the FF lens image circle, in some instances that might help or hinder even more in terms of image quality.

https://www.youtube.com/user/christopherfrost

My experience of FF lenses on M4/3 cameras using dumb adapters is limited to some Tamron Adaptall lenses (including the Tamron 90mm F2.5 macro), plus my OM lenses, the results are fine without being breathtaking, the OM lenses in particular need a fair bit of PP tweaking. My recently arrived Metabones Speedbooster is a different story though, using Full Frame EF fit lenses utilises mostly the full image circle for the lens and I've been very impressed with the results so far.
 
HarveyM said:
Unfortunately, this theory isn't necessarily always true, it's very lens specific. There is a Youtube Channel run by Christopher Frost who specialises in lens testing, currently he has 167K subscibers. He's a Canon shooter and most of his later lens tests are conducted on his Canon 6D and also on both a Canon APSC DSLR and sometimes on his EOS M3. His reviews are very clear and well illustrated, in some reviews, the FF lens in question might not be recommended for APSC sensors whilst performing just fine on a FF camera. M43 will use an even smaller chunk of the FF lens image circle, in some instances that might help or hinder even more in terms of image quality.

https://www.youtube.com/user/christopherfrost

My experience of FF lenses on M4/3 cameras using dumb adapters is limited to some Tamron Adaptall lenses (including the Tamron 90mm F2.5 macro), plus my OM lenses, the results are fine without being breathtaking, the OM lenses in particular need a fair bit of PP tweaking. My recently arrived Metabones Speedbooster is a different story though, using Full Frame EF fit lenses utilises mostly the full image circle for the lens and I've been very impressed with the results so far.
Click to expand...

I've seen his reviews a number of times, at one point I did consider the 80D

When it comes to adapting lenses I always put the research in, I only opt for lenses that do work well on this system. I actually have a headache from researching lenses earlier :D it can become pretty exhaustive, so many variations, so much information, so many different mounts and even then it can boil down to getting a decent copy - you don't want any haze/fungus/overload of dust ... They might be cheap, but you gotsta put the work in to get the gems.

My post was more specific to macro lenses, it's pretty hard get a bad one, they are optimized for sharpness and close up shooting - they're not always great for general purpose or wider shooting because of this. But if a lens is good'n'sharp, there is zero reason for it not to be on a smaller sensor

So far I haven't had any stinkers, I've been more than satisfied with the results from the handful of vintages I've bought over time. On APSC and M43. I never adapted lenses on FF because it was dslr I used at the time, and it can be much iffier trying to do it that way, mirrorless in general has opened up so much possibility. One thing I really do love about adapting to the G80, is that no matter the lens, you're getting IBIS :) I had a Takumar 200 F4 [sorry I sold it tbh] when I used Fuji, and it was ok at best, but the G80 breathed a whole new life into it. I found it not only sharper, but the IBIS worked incredibly well, not just for slower SS but for actual framing - gone were the eratic jitters I experienced on the XT1, it was like the lens was floating on some invisible tripod. This is one of the reasons I switched to begin with

I have also pondered on a speed booster, you pretty much turn your M43 into an APSC with EF lenses. But I'd be looking at Viltrox, MB are way too pricey for my liking.
 
Last edited:
the black fox said:
that vivitar looks similar Keith , here's one I took a week or so ago follow it through to Flickr there a few in the series . mines a Nikon mount btw . probably only going to keep nikon mount ones now ... I was advised by the head concho on " photography with classic lenses " on the f/b group
manual focus no.2 by jeff and jan cohen, on Flickr
Click to expand...

If you said on here that you took that with your 100-400 and hid the exif data nobody would question, that is what I love about these old lenses. It's much more about technique than reliance on super fast AF and all the gimmickry besides. End of the day optics are optics, use the right settings, and be confident about your technique and you'll get the results for 1/10th the cost or better

Funny how there's such mixed opinions on the old classics though, could be cases of good and bad copies in the mix. But, I'm going to listen to you on this one and maybe save a few quid, I also want to get a grip for the G80.
 
Right, the Vivitar 80-200 F4 has now entered the frame ... might be a bit more flexible, can't find any direct comparisons yet - imagine both would need stopping down for optimal sharpness and there's nadda between 3.5 and F4 anyway ... there's a really nice copy on the bay ending in 2D so will keep an eye.

I had the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 back when I had the D200 and D90 and it was a pretty decent lens, had very good 'macro' capabilities 1:3 or so, if the 80-200 is any better it should be good enough.

An oldie from that Vivitar 70-210, yes I know it's not an M43 Pany shot, but it's relate-able, how things come back around full circle, here I am pondering very similar lenses for the G80 7yrs later:

You're doing it wrong! by K G, on Flickr


[Edit] - It's done and dusted, decided on the Vivitar 200mm f/3.5 Minolta MD mount, found a Minolta to M43 adapter from the UK so all good - didn't want to wait another 3 weeks for one from China. £45 all in, not too bad, lens looks to be in top shape - also there's a few Minolta primes I pondered on here and there over the years, now I have more options. I have M42, Canon FD and now Minolta MD adapters.

Trusting in you on this @the black fox :D
 
Last edited:
A shot from the 45-175 with a Nikon +2 close up, not the fancy expensive version.

P1020552.jpg
 
mikew said:
A shot from the 45-175 with a Nikon +2 close up, not the fancy expensive version.

View attachment 137428
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by "fancy expensive version" - but if you mean by Raynox? bout as cheap a way into decent macro you can get, cheap as chips I'd say! You can get the 250 for £50 if you look around, and the fact you can add it to any lens with a filter thread between 52mm and 67mm, and give full AF, and just as sharp an image as the original lens can muster, I'd say that is dirt cheap

When I say beyond 1:1 this is what I mean - these are baby spiders, I caught a burst of them opening up and scattering, this bunch would all fit on half of one of the petals of the flower you posted, no kidding! The length of the lens matters a whole lot too. Once you go over 100m you're above 1:1 ratio generally, and this was around 1:1 @ 100mm can do with a heavy crop to boot. These babies are no more than a couple mm a piece

Baby arachnids gone wild! by K G, on Flickr

Even a decent close up prime will offer good flower close ups, it takes a step further for 'macro' IMHO.

This guy was no more than 5-6mm long and I was able to focus more on his eyes using touch screen AF [though I do usually use MF for macro] - it's an option

Floating spider by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "fancy expensive version" - but if you mean by Raynox? bout as cheap a way into decent macro you can get, cheap as chips I'd say! You can get the 250 for £50 if you look around, and the fact you can add it to any lens with a filter thread between 52mm and 67mm, and give full AF, and just as sharp an image as the original lens can muster, I'd say that is dirt cheap

When I say beyond 1:1 this is what I mean - these are baby spiders, I caught a burst of them opening up and scattering, this bunch would all fit on half of one of the petals of the flower you posted, no kidding! The length of the lens matters a whole lot too. Once you go over 100m you're above 1:1 ratio generally, and this was around 1:1 @ 100mm can do with a heavy crop to boot. These babies are no more than a couple mm a piece

Baby arachnids gone wild! by K G, on Flickr

Even a decent close up prime will offer good flower close ups, it takes a step further for 'macro' IMHO.

This guy was no more than 5-6mm long and I was able to focus more on his eyes using touch screen AF [though I do usually use MF for macro] - it's an option

Floating spider by K G, on Flickr
Click to expand...



This is the version i bought

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NIKON-NI...=item3fa664ad50:g:SLcAAOSwkb9bWGI6:rk:51:pf:0

This is the expensive fancy one which is supposed to be very good but i am happy with the cheap one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-5T...h=item363e01e2e0:g:zDYAAOSwlY5bxgPK:rk:1:pf:0
 
The guy to get the best adaptors from is Simon Forster based in stoke on Trent , he,s the one that advises me to . ..... the main trouble with legacy glass choosing is that most users are looking for bokah in there shots even going to the extremes of reversing lens elements to achieve it , ..... whereas the likes of you and me Keith are after sharpness .... at the moment I’m selling off a few of my legacy ones as I was searching for a cheap way into macro the new 60mm has ended that search . .... my two main legacy ones I won’t be selling are the vivitar f3.5 and the nikkor 50mm f1.4 AIS both are razor sharp ....some time in the future I will also look into 300 and or 400 legacy ones
 
Cagey75 said:
Why would you use the A7 if you wanted sharp? if anything, M43 is much better suited to macro with film lenses, as you're just making use of the sharpest central area of the lens. I have never been found wanting for more sharpness when it comes to macro on M43 - check my mushroom image above, the one with the bite mark - that's from the Canon FD 50mm macro [lens alone, no Raynox], don't think I would want it any sharper
Click to expand...

Because, as I keep telling you but you wont believe me, the bigger the format the better the lenses tend to perform because they don't have to work so hard due to the image being magnified less. With the smaller formats you need to magnify the image more and if you go looking you'll see how this affects the final picture. FF with a sharp lens is going to be sharper than MFT with the same lens. Yes with MFT you're only using the central area but you're magnifying it much more. But you wont believe it. Actually with only FF or only MFT you can see the effects that different amounts of magnification have on the picture. Yes MFT is a nice system and I've had it since the early days but I don't kid myself that quality or sharpness wise it can compete with a larger format. MFT can do very well and you may have to go looking for the differences but if you do go looking they're often there.

So, if I want a sharp image I can use FF and a modern lens, If I want a dreamy old world film look I can use FF and an old lens, ditto MFT and if I want a close up shot with that dreamy look with MFT or maybe I just want the convenience I can use my close up filters but if I want a sharper more modern look I can use my macro lens.
 
woof woof said:
Because, as I keep telling you but you wont believe me, the bigger the format the better the lenses tend to perform because they don't have to work so hard due to the image being magnified less. With the smaller formats you need to magnify the image more and if you go looking you'll see how this affects the final picture. FF with a sharp lens is going to be sharper than MFT with the same lens. Yes with MFT you're only using the central area but you're magnifying it much more. But you wont believe it. Actually with only FF or only MFT you can see the effects that different amounts of magnification have on the picture. Yes MFT is a nice system and I've had it since the early days but I don't kid myself that quality or sharpness wise it can compete with a larger format. MFT can do very well and you may have to go looking for the differences but if you do go looking they're often there.

So, if I want a sharp image I can use FF and a modern lens, If I want a dreamy old world film look I can use FF and an old lens, ditto MFT and if I want a close up shot with that dreamy look with MFT or maybe I just want the convenience I can use my close up filters but if I want a sharper more modern look I can use my macro lens.
Click to expand...


You can tell me till Christmas, doesn't make it fact, nor do I really care. You know this already, no idea why you keep insisting on FF comparisons. You seem to be blaming the lens and the sensor when it's your close up filters that aren't up to par. If you want sharper images, get better filters, or like you say, use the FF camera with better lenses, which says nothing, as you could just use a better lens for this system either. Lenses made for the system, like the Oly 60mm, then you won't have to compare it to anything as it's native.

I really don't care about FF comparisons, I used a FF camera for years, I dumped it for good reasons. If I wanted another I'd own one, models only a few years old can be got cheaper than a G80

I've never seen anyone mention "I have an A7" more than you, you must repeat it like a mantra in your sleep :D you managed not to in this one post, it must have been a struggle
 
Last edited:
mikew said:
This is the version i bought

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NIKON-NI...=item3fa664ad50:g:SLcAAOSwkb9bWGI6:rk:51:pf:0

This is the expensive fancy one which is supposed to be very good but i am happy with the cheap one.

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Nikon-5T...h=item363e01e2e0:g:zDYAAOSwlY5bxgPK:rk:1:pf:0
Click to expand...


The 'expensive' version is probably still not as good as a Raynox, which can be got cheaper. I got mine on here for £48 if I remember correctly. I guess people don't sell them often, as it's not worth enough to move it on over the results you can get, it's a keeper.

If you get good results, fine, but it doesn't look to focus very close? seems with these ones price goes up a lot the more magnification
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
You can tell me till Christmas, doesn't make it fact, nor do I really care. You know this already, no idea why you keep insisting on FF comparisons. You seem to be blaming the lens and the sensor when it's your close up filters that aren't up to par. If you want sharper images, get better filters, or like you say, use the FF camera with better lenses, which says nothing, as you could just use a better lens for this system either. Lenses made for the system, like the Oly 60mm, then you won't have to compare it to anything as it's native.

I really don't care about FF comparisons, I used a FF camera for years, I dumped it for good reasons. If I wanted another I'd own one, models only a few years old can be got cheaper than a G80

I've never seen anyone mention "I have an A7" more than you, you must repeat it like a mantra in your sleep :D you managed not to in this one post, it must have been a struggle
Click to expand...

WTF is wrong with you?

We got into this because of using old manual lenses on MFT where they perform less well but you insist they perform better.

Actually I'm done with you.

You argue, provoke, insult and threaten in thread after thread and I just can't be arsed even pretending to be polite to you a moment longer.
 
woof woof said:
WTF is wrong with you?

We got into this because of using old manual lenses on MFT where they perform less well but you insist they perform better.

Actually I'm done with you.

You argue, provoke, insult and threaten in thread after thread and I just can't be arsed even pretending to be polite to you a moment longer.
Click to expand...

I was going to report your rant, as I'm not guilty of any of the things you just accused me of. It is YOU that started the FF equivilancy nonsense, AGAIN! not I. I haven't argued with anyone since my last warning, and what you've just ranted is worse than anything I did to warrant that, but I'll leave it to the mods to decide that one. You're at the same stirring BS in other threads too, I'd love you to point out anywhere I have been insulting or threatening on here this past while ... go right ahead, I'll wait
 
woof woof said:
I'm sure the Reynox is better and at that cost it should be, my set of close up filters in their nice box cost £14 but that was some years ago. They're ok for me and if I wanted sharp I'd use my A7 and... something...

I also have a set of tubes somewhere but I find them too much of a faff on.
Click to expand...

This is where you barged in with the FF nonsense, and my jest that you mention your A7 more than anyone I've ever come across still holds, it's like you're obsessed with it! Anything else I said was completely reasonable, I don't even get why anyone would take that as an 'insult' it's weird. I don't get why you're so defensive about how I feel about FF either? What has it got to do with you? My post was me expressing how I feel on it, what about that is insulting or threatening to you? the end line was in jest but it seems to have whoooshed right over your head
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
You argue, provoke, insult and threaten in thread after thread and I just can't be arsed even pretending to be polite to you a moment longer.
Click to expand...

To be fair I've read back through a few of Keith's @Cagey75 posts and I'm not seeing this and certainly not since his little holiday,
I can only assume that there is some kind of history between you, you have a little something that staff don't have, its called the ignore button and can be found on everyone
profile ( except the green team) by clicking their avatar Maybe its time to use it?
 
Last edited:
Butlins or pontins is the real question :agree:
 
Bank holiday, booooo :-[ so no lens delivery today, should have it tomorrow hopefully.
 
Few from today - G80 and the adapter for the canon 100-400 IS. All as shot, and edited on camera raw conversion with a bit of sharpening and color. I’m amazed at the details, very happy with them!!

IMG_2279.JPG
IMG_2281.JPG
IMG_2285.JPG
IMG_2280.JPG
 
Got the 12-40 2.8 earlier this eve, thankfully I can't find any fault with it, there is a little shining on the edge of one side of the hood - you can see it in this pic, though it looks worse because of the light. The lens itself is pretty much flawless, so I imagine that's normal for this hood as it is steel around the base. Since it is Olympus, we're lucky to get a hood at all with it! :D Dull rainy evening it was here so didn't really get to test it out much. I did do some close up testers to compare the difference between my 1:2 macro lens, and also tried the Raynox out on it. Sadly the Raynox causes heavy vignetting around the corners, but obviously I can crop that out. For macro it's the centre of the image you want most, a little cropping is par for the course - it offers 0.7 magnification with it attached and remains very sharp. I will say, there's not a heap of difference between this lens at it's closest focus @40mm and the Canon FD, there's really not a lot in it between 1:3 and 1:2, the Canon is much better with the Raynox though, no cropping required. But this will be great for more environmental macro, where you want to include more of the surroundings.

New baby: Olympus 12-40 2.8 Pro by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Seems a bargain at that price IF it works ,I would have liked to see a rear view of the controls though . It’s not going to be the best option at that price ,thought the godox ones were the best alternative though
 
It's manual only from what I can gather. Not a big deal that though - it's simply the difference in taking a tester shot and adjusting accordingly, unless you really want it for run and gun? say like event shooting, where you don't want to have to check exposure every other shot. I only ever use manual flash, it's much better for me as I use manual settings in general, it's just another setting to quick change on the go

Here's the back side of it, pretty basic but that's all you need. I still use a Yongnuo 560 [original] which has no LCD, I prefer it to the Godox TT350o I also own - that one has TTL, HSS, an LCD etc ... I don't have the trigger for it yet though, maybe I'd make more use of it then, but my Yongnuo which is about 7 years old is more powerful.

Neewer+TT560+Flash+Speedlite+for+Canon+Nikon+Sony+Panasonic+Olympus+Fujifilm+Pentax+Sigma+Minolta+Leica+and+Other+SLR++1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I was extolling the close focusing abilities of my Lumix 42.5mm f1.7 lens here recently. Here are a couple of simple examples.

No cropping.

My wrist watch


i-7SWSbKS-L.jpg



A £2.00 coin.


i-hs8bKv9-L.jpg
 
badlywornroy said:
I was extolling the close focusing abilities of my Lumix 42.5mm f1.7 lens here recently. Here are a couple of simple examples.

No cropping.

My wrist watch


i-7SWSbKS-L.jpg



A £2.00 coin.


i-hs8bKv9-L.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice, a Raynox 250 would be ace on that lens. Don't think you'd suffer vignetting, sadly on the 12-40 it does because of the large front element for this focal range.

I've been testing the 12-40 today for it's native close up capabilities too, also shot some SOOC Jpeg - which I never do. They are under exposed, I'm always in around -2/3 to -1 when there's harsh lighting like today - as I normally shoot RAW and bump exp in post. But really impressed with these straight out of cam, no crops, no nothing, straight to Flickr at full res:

12-40 SOOC Jpeg tester by K G, on Flickr

I couldn't even force CA against back-lit branches or here against this rusty gate with very harsh, bright back lighting - [there is the slightest hint of purple] check out that rust detail!! There is some ghosting on the edges but this is an extreme example, was really testing for purple fringing and this is at 40mm 2.8 where the lens apparently performs at it's worst, normally for a shot like this you'd be well stopped down
Rust [12-40 SOOC Jpeg tester] by K G, on Flickr

section of a Halloween decoration my daughter stuck up outside, the pumpkins are about an inch in size ... not sure what the blurring is? Is this a fault? afaik M43 doesn't do shallow DOF ... :D
Halloween '18 [12-40 Jpeg tester] by K G, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
Told you it was a great lens :)
 
Sootchucker said:
Told you it was a great lens :)
Click to expand...

No even given it a right good trial yet, but I can tell a great lens when I use one - it's such a good all-rounder. The close focusing ability is even better than I expected. Switching to MF seems to get it even closer again, almost touching the subject. The only niggle for me personally, is I expected to use my Raynox on it, to get more magnification when desired, but there is a harsh vignette. I'm going to give it a trial using it anyway, I can just crop out the corners. Will stick some fresh batteries in the flash later and give it a try.

One really cool feature of this lens that I only discovered, is that when you use MF on a subject, switch to AF to focus on something else, when you switch to MF again your pre-MF is maintained! [so long as you hold your position] I know that might have been obvious to some, but that would be cracking for video. It can do this because it is true mechanical MF when you pull the clutch, not crappy fly-by-wire [it is f-b-w when the clutch is closed]

I did give it a quick video test and again, very impressive, AF is quick and precise, even holds AF when zooming, almost like a cam-corder
 
Very nice review of the Pany GX9 here:


I'd love one myself, not in place of my G80 [he compares them near the end] but to compliment it - course I'd need more lenses first
 
Cagey75 said:
It's manual only from what I can gather. Not a big deal that though - it's simply the difference in taking a tester shot and adjusting accordingly, unless you really want it for run and gun? say like event shooting, where you don't want to have to check exposure every other shot. I only ever use manual flash, it's much better for me as I use manual settings in general, it's just another setting to quick change on the go

Here's the back side of it, pretty basic but that's all you need. I still use a Yongnuo 560 [original] which has no LCD, I prefer it to the Godox TT350o I also own - that one has TTL, HSS, an LCD etc ... I don't have the trigger for it yet though, maybe I'd make more use of it then, but my Yongnuo which is about 7 years old is more powerful.

Neewer+TT560+Flash+Speedlite+for+Canon+Nikon+Sony+Panasonic+Olympus+Fujifilm+Pentax+Sigma+Minolta+Leica+and+Other+SLR++1.jpg
Click to expand...


Thanks, but I'm a lazy sod and want an automatic! I'll have to keep searching - defineilty need one as I miss it as I sued to use a 430 EX on my M50!
 
stickytape said:
Thanks, but I'm a lazy sod and want an automatic! I'll have to keep searching - defineilty need one as I miss it as I sued to use a 430 EX on my M50!
Click to expand...
You want the godox one ,they make a Panasonic specific one
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top