I stumbled upon this page while surfing, and thought that it might be helpful for some LS300 users.

I know nothing about, or have any affiliation with, the site, Nor can I attest to the validity of the reviews. They seem legitimate, and I am happy to say that I own three of the 33 lenses.

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/top-33-best-lenses-for-micro-four-thirds-cameras-2017-30039

Jim

Cool list, something interesting to me is almost every lens on there covers an M43 sensor but not a super35 sensor. The super35 sensor seems to be in an odd spot between the the vast majority of options at full frame and M43.

It think it would be cool if there was a list of M43 mount lenses that cover the super35 sensor. I don't know how much it matters, just seems a shame to have a S35 sensor and not use a third of it with M43 coverage.

It matters if you have a jvc gy ls300 as that one has a s35 sensor but m4/3 mount, a few of my m4/3 lenses almost cover the s35 sensor, often there is just very minor vignetting that can be removed completely if you shoot 21:9.
edit: oops, didn't see this was posted in the jvc section :)

Yep I do have the LS300, what I mean is how much does it matter to image quality and/or getting the full potential out of a super35 sensor if you always VSM to 80% for M43? I"m still new to the large sensor gear, just seems counter-intuitive to not use 20% of the light-gathering real estate available.

That's why I thought it would be cool to see any sort of list of M43 mount lenses that actually do cover a super35 sensor, but it doesn't seem like an important thing or written about much. Maybe it's just because the LS300 is in a new niche with the M43 mount and larger sensor but it seems to be mostly speedbooster or M43 crop instead of just covering the super35 sensor straight up.

Sure, it would be nice to know which MFT lenses cover an APS but how are they going to do that test? And why? The LS300 is the only camera ever made which has this mount/sensor combination and as such it's appeal is very small. Plus the majority of lenses on the lens (I haven't personally read it) are probably of little use for video work. There's probably only 5 or 6 lenses that are worth using on an LS300. Focus on those and ask in here if they cover the whole sensor. Just my thoughts.

I have a couple of the lenses on that list, the Olympus 12-40 and the Lumix 35-100.

Somewhere here I've posted pics with the 12-40, VSM set at 92%... That's utilizing most of the sensor. There is some very minor vignetting at the corners, but virtually invisible unless shooting against a white wall. I use this lens on the LS 90% of the time. With the Prime Zoom, shooting 1080, or 2K, VSM @ 92%, it gives me the equivalent of a 10 to 90 zoom, and keeps the camera extremely light... That's pretty good - And yes, the image holds up well, and is indistinguishable from using the full sensor except in extreme under-exposure, which I don't recommend with this camera anyway.

The 35-100 I believe works well at 89% (it's been a while since I did theses tests) and is an excellent compliment to the 12-40 because it keeps the rig light, and can still be handheld, which is my primary use of the LS300.

I almost bought that Oly 12-40 last week, it's on the short list when I get a zoom Steve.

Sure, it would be nice to know which MFT lenses cover an APS but how are they going to do that test? And why? The LS300 is the only camera ever made which has this mount/sensor combination and as such it's appeal is very small. Plus the majority of lenses on the lens (I haven't personally read it) are probably of little use for video work. There's probably only 5 or 6 lenses that are worth using on an LS300. Focus on those and ask in here if they cover the whole sensor. Just my thoughts.
I don't know how they test, was thinking more along the lines of the manufacturer knows how big of a circle a lens throws, compile those numbers. For example the Rokinon comes in an M43 mount that covers the s35 sensor and it's on the spec sheet. It's not a must, like you said it would be nice to know.

Yep I mentioned how the LS300 is uniquely positioned too, and from my google research the Rokinon and the Veydra are on a short list of lenses with an M43 mount that can cover the s35 sensor. A list would be cool to check out is all, but I do understand it's only relevant to a small group inside a small group.

Something else to consider. The Rokinons are Full Frame, so you can use a Speedbooster which negates the crop factor and increases the light gathering (possibly also the resolution) of the lenses making the t1.5 lenses approx t1.2. I've just bought the Metabones 0.71 Ultra and the vignetting is very slight and very soft on only a couple of my 5x t1.5 Samyang cine lenses. I bought my Samyangs in Canon mount so I can put them on pretty much any other camera down the line. If you buy them in MFT, I think you'll be stuck with MFT and you can't use a speedbooster.

Yes the speedbooster seems cool, I've been going back and forth on whether to get one or not. At the moment I'm trying the Veydra mini primes in MFT mount that covers the s35 sensor. I liked the idea of covering the sensor without an adapter, I like the uniformity and the size of them, but I don't have anything to compare them to personally and I understand the issue of using them down the road so it's been tough for me to make a final call on which way to go.

Like Steve, I own the Olympus 12-40 and the Lumix 35-100, as well as the Lumix 12-35. I use the lenses interchangeably on my LS300 and Panasonic GH4. All work reasonably well with the LS300, although none are perfect. I am considering the getting the new GH5, and if I do, it will probably be with the new 12-60 that has been released for that camera. It's a bit pricey, but will be used on my LS300 as well. The reviews that I have read so far for that lens have been very positive. I do wish that it was better than 2.8-4.0, but the extra on the telephoto end (compared to the Olympus 12-40 and Lumix 12-35) are worth the trade-off for me. It's #25 on the list

My problem/issue, whatever, has always been that with the LS300 none of these zooms "act" parfocal, even though they do on the BM Pocket and Micro cameras... I have never heard a convincing reason for this, other than sensor thickness... That is the primary reason I don't use the camera much any more... It's sad really because I like everything else about it...

Blackmagic Design has released the URSA Mini Pro 4.6K Camera. Granted, it's twice the price of the LS300, but it looks very sweet,and solves many of the issues that the original URSA Mini had. My feeling is that they are going to sell a ton of these cameras, and Sony, Panasonic, Canon and JVC are all going to see sales drop both up and down their product lines.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1322801-REG/blackmagic_design_ursa_mini_pro_4_6k.html

Jim: As an owner of three BM cameras, which I really like and use the hell out of, I can say I'm not crazy about the Ursa Pro... It does have NDs (finally) and offers raw and ProRes (which is great) but it's EF or PL mount only with, as yet, no option for the smaller, lighter MFT lenses. And the current Ursas have exhibited sensor issues which may or may not have been resolved in this new model, it'll take a while to be sure. Also, BM has a terrible reputation for delivery and QC... Which isn't unusual for a small company, but makes it tough for the "big boys" to consider as a reliable camera...

And for me, in my kind of work, it's till pretty heavy (5 pounds w/o lens, EVF or battery) and shaped like a brick.

The LS300 is much lighter, with a more elegant design, and should have been a huge success... The distrust of the JVC name, and the fact that it's only 8 bit, have kept it in the shadows.

Steve if you're not using the JVC as much, what camera are you using the most currently?

Jim: As an owner of three BM cameras, which I really like and use the hell out of, I can say I'm not crazy about the Ursa Pro... It does have NDs (finally) and offers raw and ProRes (which is great) but it's EF or PL mount only with, as yet, no option for the smaller, lighter MFT lenses. And the current Ursas have exhibited sensor issues which may or may not have been resolved in this new model, it'll take a while to be sure. Also, BM has a terrible reputation for delivery and QC... Which isn't unusual for a small company, but makes it tough for the "big boys" to consider as a reliable camera...

And for me, in my kind of work, it's till pretty heavy (5 pounds w/o lens, EVF or battery) and shaped like a brick.

The LS300 is much lighter, with a more elegant design, and should have been a huge success... The distrust of the JVC name, and the fact that it's only 8 bit, have kept it in the shadows.

Steve, yeah, it would be great for us if it used MFT lenses. I like that the new BM camera can use bigger, more durable CF cards for recording 4K and SD cards for HD. It also has actual buttons now instead of digging through the menu to change common settings. I think the broadcasters are going to be the main purchasers. Agreed that the LS300 is perfect size and weight, has a lot going for it, but could be so much more. I thought by now there would have been an LS300 updated camera. The GH5 is going to take sales away from it for sure.

Right now there are too many workable cameras between Sony, Panasonic, Canon, Blackmagic, JVC in all sorts of price ranges. It's also easier than ever to design new cameras, the imaging chips are not so easy but the rest of it, yes. It's a crowded marketplace.

The JVC being 8bit doesn't affect me at all. Who can really see it for standard work? It works better than most of the other cameras for a one man crew. If somebody said to me, "I need 10bit", I can rent or explore a possible purchase if the job was lucrative enough. I would rather have a JVC designed 10bit camera in that case but there are enough well-documented 10bit cameras that I could get by with.

Now a good par-focal zoom under $2000, that's more important to me than 10bit.

William - I totally agree about the lens - I'd even go to 3 or 4 grand for an f2.8 parfocal zoom (I paid $16,000 for my T2.4 Aaton mount Cooke in 1993)...

But 10bit is important if you have to deal with national broadcast, and although that's not always what I'm doing. I need to plan for it just in case someone walks in my door and says, "Hey I want that film for our cable network"... But admittedly that doesn't happen all that often...

I routinely use the LS300 to produce 10-bit 1080p video footage, though it does take considerable processing time. I shoot the footage in 4K at 150 Mbps, load it into After Effects, rescale it to 50%, sharpen and color correct, and export it using a 10-bit encoder. The results are as finely detailed as any other 10-bit 1080p video camera currently available, limited only by the LS300's working ISO range.

I read somewhere that someone else was doing that with success... I was excited until I remembered that I'd lose my favorite LS300 feature, the prime zoom.

But I'm going to try it anyway soon and compare the footage at 400% with my Micro cam.

Steve if you're not using the JVC as much, what camera are you using the most currently?

Sorry, I didn't see this before - I am mostly using a much tricked-out BM Micro shooting ProRes HQ with a MetaBones SpeedBooster and EF 24-105, or EF-S 17-55. The SpeedBooster gives the lenses better low light ability (f1.7 w/ the 17-55), and are very sharp. Reason? Mostly emotional, I shot S16 for 40 years and still like that size.

I record audio either internally with a pre-amp, which is pretty decent, or double system with a Tascam 70D (I can't remember the exact model designation).

I had been using the LS300 extensively, and still do for some jobs. It's an excellent camera, and with my Rokinon primes very versatile, but I don't use it handheld as much as I used to.