Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Really nice, cheap, Veydra alternative

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by joe12south View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. The lens is what the lens is. A 25mm is a 25mm. The equivalency comes from what sensor you pair it with. On a standard M43 mount, both the Veydra and the Meike will yield a FOV equivalent of a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor. The Pocket 4K and the GH5S have an oversized sensor, so they crop a bit less than 2X.
    Save the didactic stuff, veydras are not full frame. So where do you get the 50mm equivalency from?

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by rze View Post
      Save the didactic stuff, veydras are not full frame. So where do you get the 50mm equivalency from?
      I just don't understand what you're talking about:
      If the 25mm has a 50mm field of view then it’s not a veydra knock off in the optics.
      Both the Meike and the Veydra are 25mm lenses. Why do you think their FOVs are different?
      Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
      Pocketluts Store

      Comment


      • #18
        They are super 35 lenses, the crop is a 1.4 for m4/3. Veydra 25mm has a has the field of view of a 35mm

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by rze View Post
          They are super 35 lenses, the crop is a 1.4 for m4/3. Veydra 25mm has a has the field of view of a 35mm
          Then by that definition, so does the Meike. Again, what would make you think the 25mm Meike is different than the Veydra?

          Google reviews of any M43 native lens and I bet that you'll find at least 9 out of 10 will list the full-frame equivalency.

          Hell, even Panasonic does so on their lens product page: https://www.panasonic.com/caribbean/...es/h-h025.html

          So does Olympus: https://www.getolympus.com/us/en/m-zuiko-25mm-f1-8.html

          Well, shucks, looky here, so does SLR Magic: http://www.slrmagic.info/product/Hyp...NE+III+2595MFT
          Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
          Pocketluts Store

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by rze View Post
            They are super 35 lenses, the crop is a 1.4 for m4/3. Veydra 25mm has a has the field of view of a 35mm
            I think you are confusing image circle size/sensor coverage with 135 equivalency.

            Focal length is focal length is focal length. This does not change from system to system. It's just the same focal length may be designed to project different sized image circle, depending on the sensor size it's purposed for. That's where "equivalency" becomes a useful.

            "135 equivalency" or "crop factor" started being used when photographers using 35mm stills, or DSLR with the same sized sensor, moved into video/filmmaking - it helped to understand what FOV a given focal length would now offer on a different sized sensor COMPARED TO 135. Not compared to any other system. Not Super35. Not Super16. But 135 or Full Frame 35mm.

            So when, for example, a 50mm for 135 will have an image circle of 46mm (approx). This means it cover any sensor size up to 36x24mm. But regardless of the sensor it's projecting onto, it's always a 50mm lens.

            On a MFT sensor like the BMP4K, it will yield the FOV equivalency of a 100mm lens - or 2 x crop factor - because the sensor needs a 22.5mm image circle. That's roughly half of 135. But it's still a 50mm lens.

            So ANY 50mm lens on a BMP4K (as long as the image circle is big enough to cover the sensor) will have a 135 equivalency of 100mm or 2 x crop factor.

            Comment


            • #21
              ...COMPARED TO 135. Not compared to any other system. Not Super35. Not Super16. But 135 or Full Frame 35mm.
              Thank you.

              Pedantic filmmakers have been arguing that Super35 should be the preferred equivalency for years, and still haven't made a dent in the vernacular. Some people keep tilting at that windmill, though...
              Pocketluts: Purpose-built LUTs for the Blackmagic Design Pocket Cinema Camera 4K
              Pocketluts Store

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by AndreeOnline View Post
                I don't say it in terms of it being a worthless lens. It's just that for each format there are different tiers. For full format, as an example, you get f1.4, f2.8 and f4 lens designs. This is obviously not all there is, but I think it's fair to say that they are clear tiers of design.

                I'm always thinking about the various formats in terms of equivalence. So for me, this lens is a f4 design (not splitting hairs here or going into T vs F stop) and I'd prefer if it was a 2.8 equivalent. There's a reason you get some lenses for MFT that are f0.95 that you don't see that many of in FF.

                Since price is not an issue for me (I just don't find it an interesting aspect of a product, it's not that I have unlimited money....) I'd be more interested in one or two tiers faster. The Voigtländer Noktons are all 0.95. That's probably two tiers faster?

                I'm not that familiar with MFT glass, so maybe 2.2 is a de facto standard that people are happy with? I just saw that the Veydras were also 2.2 (I remembered them being faster).
                Anyway, what exactly about it did you find amusing?
                Andrew, a T2.2 is not the same as f/2.2, they are different specifications. A f/stop is based in the focal,length of the lens and the actual iris opening diameter to get an approximate value for light transmission. A T/stop is an actual measured light transmission value, done in a test bench with each lens design. So a T 2.2 lens has the same approximate light transmission as most f/1.8 lenses.

                The issue with f/stops, is the actual light transmission of a 25mm still lens will be different than the same f/stop on a 50mm lens. Where as any T/2.2 lens will have the same light transmission as any other T/2.2 lens, so your exposure from one lens to the next is going to be the same. This was very important back in film cine days, where expsoures were critical, and is still a desired situation to reduce post production corrections to correct different exposure on various clips with the same lighting.
                Cheers

                Comment


                • #23
                  So what your saying is that even though a 50mm is designed to have a 50mm field of view on a super 35mm image circle and then that lens is put on a m4/3 sensor its a 100mm equivalent with respect to full frame. That’s bs.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by rze View Post
                    So what your saying is that even though a 50mm is designed to have a 50mm field of view on a super 35mm image circle and then that lens is put on a m4/3 sensor its a 100mm equivalent with respect to full frame. That’s bs.
                    You might want to read the Wikipedia page on Crop factors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor
                    Darren Hartman
                    Asyn Film | Banana Stand Media

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Asyndeton View Post
                      You might want to read the Wikipedia page on Crop factors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

                      O I see the semantics vs practicality. I guess theirs a lot of photographers here. I’ve never met a cinematographer or anyone in camera department that utilizes full frame as as a reference or refer to a 50mm s35mm as an 80mm. The advocacy here is weird.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Doesn't anyone here understand basic geometry?
                        The image circle of a BM4K pocket camera is, I believe, about 10% less than that of m4/3.
                        It doesn't really matter that the BM is only 1 pixel high.
                        What matters is the image circle.
                        Duh!
                        You can call it wider field of view all day long.
                        But I really isn't until the diagonal of the sensor is larger than the m4/3 image circle.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Thanks for the review, I'll probably get one when they are back in stock on eBay. Amazon won't ship to Canada for some reason, and not on the Canadian store. I find T2.2 plenty fast enough for narrative on iso800 cameras, especially if the lens is sharp wide open, most 1.4 lenses are not. Really hope they fill out the set as well.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            The focal length is always the focal length. The 50mm is always the same, a 50mm lens.

                            The reason I detest the use of crop factors is because it leads to exactly these kinds of misunderstandings, something that perversely, those that use crop factors would argue it simplifies.

                            * These lenses look a hell of a lot like Veydras.



                            JB

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Denny Smith View Post
                              Andrew, a T2.2 is not the same as f/2.2, they are different specifications.
                              I know. That's why I wrote what I wrote in parenthesis. Normally, the difference isn't as big as you suggest though. It's more like f1.4—T1.5 or f2.8—T2.9

                              Originally posted by John Brawley View Post
                              The reason I detest the use of crop factors is because it leads to exactly these kinds of misunderstandings, something that perversely, those that use crop factors would argue it simplifies.
                              I personally don't think it leads to misunderstandings, because I think misunderstandings are already there.

                              I also think it's important to know what changes in setup are needed to reach the same Angle of View and blur circles between formats. Granted, when out and about shooting, it's doesn't matter anymore, but as a theoretical foundation I certainly think it's a worth while exercise.

                              But I couldn't for my life answer why a simple clarification of technical fact would need to turn into something sour.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by AndreeOnline View Post
                                I also think it's important to know what changes in setup are needed to reach the same Angle of View and blur circles between formats. Granted, when out and about shooting, it's doesn't matter anymore, but as a theoretical foundation I certainly think it's a worth while exercise.
                                Ah, but this is also something that causes confusion - "angle of view" is not the same as "field of view". Technically the angle of view relates to the focal length, and field of view how THAT relates to the imaging sensor size.

                                Anyway, I agree that there's a lot of confusion around the issue, but don't understand why people have to get so divisive in their own understanding of different lens focal lengths and sensor sizes. The reality is, crop factors can be very useful, but also confusing. If you can get your head around what your current camera needs to achieve the desired field of view you need for each particular shot, then you've most likely gained a much deeper experiential understanding of photography/cinematography that crop factors may become irrelevant.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X