Lens setups

[RaptorMan]

As people are trying and using different lenses and there's a weight and balance issue I wonder if we can create a sticky in this sub that details what setups are used for each lens. So, for example, when using the Olympus 12mm lens what would you do to balance when using a ND filter and what setup without a ND filter? And then do the same for all the lenses in use.

I'm thinking of a table or spreadsheet kind of thing that has one line for each lens configuration so that there might be several lines for each lens with different configs like filters or not. That way it wouldn't require every pilot to figure this out for themselves which increases the risk that it's done wrong and causes damage.

Brian

 

[Mark C]

Good idea as Iam looking to add more lens's to our setup and was wondering how to balance them.

 

[RaptorMan]

I went to B&H and did a search for all the M4/3 lenses and came up with 18 different lenses that appear to be within reach for use with the X5/X5R. There were a bunch more that were too heavy or to long or both. There are lenses from Panasonic (8), Olympus (6),Rokinn (1), and Sigma (3) with FL's ranging from 7.5mm on up to 100mm. I limited the weight to 200g and lens length to 60mm. I don't know that all of these are adaptable but here's my list:

1. Panasonic 20mm f/1.7, $268, 46mm filter, 87g, 25.5mm long
2. Olympus 25mm f/1.8, $299, 46mm filter, 136g, 41mm long
3. Olympus 45mm f/1.8, $299, 37mm filter, 116g, 46mm long
4. Olympus 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6, $199, 37mm filter, 91g, 23mm long
5. Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7, $348, 37mm filter, 130g, 50mm long
6. Olympus 12mm f/2.0, $649, 46mm filter, 130g, 43mm long
7. Olympus 17mm f/1.8, $399, 46mm filter, 120g, 36mm long
8. Panasonic 14mm f/2.5, $268, 46mm filter, 55g, 21mm long
9, Panasonic 14-45mm f/3.5-5.6, $268, 52mm filter, 195g, 60mm long
10. Panasonic 15mm f/1.7, $528, 46mm filter, 115g, 36mm long
11. Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, $598, 46mm filter, 200g, 55mm long
12. Sigma 60mm f/2.8, $209, 46mm filter, 190g, 56mm long
13. Panasonic 35-100mm f/4-5.6, $398, 46mm filter, 135g, 50mm long
14. Sigma 19mm f/2.8, $169, 46mm filter, 154g, 46mm long
15. Sigma 30mm f/2.8, $199, 46mm filter, 143g, 41mm long
16. Rokinon 7.5mm f/3.5 fisheye, $239, no filter, 197g, 48mm long
17. Olympus 9-18mm f/4-5.6, $549, 52mm filter, 155g, 49.5mm long
18. Panasonic 8mm f/3.5 fisheye, $640, 22mm rear filter, 165g, 52mm long


Again, I don't know that all these lenses will work properly, but they appear to be within the ballpark of weight and length. Since it looks like the main limitation is the ability to balance the gimbals I think the lenses listed above cover all the possible lenses but it's also likely that some will not work. The dimensions listed include the lens length because two lenses of the same weight will not balance the same if one of the lenses is longer than the other.

If the 35-100mm lens works that would give the longest reach and would make it possible to provide close up shots at greater range. The next longest lens is the Sigma 60mm.

I note with interest that 46mm is by far the most common filter size. The addition of a filter will affect the balance and it's for that reason I indicated that when a lens is adapted and made to work the balancing weights, if any, would also need to include a separate line for the use of that lens WITH a filter as that would likely drive a different counter balancing weight. Simply put, a setup for a lens without filter would be different that a setup for that same lens with a filter.

As a photographer, the only filters that make sense to me these days are: UV filters to protect the lens, polarizers, and ND filters to increase exposure times in video.

One other wrinkle is the use or not of a lens hood. The use of a lens hood will also affect the balance and should be included in the listing.


Brian

 

[andrew259]

Has anyone tried the Panasonic 8mm fisheye? That one has me very interested!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[DaveInspire]

The 8mm fisheye you must crop the result in post (the legs/props are visible). I remember seeing a post with some sample images and it looked good!

 

[RaptorMan]

I'd have to see some fisheye results to convince me that going that wide with that distortion is desirable. The 12mm Olympus appears to be about as wide as I'd want to go. Other than that perhaps the Olympus 9-18mm would be an interesting option if it works.

I know that the standard lens with the X5 is the 15mm but it doesn't look like the IQ is as good as I'd like with that lens so I'm inclined to think the 17mm or 12mm would be preferred for most situations. At present I'm leaning towards the 12mm, 17mm, 25mm and 45mm lenses, but I'd also like to see how the even longer lenses work. The 60mm Sigma and the 35-100mm Panasonic both appear to be adaptable and I'd dearly love to see if anyone has tried either one and if so how well they work.

Brian

 

[pixl45]

This is what I have for balancing the Olympus 14-42mm:
- mounted a Hoya 37mm UV filter - -- available on Amazon.
- mounted a Fotasy vented metal lens hood (Olympus lens cap doesn't fit once you mount this)
- mounted 5 weights cut to various sizes, totaling 4gms. Weight brand is FlexWeight -- available on Amazon.
- weights are applied using Velcro #000 thin self adhesive mounts -- available on Amazon.

It's ugly...but it's balanced. Note that you really need to distribute the weights -- if you put them all on the hood, the gimbal will roll hard to one side since it is off centered. I put a very small piece of velcro on the gimbal itself so that I could put a couple weights there just while using this lens. I also put a piece of velcro on the zoom ring (it's electronic it doesn't actually move when being controlled inside the Go app). I may play with this arrangement as time goes on, but note that it stays balanced at either end of the zoom range. I've turned the bird off in either attitude and it stays balanced.

Heavy winds forecast for the next week or so will keep me from trying this out...but it's a place to start.

 

[Casey Preston]

I feel like the olympus 9-18mm is the most important possibility on the list. Or the Panasonic 35-100 if your purpose is to spy on people. Do they work? Will they work?

 

[Richard Hurst]

I find that the Olympus 45mm balances perfect with a 5gram tyre weight on the back of the camera body and then a 37-46mm step up ring, the balancing ring and a UV filter ring on the front. Gives me perfect results

 

[RaptorMan]

I feel like the olympus 9-18mm is the most important possibility on the list. Or the Panasonic 35-100 if your purpose is to spy on people. Do they work? Will they work?

Yeah, there are quite a few lenses that look like they should be adaptable and I hope we get to see how they pan out. The 9-18 would cover just about the entire range one might want and if the quality is good it would be a awesome single lens solution.

The longer reach lenses like the 35-100 or the Sigma 60 may well have a place for people watching, but I can think of a bunch of other uses that don't involve spying on people. I'm a photographer that does mostly landscape but when the situation presents itself I'll shoot birds or other wildlife and for that job a longer lens is desired or required. We don't want to be getting so close that our drones scare away the wildlife or endanger them from our props so being able to standoff further with a longer lens opens the possibility for wildlife photography.

The get a much longer reach than the 35-100 lens you'd probably need to go with a mirror lens. I could see a 300mm f/7.1 lens possibly being small and light enough to work if designed for the purpose -- such a lens would have the reach of a 600mm lens in 35mm format. If a 300mm f/7.1 is not practical a 250mm f/6.4 would almost certainly be. Given the negative effects of diffraction at higher f/# it would be better to keep the f/# below f/7.1 and even better lower than that.


Brian

 

[John Boylan]

I have the panasonic 25mm 1.4 and it does not fit on the X5 body it is to big it will not even squeeze into the mount at all.

 

[RaptorMan]

I have the panasonic 25mm 1.4 and it does not fit on the X5 body it is to big it will not even squeeze into the mount at all.

So, are you saying that the DIAMETER is too big? If so, about how much too big?

Brian

 

[John Boylan]

So, are you saying that the DIAMETER is too big? If so, about how much too big?

Brian

Hi Brian

Yes sorry I should have been more specific but yes the diameter of the lens is too big, I didn't measure it but I would say by probably about 5mm in total.

John

 

[RaptorMan]

Hi Brian

Yes sorry I should have been more specific but yes the diameter of the lens is too big, I didn't measure it but I would say by probably about 5mm in total.

John

John, that is interesting as it's listed as 63mm in diameter. All the other lenses I fugure could work are less tan that except for the 20m Panaonic which is also listed at 63mm. One lens that's known to work and is nearly as big in diameter is the Olympus 14-42 f/3.5-5.6 lens as it's listed at 61mm or only 2mm smaller than the Panasonic 25mm.

One wrinkle here is that the lens diameter may or may not include and protrusion from lens switches etc.


Brian

 

[Jay Baldwin]

So far, I have test flown the Olympus 25mm and 45mm. Both work great and deliver exceptional images and video. Balancing each was a minor effort. getting used to the reduced field of view was interesting after so many hours with the X3. I was split on the next between 12 and 17mm Oly, but read here that the 9-18 may be interesting. I like the renge of that lense but not the high f rating for video. I really prefere a wide open lense that can capture fast. Still pondering

 

[RaptorMan]

So far, I have test flown the Olympus 25mm and 45mm. Both work great and deliver exceptional images and video. Balancing each was a minor effort. getting used to the reduced field of view was interesting after so many hours with the X3. I was split on the next between 12 and 17mm Oly, but read here that the 9-18 may be interesting. I like the renge of that lense but not the high f rating for video. I really prefere a wide open lense that can capture fast. Still pondering

The higher f/# of the 9-18 would be an issue as it gets dark, but in bright daylight it could limit your need for ND filters to keep the shutter speed within 2X the frame rate so as to limit rolling-shutter/jello issues.


Brian

 

[Casey Preston]

I agree and was hopping the 9-18 would work unfortunately even though it is very light once it's extended it is past the point of successful balancing with the X5 gimble. It is one of the 20+ lenses I have bought and attempted balancing, calibration, and use.

Is it completely unworkable or just slightly front heavy? I'm really hoping that DJI adds support for the 9-18 and let's us deal with the balancing issues.

 

[RaptorMan]

The support is already built into the firmware as it appears they used open source micro four thirds firmware. From everything Ive seen it's Panasonic especially given the prime lens 15mm 1.7 is a Panasonic lens without so much as any change to disguise it other than a different name inscribed in it. I haven't had a lens not be recognized by the system. I did however have the sigma lenses work flawlessly until the 1.5 firmware so I think an intentional wrench was thrown in. The 9-18 will calibrate. What happens is once the lens extends the bob weight overpowers the gimble motor handling upward and downward motion. Now I'm pretty creative and had prepared for such situations with methods to weight the lower rear portion of the camera body. Unfortunately the first issue is that it requires almost twice the effective weight as it is only half the distance from the pivot point. I did succeed in getting the package into an acceptably balanced state except by the time I reached that point it was incredibly clear that not only the aforementioned side motor but the rear gimble tilt motor were both overloaded and not at all happy. You may succeed in using that lens for about 3 minutes before you end up boxing up the camera and sending it in for new gimble motors.

Which Sigma lenses did you use that worked before the update?


Brian

 

[pixl45]

I'm glad I never updated. Sounds like a headache.

 

[RaptorMan]

I tested the 19mm, 30mm and the 60mm and loved them.View attachment 5283 View attachment 5284 View attachment 5285 View attachment 5286 View attachment 5287 View attachment 5288 After the firmware update I tried using the 60 only to have it give me the spinning wheel of death upon clicking the first pic. I landed and reset everything and it did the exact same thing again. Neither photo even recorded. Prior to returning all three I took the time to test and unfortunately all did the same. Prior to the update I flew through two TB48's on the 60mm with all the photos incl meta data to prove it.

Do you have any in-flight pics from th Sigma's -- particularly the 60mm? If they release a new firmware that is OK with the Sigma lenses the 60mm might be the ideal long lens if the 35-100 doesn't work out. Actually, any pics of any of the Sigma's would be nice.


Brian