Hmm. Once you factor in the speed booster price, it might be smarter just to get the better camera body/format, that 'natively' fits the desired lens? I was looking to get the GX85 as my "starter rig" and get the best 1 to 5 x "fast" zoom lens. Looks like Sigma is the way to go if you care about Quality. My specific (amateur) use case is getting good shots of The Young Children when at school awards/performances. You are often 15-20 meters away from stage (crammed up back with other parents) so no chance to use a Prime up close, and in poor/challenging light. The a6500 with the Sigma looks like a 'smarter' option? I'm a geek, so fiddling around with a challenging menu system, fiddly buttons and a useless daylight screen doesn't scare me, if the trade off is great IQ. Better order your book then.

Mmmmmm affiliate links money nom nom nom xD

how does the metabones .71 and sigma work/perform on the gh3? Does the metabones fit properly? would you recommend it?

can 20mm f/1.7 compare to 25mm f/1:2.8 Olympus? im using omd em5. just beginner here, watching your videos really helps

Remember, the reviewer's experience is limited to the ONE sample he owns.

Hi Darell...so you thin k that the 12-40 worth the price? i have a 12-32 from panasonic on my em1 mark 2, i ordered a 12-40 cause a lot of people sya it's a very good and sharp lense...i'm starting to think that maybe i didn't really need to put money in a 12-40 and maybe put it in fix focal...for now i have oly 45mm 1.8 and oly 40-150mm... what do you think? the 12-40 i ordered it for 550€ new (sale)...woth keep it or cancell the order (not sent yet)???

Exactly. He fell for the dpreview full frame propaganda. f/2.8 on mft equals f/2.8 on “full frame”, for exposure. If it didn’t, your hand held light meter would have a sensor size setting.

He clarifies a couple of times that he's referring to depth of field and 'total light gathering capability, not your settings', ie lens and sensor light gathering capability combined. How does that change if the settings don't change? He eludes to it in the crop factor section of the video - f stop numbers refer to the total amount of light gathered per square inch, so an f2.8 m43 lens is sending 1/4 of the light to the m43 sensor as an f2.8 full frame lens on a full frame body, but the light per square inch is the same. Then the smaller sensor compensates by cranking up the gain so its usually more noisy at a given iso than a full frame, although it doesn't always translate exactly to a 2 stop difference, just roughly 2 stops. I love M43 btw, just made the switch to a Panasonic G85 after 10 years with a Canon APSC DSLR. Love the size and weight benefits, the sensor stabilization + lens stabilization combined, and quality video to top it off (not to mention the awesome price on these). I hope Panasonic and OM system keep pushing the technology forward on this format.

Ah but Tony is one of these people who believes that it’s not really an f/2.8 lens, but rather an f/5.6 lens masquerading as one.😂 I guess his light meters all have a setting for sensor size on them? I’ve never seen one that does.

+Douglas Knisely - Good points about the Panasonic Leica 15mm f/1.7. It's technically excellent and creates a great look - color, contrast, sharpness, blur, etc. The lens is small and doesn't have overwhelming specs so it tends to be underrated. With regular use it becomes clear the PL 15mm is a unique lens.

+Taka's 4K lab The brightness does stay the same, but the image noise changes, and the depth of field changes with an equivalent field of view. If you're interested in learning more, visit sdp.io/crop.

+Tony Northrup I understand where you come from, and there is logic behind that. I give you that. But it is very misleading and confusing people as you can see here. That is my point. And noise cannot standardized. Again, if you take photo in FF camera and crop that picture to MFT size. Is there any difference with noise? No.

+vincedelapena: It's not a bug, it's a feature! This sound is supposed to happen.

Nando, the rattle is not a feature. It is not a selling point. It is just the loose element floating/banging around prior to the camera turning on. Once the camera has been turned on and there is power in the lens, the rattling will stop.

+richdt Glad to help!

Crazies ?! The canon fds are awesome I use them often! What lenses do you have ?

@@A1Bokeh I've got the 50mm f1.4, the 1.8, the 135 2.8, the 28mm 2.8, 100-200 zoom, and a bunch of random other third parties (my favorite is the Sigma 28mm 2.8 mini wide) I only say crazies because of what he said in the video. I love my FD lenses and I have them adapted to all the cameras I have.

@@briandipierro8865 nice I just sold the 50mm 1.4 ..tiny bit of regret lol I did a video on it i may get the 1.2, how does tha 1.8 compare to the 50mm 1.4? the 70-210 is super solid f4 which is meh but it has great images and sharp, I recently got the fd metabones and paired with the 28 its pretty dang sweeeeet I want to get that canon fd 24mm f2!

@@A1Bokeh I want the 50mm 1.2 some day! The 1.8 came with my Canon AE-1 and it's considerably sharper wide open than the 1.4 is. I've got two of them (one has a scratch on the rear element that shows up in bokeh orbs but the performance is still incredible. I don't like those old school 70-210's that seem to be everywhere, I have the Vivitar Series 1 version and it's great for macro shots but still incredibly soft. How well does the metabones adapter work? I may end up getting one for M43 since that's... What I've been using mostly now. The 24 f2 seems like it'd be so nice, I want something a little wider and it'd be perfect to get eventually.

@@briandipierro8865 Wonder how sharp the 1.8 would be at 1.8... i have the 135 2.5 and 70-210 and im selling the 135 i more like primes but i really enjoy that lens. I think the metabones works best with lenses that are a bit wider focal lengths so at 28 it becomes like a 20 and 24 i believe will be around 17 I really like it with the 28 the image still looks great and sharp I wouldnt really use it much on the longer focal lengths tried it on the 135 i wasnt really liking it ... I know man that 24mm! little expensive at f2 but it seems to be solid

+The Post Color Blog (Dave's Tuts) Old lenses are awesomo (just dont tell anyone) ;)

+The Post Color Blog (Dave's Tuts) I play with many manual focus lenses ..Yes a lot of old zooms are very average may be most.. but there are gems about ..my minolta MD35-70 f3.5 macro out resolves my 16mp sony nex.. i have 4 or 5 MF zooms that are very good .i probably try 30 to find them .but i am a prime man most of the time

+david appleton i have loads os 1.4s and they all give me extreme sharpness

I've talked to quite a few pros who experimented with MFT and had the same feelings about those lenses... but they didn't keep shooting with MFT. So by sampling MFT users, you're talking only to people who love the system. We've done side-by-side tests, but you can also look up sharpness tests on DxOMark if you want an outside opinion.

​@@TonyAndChelsea (or anyone else) Disclaimer: I don't own any of these cameras or lenses and probably will ever own one that's half, the cheapest one mentioned here. So, no. I can't prove or show that A is better than B. I just like to know and understand a bit of everything and to crunch some numbers while I search for information. I'll just use DxOMark "data" since it was the source mentioned to be checked Can you Tony or anyone explain how - according to DxOMark- the same lens in 2 different FF camera bodies has 2 different scores? The sharpest lens on DxOmark database is the Sigma 85mm F1.4 DG HSM Art on a Nikon D800E Now take that same lens and put it on a Nikon D800 body and see the difference. Ok... It might have been a typo while publishing the numbers. So take the same lens and put it on a D610 and D750 and see how the numbers are different. - On a D610 it has a score of 44 with a sharpness of 22 P-Mpix - On a D750 it has a score of 45 with a sharpness of 24 P-Mpix - On a D800E or a D810 the sharpness jumps to... 36 P-Mpix I'm already hearing someone typing "D810 is a 36.3 Megapixel camera while the D750 is just a 24.3 Megapixel body.". Yeap... but both D610 and D750 are 24.3 Megapixels cameras. Does the same lens change it's sharpness by "walking" a couple feet to the next body? If I wait and buy a future 94.2 Megapixel FF body will that lens become sharper than a scalpel or an obsidian knife? Let's just hope Sigma will be able to make that lens for a FF 645 body. It will be sharper than a laser cutter or a plasma torch :) I don't know about everyone else but when I compare A with B, I like to compare apples with apples and not apples with potatoes just because they might have the same shape so, let's compare some lenses attached to a similar X Megapixel camera body. - Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM from 2010: US$ 669 (for a APS-C 1.5x crop factor body) - Olympus 12-40mm F2.8 PRO launched in 2013: US$ 1000 - Panasonic LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. launched in 2012: US$ 1129 - Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art launched 2017: US$ 1300 - Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR launched in 2015: US$ 2400 - Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM launched in 2012: US$ 2299 and put them all in "apples to apples". How about 2016 harvested apples? - Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II = 20.4 Megapixel MFT (US$ 2000) - Nikon D500 = 20.9 Megapixel APS-C (US$ 2000) - Canon EOS-1D X Mark II = 20.2 Megapixel FF (US$ 6000) - Nikon D5 = 20.8 Megapixel FF (US$ 6500) Nikon D500 + Sigma 17-50mm F2.8 EX DC OS HSM * = 13 P-Mpix (US$ 2669 total) Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + Olympous 12-40mm F2.8 PRO = 12 P-Mpix (US$ 3000 total) Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II + Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 = 12 P-Mpix (US$ 3129 total) Nikon D500 + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art ** = 10 P-Mpix (US$ 3300 total) Nikon D500 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR ** = 9 P-Mpix (US$ 4400 total) Canon EOS-1D X Mark II + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 Art = 17 P-Mpix (US$ 7300 total) Nikon D5 + Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Art = 15 (US$ 7800 total) Canon EOS-1D X Mark II + EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM = 16 P-Mpix (US$ 8299 total) Nikon D5 + Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR = 13 (US$ 8900) * With 1.5x crop factor becomes 25.5-75? ** Due to 1.5x crop factor this lens becomes a 36-105? Or I got this part wrong?? And did they get a lemon with that Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR or are all they lemons?? Everyone's pockets have their own depth (mine are as shallow as a 5 gallon water bottle filled with just 1 inch of water) and everyone have their wants, likes and needs but I wonder if the diference between DoF and a few more P-Mpix (how is it measured btw? I couldn't find a "formula" ) worth a diference of US$ 4300 or around US$ 4600 (diference between a D500 + 17-50 and a 1D X + Sigma 24-70) or even more if we take the Nikon D5 . Btw @Tony & Chelsea Northrup DxOMark doesn't show data for the Olympus E-M5 Mark II or for the Panasonic GH4 but they do regarding the original E-M5 and the GH3. Olympus E-M5: - Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched in 2012: US$ 1129) = 10 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched 2013: US$ 920) = 7 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 ASPH (launched back in 2009: US$ 850) = 5 P-Mpix Panasonic GH3: - Panasonic 12-35mm / F2.8 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched in 2012: US$ 1129) = 9 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / POWER O.I.S. (launched 2013: US$ 920) = 6 P-Mpix - Panasonic 14-140mm F4.0-5.8 ASPH (launched back in 2009: US$ 850) = 5 P-Mpix Here I can only figure 2 scenarios: or you (and probably everyone else) has to do a harder pixel peeping or DxOMark needs to re-test every single lens and camera body possible with a new "industry standard". The Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art although cheaper (US$799), yes according to DxOMark it seems to be sharper than the Panasonic 12-35 or the Olympus 12-40 which are similar in focus length if you take the crop factor in consideration (no test yet for the Panasonic 12-60 f/2.8-4 which was the perfect "contender")". Sharper but not by much. Just by 1 or 2 P-Mpix (whatever that percentual value is and means). Speaking of which... hasn't DxOMark data been contested in the past by some people who knows about optics?

@@carlosbarradas7425 dxomark is a bunch of pseudoscience nonsense that has nothing whatsoever to do with photography. Period. If Tony can’t take great photos with the 12-40 and mft, that’s on him not the gear. I’ve shot events with it on my EM5iii, fantastic results.

+Courtland Dastyck You will be seeing my portfolio in the future hopefully =D

@@nerdMike assuming the same sensor tech and pixel pitch, if you cropped the FF photo to match the mft photo, you would see the exact same noise.

Check sdp.io/crop for more information.

The aperture doesn’t change because of the sensor size. Only for depth of field.

It’s not. Tony’s wrong.

ChriSmith Everything depends on your point of reference. If you compare the E-M1 to the 70D, which is a third of the price, then focus is great. Of you compare to the D500, then the E-M1 won't hold up.

I've put my EM-1 Mk.2 against my friend's D500 at a dirt bike race ..... Not much of a difference, and I'd rather have the EM-1's pre-burst and higher overall burst rate. M4/3 has come an incredibly long way since the G1/EP1 days

+Apreche As I mention in the video, crop factor does not change your camera settings nor the brightness of your photo. It changes your depth of field, your total light gathered, and the total image noise. Medium format cameras have a crop factor of less than 1, like 0.7X, and the math works exactly the same. The photography community has settled on 35mm as the standard for comparing lens performance, so that's why we use it. Even for medium format cameras, their performance (for focal length, aperture, and ISO) is scaled down to 35mm for the sake of comparison. If you're interested in learning more, visit sdp.io/crop.

+Tony Northrup Saying "total light gathered" is just misleading. Some people will take that to mean the same f-stop will result in a 2-stop dimmer image on m4/3 vs FF.

@@sealand000 “total light gathered” is not a thing except in Tony’s mind. Exposure doesn’t change based on sensor size. Aperture doesn’t change based on sensor size. It’s so bizarre that he says this stuff, and what’s worse is his million followers are now believing this nonsense.

Nn

Conrad Senior you might want to look into the newer Panasonic 12-60 also. I haven't used it and I know nothing about it but you might want to consider

+DancersGlobal It depends on the range, but probably the sdp.io/s50150

+1barnet1 Thanks!

+Tony Northrup Thank you very much!

nice question as i was thinking the same thing , yes and also with ois ..

Look into the 7-14mm zoom. It's a very useful lens.

+Jeremy Lawrence "Being able to so very easily carry an equivalent to an 300mm f2.8 lens cannot be overestimated." Correction: equivalent of 300mm *f5.6*.

+Jeremy Lawrence Heya, Jeremy. I don't want to get in the way of you enjoying the equipment you have, because that's the single most important factor to great photography. However, if you're interested in how the math works, we have intense amounts of detail and hours of video here: sdp.io/crop. Somewhere in those videos there's even specific examples showing how the 40-150 and RX100 compare to full-frame equivalent gear.

The f2.8 is still f2.8 when it comes to exposure which is the important thing to get high shutter speeds whilst using a long lens, which is what people seem to continually forget. People get too obsessed with minimal DoF. It is not always required or appropriate I actually mentioned the ADVANTAGE of the smaller equivalent aperture when using such a long lens.

Jeremy Lawrence "The f2.8 is still f2.8 when it comes to exposure" The camera adjusts exposure by boosting the light sensitivity. That's why your pictures are still nicely exposed. You'll notice more noise than if you had a true 300 f2.8 on a FF body, though. And, that's the whole point of doing the conversion: to give an idea of how the actual pictures will look.

Tony Northrup You are completely missing the point by talking maths with regard to how useful such a lens can be. A classic example of not seeing the wood for the trees I'd say. I actually studied optics at University as part of my Astronomy degree as it happens so have no problem with that side of things. FF has its place and I use it a lot for work. But smaller sensors can be beneficial in other ways. Particularly if needing to travel light or be more discreet in what you are doing. The best camera is the one you have with you, so no matter how 'theoretically' better the Canon f2.8 is, the fact that with a body it will probably weigh more than an entire Olympus 16-450mm equivalent lens spread also with a couple of bodies body means it is very limited in other ways. The best kit is the gear you have with you. If I'm shooting mountain bikers somewhere remote that I need to ride to, do I really want to have a backpack that weighs more than my bike does?

I wonder that, too. Maybe Nikon is harder to reverse-engineer... it's really hard to figure out all those lens communications.

One of the big advantages of native lenses is the camera bodies can correct for things like Chromatic Aberration. How is the focus speed on your Sigma lenses?

Fast!

I've been looking into going mirrorless, and this was one of my major questions. Particularly the effect on AF. How is it?

With the EM-1 I can't tell the difference between my adapted lenses and native 4/3. With the new EM-1 MkII focusing is supposed to be much faster but I'm in no mood to spend $2k on a m4/3 body.

With four thirds lenses and using an adapter you can't use continuous autofocus and the lenses can also unbalance the camera somewhat.

True, but at 1/3 the price I can live with that.

I did get an EM-1; it's been great. With the Olympus Adapter. Certain lenses that I've seen listed as "won't work" (for AF) work fine - in fact, they work great! As for the continuous AF with 4/3 lenses - that also works. Either a software update fixed that or it's just a rumor also.

I support your point. The 12-40 pro really is waaaay superior to any kit lens in every aspect except for its price tag. It surprises me to hear this from Tony, who frequently refers to the DxoMark tests and scores to compare gear.

+Tom Dwyer Thanks, Tom! We're cranking out as much as we can over here :).

Yes @andreasergrei 1 but Tony's point about in body stabilisation is relevant. If you have an older Panny camera without in body stabilisation, you really want to use lenses with lens stabilisation. Olympus lenses (and many others) don't offer that functionality and stabilisation is one of the greatest things about modern cameras. You will also find that some other functionality works better on the native lens from the camera manufacturer. For instance a physical aperture ring on some Panasonic prime lenses will not work on Olympus, you can still change the aperture using camera controls, just the ring on the lens doesn't work. Some Olympus lenses have a function button that is customisable on the lens, this does not work on a Panasonic camera etc.

I think you will love that setup Marcus. Congratulations and enjoy.

literally just did the same haha

marcus hawkins you think the kit lens is good enough or should I buy a 12-35 2.8? I was dead set on that lens until tony reminded me it's like a 5.6 lens

Ryan Thomas I would love to have the option to have more light . It's great outside and in controlled light situations but anything past 12mm inside is tough

i just purchased the g80 with 12-60mm and thinking to add 2 lenses . i totally agree with marcus hawkins . what would be a good set up for video and photography a swell ? i was thinking to add the 42.5mm f1.7 and i am thinking what else could help me that also doesn't break the bank

Not many turned to MFT. Only few who couldn't bear the FF weight and didn't need FF performance anymore, those who don't shoot sports and don't need shoot above 1600 iso. The market is captured by inexpensive Apsc cameras and cheap FF cameras.

@@DeepteshLovesTECH I don't agree

+Ezra Koper Ah, yeah, it seems like DxOMark has just completely stopped lens testing... it's really too bad!

+Ian Cassanova Then you are out of luck since at least half the information in this video is unreliable. For example saying that the 12-40 Pro or the 12-35 Pana aren't that sharp is just false, period. It seems that Tony has just too much work to properly explore the potential of a system that he considers at best as worthy of amateur photography. Now you have no reason to believe me over him. Just research the photos captured with m4/3 and make your own mind.

+Jean Montambeault Well he is saying that they are not sharper then the 14-140mm. Which is excellent for a lens with that zoom range. Stopped down to F5.6 they're a bit sharper probably but that would be pixelpeeping range. While the Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 on a 24mp Nikon D5500 would be night and day differens. I think the argument about comparing it to fullframe prices isn't really that fair. They can be build to half the tolerances and still be twice as good due to the 4x larger sensor. But you have to pay a LOT of money for that fullframe sensor. As a Gx7 owner i have to say that primes are the way to go in m43. The 20mm and 45 F1.8/42.5 F1.7(new pana). And i like the 14mm not becouse it's excellent but at that price and you can just put it away pretty much anywhere. I've seen people use EM-1 in sport environments though. And they did work very well 9 fps with good continuous AF is nothing short of great. But the users said they would never attempt to use it in dim conditions with the same demanding conditions. The Phase detect points just don't work in low light which translates to fails reliably in that case.

+Jean Montambeault As +1barnet1 mentioned, I was discussing their sharpness relative to the more versatile and less expensive 14-140. Looking at the sharpness profiles at DxOMark, I can see that the shorter zooms are a hair sharper in their overlapping range. At the same time, we had done side-by-side testing and hadn't noticed any sharpness difference. So, it's there, but it wasn't enough for us to detect. DxOMark rates the 12-35 and 12-40 at 9 perceptual megapixels... which is the same as the $200 Canon 18-55... which goes for $50 used. And that's really my problem with those two lenses; they're so expensive that unless you really need to be in the MFT world, your money would be better spent on a different system. How can I possibly recommend them over the Sigma 18-35, which is more than a stop faster, $200 cheaper, and pulls 18 perceptual megapixels? It's *twice* as sharp, which is a massive leap. Re: "It seems that Tony has just too much work to properly explore the potential of a system that he considers at best as worthy of amateur photography." Please don't put words in my mouth. We've used the system for our professional videos for a couple of years now, and I even specifically suggested it for professional product photography. I wouldn't shoot a football game or a wedding with it, though. You can't argue that I haven't properly explored the system--we own and use more bodies and lenses than almost anyone else, and I've done a deep analysis of almost all of it.

+Tony Northrup Let's start again on a better foot: I bought and read three of your books. I respect your expertise but I've been raised to keep a critical eye on everything. I do not believe that you are that kind of stupid who needs to be right all the time so I expect that you won't get all offended. I will leave the discussion at that. You make excellent points, as usual, but these need to be contrasted with the equally valid field experience of thousands of daily users who are not fanboys. You know, so many present m43 users come from a larger sensor format system; quite a few still own them; not so many are actually using them anymore. They use(d) the best lenses (myself Canon with Canon, the 20-70 f/2.8 II, best lens ever, and Sigma lenses, the 18-35 and the Art 35mm among them) and are at awe with the Pro line of Oly lenses overall capabilities to put these users in doubt. Now, I'd rather go out and shoot some rather than argue any further. I still appreciate your scientific critical approach as a balance to my more intuitive view of things and I'll always keep abreast with the information that you put at our disposal. Regards, Jean P.S. The 20mm f/1.7, which I use and love for street and flower shows is a really slow focuser. The 75mm f/1.8 is all that you said but not infinitely so. IQ in the Pro line rivals most of the primes. The information you gave about adapting lenses is of the greatest usefulness. The part about pixel density is crucial while often left out of the discussions around adapted lenses. However one doesn't adapt a Nikon 50mm f/1.4 or a Minolta Rokkor for any other reason than an irrational need for such a look. You can't fight that. ;)

@@TonyAndChelsea comparing mft to FF lenses is silly. They’re twice the size and weight, and usually twice the price for equivalent build and aperture. The Olympus and Panasonic 12-xx pro zooms are weather sealed and rugged great build quality, and on mft they produce phenomenal results… I don’t care what dxomark said 5 years ago. Those 18-55 kit lenses were cheap plastic junk. “Perceptual megapixels” has zero to do with photography. And not everyone wants to carry and pay for a “full frame” camera.