(None)

Kalimar 500 8 MIRROR [M42]

Natural

This lens doesn't seem to have much hope. It just can't render a sharp image, and this is the second copy I've tested (first one had haze, but this one is clean).

UV

Canon 70-200 2.8

Use -0 COLOR for sports photography shoot...

UV

Canon 70-200 2.8

I don't like these results so far. When using this lens on a Canon DSLR, it always produced excellent results, but something about this lens-sensor combination (maybe the METABONES speedbooster) is making this look pretty bad (not realistic looking in a lot of ways). The SHARPNESS is good, but the CONTRAST and COLOR are strange. The CONTRAST makes it difficult to achieve realistic looking dynamic range, and the COLOR either looks fake when turned up, or drab when turned down. In the future I may try adding a Tiffen GlimmerGlass or Black Pro Mist filter to attempt to control the dynamic range, etc.

UV

Canon 70-200 2.8

I'm not really liking the results of these settings yet, but what's funny is I tried these settings (as of 2022-05-25) on the Panasonic G7 and they LOOK GREAT. On the GH4 there's still a little bit too much contrast, and it's difficult to maintain highlight detail in sunlit conditions.

(None)

Canon 50 1.8 ii

It works pretty well to just set the "Highlight Shadow" to -2, +2 and call it good, but I added NOISE REDUCTION to keep the sharpness (and contrast) looking more "REAL". As I mentioned in the other reviews of this lens, it has a pretty decent close focus distance, and while the manual focusing ring is very thin (probably too narrow for focus gears to be added) it's easy for me to use by hand.

(None)

Sigma 18-35 1.8

For some reason, this lens-sensor combination, while not a "PERFECT MATCH" works really well together. Normally, this has been a REALLY difficult lens to work with (on the GX85, G85 and GH4) but this camera just has the right properties (whatever they may be) that create a very accurate image with smooth gradations through the 11 steps of the Zone System. I don't like this lens for field use (because it's too big and heavy to carry around on my multi-camera rigs) but I think it can be a great lens for INDOOR, STATIC use (for low light reasons as well)! This test was done with a straight (non-optical) adapter, but I hope to test this with a speedbooster/focal reducer in the future.

(None)

Sigma 18-35 1.8

+3 SHADOWS (Highlight Shadow)

Sigma 17-50 2.8

(None)

Sigma 17-50 2.8

The Panasonic G85 and GX85 tests almost always come out identical, but I tested this lens on the both just to make sure (again) and yep, they both work well with these settings (for this lens). Remember that it's always "lens-sensor specific" but because the G85 and GX85 keep coming out the same (test after test) I am going to start interpolating the results to either one (I'll explain more later).

(None)

Sigma 17-50 2.8

WARNING: This test was using a Viltrox EF-M2ii focal reducer/speedbooster which (in conjunction with this old lens and the noisy, high-powered AF pulling too much power) resulted in damage to my Panasonic GX85 camera. The camera started glitching and freezing up during the test, then electronics of the camera stopped working within a couple of months. NOTES: I got this lens because having the constant f/2.8 aperture was appealing, but this lens has a lot of problems. This lens in particular had a lot of chromatic abberations (which showed up as red, blue and purple fringes) and the overall CONTRAST and COLOR rendering are really weird (the contrast is not smooth in the transitions from shadow to highlight, and with this sensor the COLOR is not only inaccurate but incomplete). This is also the second pro Sigma lens that needed a +3 SHADOWS correction (using Highlight Shadow) because the lens is too contrasty (which is a bad thing with this sensor). All I can say is that I struggled to make the lens render a REAL-looking image, which is my goal.