Any suggestions for lenses that cover the full sensor?

Maybe something with small f stop for low light situations & a zoom to film birds from a distance

Is it possible for an EF lens to cover the whole 35mm sensor, or is this just a dream of mine?! I would prefer getting an adapter and buying an EF lens, so that I can eventually use them with Canon DSLRs in the future.
Do adapters have lens Image Stabilization that actually works?

Any suggestions are much appreciated

Any and all Canon EF lenses will cover the LS300 sensor which is only APS/S35 sized.
Stabilisation requires a 'smart' adaptor like a Metabones, where you can also choose a Speedbooster version.

I'm fairly sure the Aputure adaptors won't work because of the ND wheel on the JVC.

If you want a good quality specialist nature lens you'll probably have to shell out and buy a proper lens for the job and they are not cheap. You can try old broadcast lenses with multipliers and then crop the sensor, but you might not like the results.

Personally I use the Panasonic 12-35 and 35-100, 5x Samyang T1.5 primes, a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 and Tokina 11-16 t2.8. I shot six testimonials for a cookery infomercial on Wednesday using just the 35mm with a bit of VSM. The 135mm has only been used once so far, but it was a great shot and looked lovely.

Much useful info.
Keep them coming :)

This thread is titled dream lenses, and in the case of zooms, there's nothing out there, particularly the EFs (I have the 24-105 and the 17-55). I use the Olympus 12-40 and the Lumix 35-100 regularly - which don't fully cover the sensor, but that's okay because you can dial them in and use the VSM to make them more useful. However I detest the aperture control and squirrelly focus on all these lenses.

To me a dream lens for a cinema camera is manual focus and manual iris. My favorite lens shooting 16 was the Angenieux 9,5-57 - it was small, light and relatively sharp - but didn't cover S16 unfortunately, so I sold it in the late 80's and bought a Cooke 10.4-52 - a big, heavy lens with flare issues.

I'd love to see a manual zoom lens in that focal range with manual controls and built with the new technology - i.e. lighter and sharper - that would cover S35 - or at least MFT or S16 - and not cost 30 grand.

Won't happen I know, but it's still my dream.

BTW, I know about Canon's new "low cost" zooms - but T4.4? Really?

With the LS300, there are two subtle aspects of lens performance that aren't apparent when using those lenses on Panasonic cameras.

First is Panasonic's in-camera lens distortion correction, and the artificial sharpening it uses to tighten up the corners of the frame. Thankfully, JVC does not attempt to duplicate this covert image manipulation, and you can see what the glass actually delivers. Except for some of the Leica's, Panasonic zooms are not very sharp in the corners, though it doesn't really show in J-Log1 footage at 1080p. But at 4K resolution, a genuinely sharp lens can make a perceptible difference in your footage.

The other factor is the incomparable utility of the 0.7X Speedbooster on the LS300. To use this at 100% VSM, a wide-angle lens needs a bit more sensor coverage than full frame. The Rokinon T1.5 35mm and 85mm do make the grade without vignetting, but I'm not sure about the 24mm. The otherwise fabulous Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 in Nikon mount can't quite cover the sensor at 24mm with the 0.7 Speedbooster.

Very useful info Lee. thanks

I no longer have the Panasonic 12-35, I sold it and got the Olympus 12-40. The Olympus seems quite sharp to the corner,s even in 4K (although I've only used it for about 5 or 6 shots in 4K).

Now, the resident advice here is that when shooting 4K you should set the VSM at the 4K setting, rather than use the whole sensor.

But before I learned that, I had made a short for a client with the Rokinon Cine primes (and those few shots with the Olympus) using the full sensor and didn't have any distracting vignetting - it may be there but it didn't jump out if it was (a year ago, quick job)... I used (I think) the 12, 24, 35, 50 (a Leica-R Summicron) and 85 for that project.

The Panasonic 20mm works great but vignettes at full sensor. Only saw that after the shoot.

From what I have ready around, I think all MFT lenses do vignette.
Can someone confirm?

It's a pity as I have seen some nice Olympus lenses with a very good price range

My favorite lenses on the LS300 are my Nikkor manual focus primes from my film cameras. They more than cover the full sensor, so any weakness in the corners is cropped out. I also use the Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 zoom when I need stabilization. With it I set VSM to 86%. At that setting there is a slight bit of vignetting, but I don't find it particularly noticeable. The JVC recommended VSM setting for MFT lenses is 80%, which seems to eliminate the mild vignette.

I think it's important for intended purchasers to understand that the whole idea of the LS300 - which I think is brilliant - is for the camera to be set up so that you can use almost any lens ever made, from std16 to vintage still lenses (in my case, Leica-R and Canon FD).

However, in order to do that, you need to dial in the VSM feature of the sensor so that the particular lens appears to cover the full frame. There is no down side to doing this, at least when shooting 1080 or 2K. I have shot footage using my Olympus 12-40, with the VSM set at, as said above, 86% and intercut it seamlessly with footage from the Pocket Camera using the same lens.

Shooting 4K is more limiting, but even then almost all MFT lenses will work without vignetting when the VSM is set at the recommended 4K setting (it tells you in the menu when you're selecting). All cine intended lenses, like the Rokinons or Zeiss primes or Canon EF zooms, will cover at 100%.

But what makes the concept so cool is that, since introducing the Prime Zoom feature shortly after the birth of the camera, when shooting 1080 or 2K you can zoom in from the highest chosen setting to the maximum crop, which is 46% (it might have been upped to 43%).

This makes the camera uniquely versatile in my opinion - and it is my opinion because 4K doesn't look traditionally filmic to me anyway (I shot 16, S16 and 35 for nearly 40 years) and I'm not bowled over by the sometimes annoying fad of extremely shallow depth of field.

With an S16 lens, like my 70's era Angenieux 15-150, I can shoot a head and shoulders at 60mm-80mm at T4 with a pleasing separation of the subject from the background. That's why I love using my Pocket Cameras and my D16 - and I can do that on the LS300 too (although it isn't pafocal on the JVC for some reason I have yet to discover).

Very interesting concept Steve.

But for someone like me, who wants to buy 2 or 3 lenses, I want to try to get full frame lenses, if the price is somewhat acceptable.

If you already have a collection of lenses, then all well at good :)

Perhaps you shouldn't use the phrase 'Full Frame' in the context of the LS300, better perhaps to say 'Full Sensor'.

Most would use the FF phrase when referring to a full size 35mm sensor like the Nikon D800 or Canon 5D. In that context a full frame lens is a very different proposition. The JVC has a S35/APS sized sensor.

Seriously. I think you should start by buying two native MFT lenses the 12-35 and 35-100.
A lot of the time these lenses DO cover the entire JVC sensor, and they will cover a huge range of filming scenarios. They are roughly 24mm-200mm FF equivalent and fixed f2.8!

Both lenses have stabilisation, are very lightweight and compact, have reasonable manual focus (which works in the same direction and Rokinons/Samyang) and they are very cheap. I got mine for £450 and £515 each.

If you like I'll shoot a full sensor test video of each lens for you.

Can you post makers of these lenses you suggest so I can look them up?

I really appreciate your help & suggestions

12-35 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B0086ODC3O)
35-100 (http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B009GFD4N0)

You can find them online much cheaper, mine were genuine UK stock & delivered from within the UK.

You should also look at the 12-40mm Oly as mentioned above.

Sorry, this is long, but there are a lot of options.

As above, Lumix (Panasonic) 12-35 and 35-100, both MFT mount with stabilization (although not as good as Canon's). They are both f2.8, although the image darkens slightly when zooming in on the 12-35. They talk well with the LS300, and the push for auto works well as a start for finding focus. With those two small, light lenses you can cover 95% of normal shooting. They aren't cheap, but in the world of quality lenses, they aren't expensive either.

Also as above, the Olympus 12-40. I sold my Lumix 12-35 to buy this lens because it has a slightly longer top end and holds maximum aperture better through the zoom range. It doesn't - that's DOES NOT - have stabilization, which puts some people off. But it has a much better feeling manual focus ring - it slides back to a manual position and forward for auto, so you can leave the camera on auto if that's how you like to work.

Of course, with the goal to cover the full sensor, there are the EF and EF-S lenses with an MFT smart adapter like Metabones, or a SpeedBooster. I have the 24-105 and 17-55 from my C100 days and don't care for them much on the LS300. For some reason they just don't seem as sharp to me. I use them with a SpeedBooster on my Pocket Cameras instead and they look great on that camera. Stabilization does work well on the JVC.

The best affordable lenses are vintage FF stills, like Nikon, Canon FD and Leica-R - even some Minoltas. They are still cheap, use cheap adapters and have a really nice organic look on the full sensor. They also become short zooms, using the Prime Zoom feature, adding to the versatility. Wider than 17mm is a problem though.

And the variety of affordable full sensor cine primes that are out there now, like Rokinons, Vedra, etc. There are occasionally deals on sets of 3 or 4 that make them a good choice for matched primes. I bought my Rokinons (12, 24, 35 and 85) with native MFT mounts because I avoid adapters if I can, but you can get them with EF mounts and they're pretty future proof.

Of course, if you're in for true future proofing, you can always invest in $60,000 - $100,000 worth of PL mount Zeiss or Leica Cine Primes, although that's probably overkill on a $3000 camera.

But the point is - all of theses lenses, every single one, will work on the LS300 - and will not on a C100 or an FS5.

Thanks Steve. Do vintage lenses look sharp in 4k as I think they were originally intended for 16mm?

No, they don't. In fact they don't even look as sharp in 1080. There's been a lot of advancement in lens technology in the last 30-40 years, both in construction and optical design. However...

There are those people - and I am one - who don't judge the quality of an image by sharpness. In fact, when shooting S16 and 35 I almost always had some sort of diffusion, even if just a 1/2 SoftFX or 1/4 ProMist, to take the edge off. In fact I'm currently shooting a lot (on the Pocket and D16) with that old Angenieux 15-150. It's a soft lens, but has a really nice organic quality, especially on women - and the softness runs colors to pleasing pastels (not everyone''s cup of tea I admit).

If you want that teeth rattling resolution popular in BestBuy showrooms, vintage lenses probably aren't for you. The Lumix lenses are quite sharp, even the lower price zooms.

Thanks Steve, just as I suspected. But they might be useful for a project where that soft & old age look is needed

Steve, do you have any good thoughts on the Panasonic 25mm f/1.7 ?
The price is incredibly cheap here in EU, and it should perform good in low light from what I have read

Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 ASPH. Lens H-H025K B&H Photo Video

It's a f1.7 lens so in low light it should compare to any other lens that can do f1.7, there are no bad panasonic m4/3 lenses if you don't mind the fly by wire focus and the fact that you don't have a iris ring on this lens. I personally find the 15mm f1.7 lens a better choice as it does have a iris ring but it's twice the price but you get a more usable zoom range when you use the vsm to zoom.

Sorry B.J. but I don't know that 17mm lens, or the 15mm one Noa mentions... somewhere back there < I mentioned that I prefer old fashioned manual lenses. These days that's not very possible with zooms (affordably at least). But luckily there are many manual primes, and those are the ones I'm drawn to,

If you shoot J-Log there is no real advantage to an auto lens - auto exposure is deactivated with log, and auto focus isn't that reliable in any situation, so a good manual iris, manual focus (with an actual infinity stop) prime lens is something I would highly recommend.

One lens I didn't mention that I have from my AF100 is the Nokton 17.5 f0.95. If you want a 17mm lens, it is a knockout, It's MFT (but it works up to 92%) and the wide aperture makes up for the low light handicap of the LS300. I don't use it much, but when I do I am always impressed.

Noa, will a 15mm MFT behave like a 30mm on the JS300?

Not sure I understand your question?

Noa, will a 15mm MFT behave like a 30mm on the JS300?

It will, if you have VSM set to MFT. It's possible that the 15mm will cover more of the sensor than just the MFT setting but I don't know.

You might also consider another brand of lens like the Nikon 35mm 1.8 DX. This lens will cover the entire sensor, so it's approximately a 50mm lens and it's a similar price to the 25mm you mentioned. http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B001S2PPT0

You'll need to buy a dumb adapter to mount it: http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B008GVC2LK but then you can fit any other Nikon lens to the JVC.

thanks Duncan will look into that option too

ok, now I see :) With jvc's prime zoom feature you can get a 2.3x maximum zoom for HD or 1.25x maximum zoom for 4K but a 15mm will not behave like a 30mm, you can zoom with the 15mm so you get the same frame as a actual 30mm lens without loss of detail but, and this is the main difference, your dof will not change when you zoom in. If you would place the image of a 15mm at f1.7 zoomed in to 30mm and a 30mm lens at f1.7 (not sure of that exists but for the sake of comparison lets say it does) the 30mm will have a shallower dof at the same f-stop.

I was asking because I want to see if with the panasonic 25mm f/1.7 I would be getting a 50mm as STANDARD not with zooming and not with HD (I want to use 4K)

I still got it wrong apparantly :) In that case like Steve said you can change the vsm for the focal length to match but the same "problem" will occur, which is that the dof will not be the same as a actual 50mm lens at the same f-stop.

this is what i wanted to mean for the panasonic 25mm f/1.4 = 50mm!!

So you want the same focal length compared to a full frame camera that has a 50mm lens attached?

i am just wondering why the specs say its the equivalent of 50mm on 35mm, and if this applies to ls300.

I believe they do this for any size sensor that deviates from a 35mm full frame sensor as that appears to be a standard that's used to indicate what field of view you will get. With m4/3 is simple, if you have a 50mm lens on a full frame camera and you want to have the same field of view on a m4/3 camera you divide by 2 so you need a 25mm. From what I understand you need to do the same with the f-stop so a 50mm at f2.8 on a full frame camera should have the same shallow dof as a 25mm at f1.4 on a m4/3 camera but don't quote me on that, I never did any actual test as I don't have a full frame camera but have read it, anyone is welcome to correct me if necessary.
Edit: forgot to mention that this is only the case when you set vsm to 80% or "mft", once you start changing that the field of view changes as well but not the dof.

What you are talking about here is simply the crop factor.

The 25mm lens is designed for Micro Four Thirds which has a 2x crop factor. Meaning that when the lens is used on a MFT camera such as the GH4 it has the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a traditional 35mm film stills camera. Put the lens on an LS300 and you'll have to set the VSM level down to remove the vignetting as it's not 'supposed' to cover a sensor larger than the GH4.

A 50mm lens is often referred to as a 'Standard Lens' which is a popular focal length for 35mm still photography. For cropped sensors such as the APS format a 35mm will give roughly the same angle of view because the crop factor is around 1.5.

A lens designed for APS will cover the entire LS300 sensor.

Silly question, but the thread title relates to Full Frame lenses?
Your best bet if you really want FF lenses is to buy a set of Samyangs, I've just bought 5 they are amazing.

I also had the complete set of Samyangs but for my Sony nex-ea50 and when I sold that camera I sold the lenses too. These lenses have a very good price/performance but I was not satisfied with all of them, my 12 and 24mm where pretty soft in comparison to panasonic mft lenses but them being softer did give the image some "character", some might call it cinematic, not sure :) the samyang 7,5mm fisheye was so soft that I found it unusable, the 9-18mm olympus that I got instead was like night and day at 9mm and I"m sure the 7-14 panasonic or olympus will put the samyang to shame at 7mm. My 12mm did have a issue with irisblades that got stuck but the supplier replaced it with a new one without any discussion.
I might get myself the 135mm t2.2 as that would be a great lens for ceremonies and for 549euro that's a great deal.

Noa, I did read that some people had softness issue with the 24mm when fully open but that it's very sharp with the iris closed slightly. I'm not sure if mine has this issue, I don't think I've filmed with it fully open.

According to online reviews the 35,50 and 85mm lenses compare favourable with Zeiss primes.

I couldn't comment on fisheye and ultra wide Samyangs. I use a Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 for wide shots.

It's worth mentioning that the latest Cine versions of the lenses have distance and iris scales on both sides of the lens (not on the top) and they have matching optical coatings. As well as uniformly aligned follow focus teeth positions (if you need that sort of thing).

What you are talking about here is simply the crop factor.

The 25mm lens is designed for Micro Four Thirds which has a 2x crop factor. Meaning that when the lens is used on a MFT camera such as the GH4 it has the same field of view as a 50mm lens on a traditional 35mm film stills camera. Put the lens on an LS300 and you'll have to set the VSM level down to remove the vignetting as it's not 'supposed' to cover a sensor larger than the GH4.

A 50mm lens is often referred to as a 'Standard Lens' which is a popular focal length for 35mm still photography. For cropped sensors such as the APS format a 35mm will give roughly the same angle of view because the crop factor is around 1.5.

A lens designed for APS will cover the entire LS300 sensor.


Understood fully, thanks.
Everything comes at a price and compromise, the Panasonics offer very good quality for their price factor, but they are MFT and you have to crop down to avoid vignetting, but on the other hand you don't need expensive adapters. However I still think this is an OK option for someone who is just starting out and doesn't have thousands of $s in cash to spend on lenses.

Everything comes at a price and compromise, the Panasonics offer very good quality for their price factor, but they are MFT and you have to crop down to avoid vignetting

You make it sound as if that is a bad thing :) MFT lenses can be just as good as apsc lenses (when it comes to IQ) that cover the entire sensor. I also think you are misunderstanding the concept of jvc's larger sensor, you can say a MFT lens is using a smaller part of the sensor so it's cropping, I would say the lens is using a part of the sensor that it has been designed for. The larger sensor main benefit is that is does allow lenses, other then MFT, to be used, which is a advantage no other manufacturer can claim, unless someone has managed to fit a MFT lens on a Canon or Sony. This gives you access to a very broad range of lenses that can be used.
Another advantage of the larger sensor is the fact you can make zooms out of prime lenses.
Native MFT lenses also offer the advantage that you have full functionality when it comes to OIS, aufofocus and iris controlled from the camera without the use of a adapter but their main disadvantage is that you lock yourself into a system that is not transferable to any other brand of camera, except Olympus, so when you start to invest in MFT glass you are locking yourself into that system, that's something to think about but it's no "compromise" whatsoever.

Noa, I fully agree with you. That's why the only choice for me was the LS300, as it allows flexibility in lenses at the budget I can afford.

I don't think MFT is a bad thing. For someone like me, who has 0 lenses, it's a good way to get 2-3 lenses to start working with, at an affordable cost. Personally i do not want to spend $800-1000 on an MFT though, I would prefer putting that investment in an EF lens that I can use in the future on other systems. but that will come in due course. For now, and from all the great info all you guys are providing, I will get a couple of MFT lenses to start off

I did read that some people had softness issue with the 24mm when fully open but that it's very sharp with the iris closed slightly. I'm not sure if mine has this issue, I don't think I've filmed with it fully open.

I had the first generation Samyang lenses which did not have a declicked iris, only my 24mm was also a first gen cine lens with a declicked iris so it might be that Samyang has improved their glass in the meanwhile. I found their slightly softer look more appealing to look at but have to say I used it on a nex-ea50 which did not resolve nearly as much detail as my current camera's so that probably is one of the reasons why I see a bigger difference now. But even compared to my sony 18-200mm stocklens the Samyang lenses where visibly softer.

Noa. You must have had a bad example of a Samyang lens.
Their 'Cine' lenses seem to be considered as good as Zeiss Primes which are 8x the price.

All I know is that they look really good on my LS300, and certainly much sharper than my MFT zooms, as you would hope.

(My Sony 18-200 was much sharper than my Nikkor 18-200VR, but the Sony now seems almost faulty compared to my Panasonic pair)

Duncan you use MFT Samyangs or other mounts + adapter?

Noa. You must have had a bad example of a Samyang lens.

When I used them with my Sony they where not bad examples, I even had a 12mm replacement where the irisblades would stick and that one would perform just the same, the only lens I had to compare to was my 18-200mm stocklens and that one was sharper then my Samyangs.
I have not had the chance to test them on my jvc though.

I bought them in Canon mount. That actually worked out a little cheaper for most of them.