Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
md or fd lenses for gh2
  • einstein7einstein7

    Hey there, i'm looking to get some primes for my gh2 but not sure whether to go with the md's or the more popular fd's. Specifically not sure how the saturation of the colors compares as well as the contrast. Since ill be wanting the lower contrast and saturation for post grading.

  • 52 Replies sorted by
  • fatpigfatpig

    MD is clear winner for me. I got some MDs here, - they have less milky image than fd and better allround image quality. Look at the nikkor 50mm f1.7 - its a gem and dirt cheap! really nice creamy bokeh. love it :) also get adapters for md to m43 on ebay china ;)

  • johnnymossvillejohnnymossville

    Can't go wrong with the FD's. I have two. 24mm and 55mm. I also recently got a Pentax Takumar 50mm F/1.4 that I need an adapter for that I'm expecting will look pretty good as well.

  • RRRRRRRR

    Got a set of FD´s.. some really pop, especially within a certain sweet spot and in certain light and some are not as exciting but good lenses anyhow. Another thing is that they are not without optical issues, but mostly the optical issues work REALLY well with the clinical images from the gh2. Got a friend with a bunch of MD´s but I´ve not really tried them yet. My advice is to browse around in the focal lengths you like; see how the lenses perform and decide after that.

    Besides, there are plenty of other good vintage lenses than MD or FD mounts..

    24mm f2 FD is a wonderful lens.. f2.8 should be ok, if you can´t find the faster version.

    Attached a shot taken with the 24 coupled with a circular polarizer..

    (not the most exciting in the world but it shows a bit of the light rendition)

    central park.png
    960 x 540 - 948K
  • inqb8trinqb8tr

    @fatpig Nikkor 50mm 1.7? Typo for 1.8?

  • ghkqnghkqn

    I say MD. They are (much) cheaper than FD. Optical performance is as good if not better than FD (I am not talking L glass). MD and FD produce different looking photos.

  • nomadnomad

    Minolta used to make their own glass at the times of MD lenses and took great care to match color among them, which is a great advantage in filmmaking. They also co-operated with Leica and even made some lenses for them (like the 35-70mm zoom). Some call them "poor man's Leica" for a reason…

  • inqb8trinqb8tr

    Why have you canceled out nikkors? They match seamlessly with panny glass imo

  • einstein7einstein7

    haven't really looked into the nikkors but aren't they a little pricier than the others?

  • mintcheeriosmintcheerios

    I got some FDs because of the bokeh and speed. Those plus my Takumar 50mm make for some creamy backgrounds. I wouldn't doubt the MDs have better optical performance though.

  • einstein7einstein7

    Oh, and don't like the idea of training with focus in reverse direction of all other lenses.

  • nomadnomad

    So right – without a reversable FF it can drive you nuts!

    Some MDs have excellent bokeh too, but they are the pricier ones, like the 35mm 1.8, 85mm 1.7 and the famous 58mm 1.2 Rokkors.

  • inqb8trinqb8tr

    I had a nikon manual film camera and bought few nikkors 10 years ago, before all hdslr hype, and they were cheaper then. So I kind of got used to them. When I got first mft camera I paid more for voigtlander adapter than all nikkors together :) Later did some swaps and changes, and also got few nice m42 lenses. What I've learned is that some mechanically great functioning lenses without any visible fungus can be prone to flaring (ugly low contrast), and it's due to losing the coating on the glass elements, because of aging. That should be taken into consideration when buying online. Not to often but it has happened to me when least expected.

  • fatpigfatpig

    nikkor 50mm is really one point seven = f1.7 ;) look it up, its a great cheap lens. shot half my last movie with it and i love every shot it has done :)

  • inqb8trinqb8tr

    I apologize to the OP for the offtopic, @fatpig I seriously doubt my googling skills now :) If it's not to much trouble, give a link to that lens.

  • LPowellLPowell

    I bought into Nikon AF-D style lenses specifically for use with follow focus. I prefer the Nikon focus ring direction (opposite to Lumix, FD, and MD focus direction) because it feels more natural to me to twist the FF knob toward me to bring focus in closer. However, I found the compact Nikon, Minolta, and Canon FD primes to be awkward for use with FF gears - they don't use internal focusing mechanisms and the focus rings are just too close to the camera.

    Here's a link to a detailed list of video-friendly lenses for Lumix cameras:

    http://www.personal-view.com./talks/discussion/859/video-friendly-lenses-for-lumix-dslrs/p1

  • fatpigfatpig

    thanks for pointing that out, i always get those mixed up. its a Rokkor, not a Nikkor, sorry mate :-P

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @einstein7 I used MDs more, but there are some attractive FD lenses, too.

    Generally, if there were an FD and an MD at the same focal length and aperture, I would probably go for the MD, but I would take an FD to get either an aperture or focal length outside the MD range.

    Honestly, though, the bokeh characteristics between the FD 55mm f/1.2 and the MD 58mm f/1.4 had more in common than to differentiate them in the limited testing I did.

    So you can get good results with both, but the bokeh on the MD range has been consistently very good in my testing.

  • einstein7einstein7

    Hmm, good stuff just got the adapter rings today for both md&fd tried some md's i already had and was very impressed with the aperture brightness 24mm at2.8 and 80mm zoom at 3.5 will inspect the footage later.

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @einstein7

    I have quite a few Rokkor MD's and absolutely love them. They have a richness to them that is quite wonderful. The Canon FD's are flatter and somewhat lifeless by comparison. That being said, I agree with thepalalias about going with FD for a specialty lens. I have an FD 135mm f2 that is magnifent wide open.

  • nomadnomad

    That makes sense, yes. I absolutely favour Rokkors too (which you'd have guessed), but the 135mm 1:2 is so rare it has shown up on Fleabay just once in a year and went to an insane price (the 135mm 2.8 is cheap, though).

    If you can get such a fast FD for a reasonable price, go for it! They are not bad at all.

  • einstein7einstein7

    Haven't shot charts or anything but my initial impression of the footage was saturation is very close to the kit 14-42 and sharpness as well. I've snagged a decent 50mm 1.7 and hoping to get the 28mm 2.8 but i'm still going to need a faster wide angle for night shots, 2.8 did ok at night w 3200iso but not really bright enough. I probably wont be using tele's that much esp in low light.

  • aki_hartikainenaki_hartikainen

    I have to agree on all of the points mentioned above, one will want to have both MD and FD lenses.

    To my knowledge Minolta did not make 24 mm f2 lens, but Canon has that covered very well. For f2 (or faster) Minolta has inexpensive MD 45 f2. This is a fantastic Tessar type lens with such cinematic contrast, sharpness and saturation that it is hard to ignore. Several 50 mm (and 58) mm lenses are faster than f2 and are sharp and contrasty too. Then there are the now rare 35 mm f1.8 and 28 mm f2, which I do not have hands on experience.

    And one interesting lens is a Minolta MC 21 mm f2.8, also a bit expensive unfortunately.

    I use the MD 35-70 f3.5 zoom regularly and also MD Macro 50 f3.5 for both close focus and normal jobs. Very "real" image meant for accurate archival reproduction. MD 135 f3.5 is inexpensive but lovely image. Very cinematic images come also from the MD 35 f2.8, thankfully inexpensive and easy to come by.

    If I compare these lenses to Yashica ML lenses that I also use, Yashicas are more contrasty to the point that they can be "too contrast". Sharpness is the same. However, with a little bit of filtering the Yashica ML lenses contrast can be brought to similar level as the MD, and then they might perhaps be even a bit more cinematic. Considering ML lenses are close relatives to Contax Zeiss lenses (same lens formula in several cases). I have less experience with Hexanon, Olympus, Pentax and Nikkor lenses, but they must be equally great lenses.

  • kavadnikavadni

    I too have MD lenses, I inherited a bunch from father. The ones I regularly use and love are:

    24mm f2.8 MD W.Rokkor-X - pitfall - front rotates with focus I think it's the sharpest lens I own and it lives on my GH2

    50mm f1.4 MC Rokkor-PC

    135mm f2.8 MD Tele Rokkor

    @aki_hartikainen mentioned the MD 45mm/f2 also nice but a bit hard to use with a follow focus.

    And the rare ones aki mentions, 35 mm f1.8 and 28 mm f2, I keep my eyes out for them.
    I haven't seen them at a price that I can I afford.

    This is an interesting site http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens%20Reviews.html

  • SightfulProdSightfulProd

    I have the MC. W Rokkor 21mm f/2.8 and MD 28mm f/2 lens. I have found the perfect use for the 28mm as it acts as my standard '50' crop view. the 21mm is what I resort for wider shots, I didn't want to get the well regarded Panny 20mm because of its sharpness and lack of video mechanisms (focus barrel/aperture ring). The 28mm is quite contrasty, the 21mm less so. I've been shooting with all -2 Smooth. The 28mm has 'good' bokeh wide open and closer to subjects but to really get a beautiful Closeup I have been keeping my eye out for the 35mm 1.8. The 58mm 1.2 is on my list too, from the video's I have watched it provides legendary portraits.

  • tonalttonalt

    Some test shots with old Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm 1.4 . I'm very happy with this lens, was cheap also.

Add a Comment