What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Latest "that system has it so why don't we?" thread

After shooting my adapted Canon EF 40mm f2.8 pancake waaaaaay more than I actually thought I do, I wouldn't mind seeing a Lumix f2 or 2.8 version, if they could keep it similar size. Looking through my albums, I think I've already taken more shots with it on my S5 than any of my Canon cameras lol. The little EF 40mm has a bit of magic about it to my eye, it seems to produce a 3D depth effect, and it's not just thin DOF. Probably asking way too much for Panasonic to reproduce something like that:)
 
Markuswelder said:
After shooting my adapted Canon EF 40mm f2.8 pancake waaaaaay more than I actually thought I do, I wouldn't mind seeing a Lumix f2 or 2.8 version, if they could keep it similar size. Looking through my albums, I think I've already taken more shots with it on my S5 than any of my Canon cameras lol. The little EF 40mm has a bit of magic about it to my eye, it seems to produce a 3D depth effect, and it's not just thin DOF. Probably asking way too much for Panasonic to reproduce something like that:)
Click to expand...
Markus, how big is the combo S5 + adapter + Canon 40mm f2.8?
 
dirk said:
I would love to see a small 40mm/2.0 or 43mm/2.0 for LMount
Click to expand...
Has to be 40mm I think. Otherwise it just gets too close to either 35 or 50mm. If someone is going to make one, it has to be just different enough to generate sales from users who already have the 50. Or 35mm. Or both.
 
Here ya go. I've popped my 26mm pancake beside it, just to give an idea of scale
250126s-P1101908.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-G9
  • 20.0 mm
  • ƒ/1.7
  • 1/15 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -1.7
  • ISO 200
250126s-P1101911.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-G9
  • 20.0 mm
  • ƒ/2
  • 1/8 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • -0.7
  • ISO 250
 
Markuswelder said:
Has to be 40mm I think. Otherwise it just gets too close to either 35 or 50mm. If someone is going to make one, it has to be just different enough to generate sales from users who already have the 50.
Click to expand...

There is a surprising difference between 40mm and 43mm. My experience is that below 60mm, every mm makes a difference, the wider you go, the bigger the difference in the image per mm.

The range 28mm up to 50mm is a very interesting field to launch different FL. Think at the MFT Leica 15/1.7, Lumix 20/1.7 or LMount Sigma 40 Art (old) and Sigma 45.

There are many examples of 43mm in the past from Leica, Pentax and others.
 
dirk said:
There is a surprising difference between 40mm and 43mm. My experience is that below 60mm, every mm makes a difference, the wider you go, the bigger the difference in the image per mm.

The range 28mm up to 50mm is a very interesting field to launch different FL. Think at the MFT Leica 15/1.7, Lumix 20/1.7 or LMount Sigma 40 Art (old) and Sigma 45.

There are many examples of 43mm in the past from Leica, Pentax and others.
Click to expand...
I've been toying with the idea of replacing my EF 40 with a Lumix 35mm. I've played around with my Siggy 28-70mm, zooming between 35 & 40mm. To me, the difference is inconsequential. You can almost lean forward or back far enough to get close enough to identical framing. Inconsequential enough that I keep on deciding not to buy a 35mm. Yeah, the Lumix opens up to f1.8, but at that focal length, the difference isn't huge either. I'd be more than happy to split the difference at f2, but for me, it would have to be 40mm. But that's just me. It also helps that I really really like my EF 40. It seems to have a little bit of magic to it, for reasons I don't understand. It also works brilliantly at vehicle shows, where room is a bit limited, and 50mm can be a bit awkward at times. I shot the whole morning just with the 40, it worked pretty damn well I thought.
 
If a 40mm f2 (or thereabouts) did appear, I reckon I'd go back to my m4/3 style kit, & go all primes again. I loved my 9 or 10mm ultrawide prime, 15 or 20mm f1.7 prime, & a 25 or 30mm. Pick up a 17 or 18mm, (Sigma or Lumix -possibly Sigma because it's tiny & light) the Lumix 26mm (which weighs nothing) Lumix? 40mm, Lumix 50mm & 85mm f1.8's. There's just something I really really enjoy about shooting with small, light-ish, relatively inexpensive and basic kit. And having to think a little bit in advance about how to get that shot which is floating around in your head. Great fun. For me.
Holidays are a different matter, The Lumix 20-60 & 14-28mm are brilliant for those scenarios. Just too easy.
 
Markuswelder said:
After shooting my adapted Canon EF 40mm f2.8 pancake waaaaaay more than I actually thought I do, I wouldn't mind seeing a Lumix f2 or 2.8 version, if they could keep it similar size. Looking through my albums, I think I've already taken more shots with it on my S5 than any of my Canon cameras lol. The little EF 40mm has a bit of magic about it to my eye, it seems to produce a 3D depth effect, and it's not just thin DOF. Probably asking way too much for Panasonic to reproduce something like that:)
Click to expand...
I plan on getting an EF 40/2.8 as I could use it on my S5 and also the 6D I picked up last year, and it would make for a really small film SLR kit with my 300X. The only reason I'm holding off is the 7Artisans 40mm f/2.5 which was shown a few months back and so far has not made an appearance and no release date has been announced. I imagine I'd get the EF 40mm anyway but I'd prioritise a native L-mount lens.
 
Jonathan-Mac said:
I plan on getting an EF 40/2.8 as I could use it on my S5 and also the 6D I picked up last year, and it would make for a really small film SLR kit with my 300X. The only reason I'm holding off is the 7Artisans 40mm f/2.5 which was shown a few months back and so far has not made an appearance and no release date has been announced. I imagine I'd get the EF 40mm anyway but I'd prioritise a native L-mount lens.
Click to expand...
That's interesting. I hadn't heard of that one. I'll certainly be keeping an eye out for that one for sure. Did you hear if was AF or manual focus by any chance?
I keep forgetting how much I enjoy the 40mm FOV, until I grab the little 40 and go shoot with it for a day. It's a little bit of a Goldilocks focal length for me, not too wide, yet not too tight.
The little EF used to do double duty on my Canon FF and APS C bodies, as it gave a neat 60mm FOV on APS C.
 
Taking into account the title of this thread, I think that in the L-Mount we do not need a hidden camera like the one the Canon EOS R1 has on the back


Canon-EOS-R1-Back.jpg
down in the bottom left corner next to where it says LAN (network lamp)

Nobody knows what the purpose of this camera is and it is not mentioned in the instruction book
R1 back_pages-to-jpg-0001.jpg



perhaps it will serve to identify the photographer... or to take selfies... does anyone know?


 
dirk said:
There is a surprising difference between 40mm and 43mm. My experience is that below 60mm, every mm makes a difference, the wider you go, the bigger the difference in the image per mm.

The range 28mm up to 50mm is a very interesting field to launch different FL. Think at the MFT Leica 15/1.7, Lumix 20/1.7 or LMount Sigma 40 Art (old) and Sigma 45.

There are many examples of 43mm in the past from Leica, Pentax and others.
Click to expand...
I don't know why we use mm at all... because that is a) not cross system equivalent b) it is not lineair.... The best way would be to use Vield Of View. Which is lineair and cross system equal :)
I'm only having trouble with the >28mm focal lengths in tight places(indoors) where you are restricted in your movement. Outside the difference between 40 or 43 negligible to ME, it's just half a step or less difference. worst case scenario you crop your photo 10px on all sides :)
 
Markuswelder said:
That's interesting. I hadn't heard of that one. I'll certainly be keeping an eye out for that one for sure. Did you hear if was AF or manual focus by any chance?
I keep forgetting how much I enjoy the 40mm FOV, until I grab the little 40 and go shoot with it for a day. It's a little bit of a Goldilocks focal length for me, not too wide, yet not too tight.
The little EF used to do double duty on my Canon FF and APS C bodies, as it gave a neat 60mm FOV on APS C.
Click to expand...
For 40mm, I love the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8. Really small; with adapter, it’s about the same size as the Sigma 45/2.8 Contemporary. The only real limitation for me is low light; without good light it tends to look dull. But in good light, the color is vivid, the contrast impressive (most Konica lenses I’ve used share these qualities), and it’s quite sharp. The Union Station pic I posted in the Three Favorite Photos from last year thread was from the Konica.
 
Travis Butler said:
For 40mm, I love the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8. Really small; with adapter, it’s about the same size as the Sigma 45/2.8 Contemporary. The only real limitation for me is low light; without good light it tends to look dull. But in good light, the color is vivid, the contrast impressive (most Konica lenses I’ve used share these qualities), and it’s quite sharp. The Union Station pic I posted in the Three Favorite Photos from last year thread was from the Konica.
Click to expand...
I also have the Konica 40/1.8 and it's a nice lens though soft wide open. Like all the Konica lenses I've tried (which isn't many to be fair) it has great flare when used right.

However, I would like a fully automatic 40mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top