Lumix 14-140 on an AF100 compared to an HVX

[Jim Brennan]

I have been looking at the Lumix to go with my AF-100. But after using it today on a demo, I was not impressed with how slow it was. I could not even get a visible image without the gain. I love the price point, but since I shoot both situations that I can light, and those where I need to use available light, I am a bit concerned.

I know it's apples to oranges, but can anyone give me a comparison of what I can expect from that combo as compared to my trusty HVX regarding light sensitivity? If I can't expect at least as good an image without supplemental light as i get from my HVX, I may have to look at another lens.

[dcloud]

im not really sure here but if the hvx200 is 400 iso with its lens 1.6-2.8...
so maybe... just guessing,
with the af100 good at 1600 iso and the slow lens at 4.0-5.6,
its in the same ballpark in light sensitivity?

[Barry_Green]

It totally depends on what the ISO was set at. If it was set at 100 ISO, yeah you'd have trouble getting a decent image out of f/4. But at 400 ISO it should be more practical. The HVX is 320, so stop your HVX down to f/3.4 and that's about (brightness-wise) what an AF100 at f/4 would look like.

[Jim Brennan]

Thanks Barry. That helps a lot. I didn't ask what the ISO was set at.

Any explanation as to why the GAIN on the AF100 is so much cleaner than the gain on my HVX?

[Thomas Church]

Panasonic urgently needs to come out with a faster version of this lens, or similar.

I wouldn't mind if it was substantly less telephoto, but was at least a 2.8 or 3.5 open wide.

Indeed as P. Bloom himself pointed out, they need to work on resonably fast and wide glass.

The AF100 will very likely make them far bigger in the glass game overnight.

[Barry_Green]

Thanks Barry. That helps a lot. I didn't ask what the ISO was set at.

Any explanation as to why the GAIN on the AF100 is so much cleaner than the gain on my HVX?
Noise on the Panasonic CMOS sensors is different than on the CCD sensors. Overall the AF100 is much cleaner, much smoother than an original HVX200, and cleaner at 500 ISO than an HPX170. As you gain it up you magnify and multiply the noise, but seeing as it's starting at a lower noise level in the first place, gaining it up doesn't have that much effect until you get really high up. At IBC we were showing people what it looked like at 1600 ISO, and lots of folks were shocked at how clean it was. I could see noise, but most people weren't seeing it and didn't care. So it depends on your threshold for noise, and what you're comparing it to. The HVX200A/HPX170 are a good six to 9dB cleaner than the original HVX200 in the first place. The AF100 is noticeably cleaner still.

Different technology, plus five years newer tech in processing, has led to advancements.

But for true low-light performance you're going to want a faster lens. The Lumix 20mm f/1.7 can kind of see in the dark, when you juice up the ISO. And the Olympus zooms are f/2.0 throughout the zoom range; that's two full stops faster than the Lumix at the wide end, and three stops faster at the tele. Of course, those lenses aren't cheap, they're about 3x as much as the 14-140, so ... yeah.

[Barry_Green]

Indeed as P. Bloom himself pointed out, they need to work on resonably fast and wide glass.
M43 glass is as wide and fast as "full frame" glass... is there a 10x zoom for "full frame" that opens to f/4 and is $600?
Closest I can find is a Canon 18-200, f3.5-5.6. Comparable FOV, comparable iris, comparable price ($699). But no video-style autofocus or pincushion/barrel distortion correction, so not directly comparable. But anyway, it's pretty much the same. The story is the same whether you're looking at m43, APS-C, or full frame.

Besides, Olympus has the wide and fast covered. It's just not cheap. f/2.0 on 14-35 and 35-100.

[Jim Brennan]

Thanks. As long as I know the Lumix can do the bulk of the work out of the gate, I'll go with it.

Now if only the Camera came with a Barry Green book....:grin:

[Thomas Church]

Will Olympus lenses work out of the box on the AF100 or will they need a special adapter?

This one looks good for 90% of uses :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html

Still, I think this lens is going to be the basic lens for most AF100 shooters:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682980-REG/Panasonic_Lumix_G_Vario_14_42mm.html

[swanny]

Is there anything out there, comparably fast to the olympus that has IS? It seems the birger mounts will allow use of the lens IS, at leas on the canon side. And again this might be speculation, but I'm hoping this is true.

[Barry_Green]

Thanks. As long as I know the Lumix can do the bulk of the work out of the gate, I'll go with it.
It's a great general-purpose lens but it is slow. I think every AF100 owner will want it. But we're all gonna complain that it's not f/2.0 throughout! :)
I'm actually going to pester them to see if they'll consider making a faster/more-expensive zoom. If we could get the 14-140 exactly as it is, but with f/2.0 throughout, I'd pay 3x as much for that. Or, all we really need is like a 14-75, because that gives us about the same zoom range as a Super35 18-85 lens.


Now if only the Camera came with a Barry Green book....:grin:
Should be available in February at the latest, if all goes well. I'm workin' on it. :thumbsup:

[Razz16mm]

Will Olympus lenses work out of the box on the AF100 or will they need a special adapter?

This one looks good for 90% of uses :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html

Still, I think this lens is going to be the basic lens for most AF100 shooters:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682980-REG/Panasonic_Lumix_G_Vario_14_42mm.html


You need an M4/3 to standard 4/3 adapter for the Olympus lenses. But these pass the electronic controls so you should get auto iris and auto focus with the Olympus lenses.

[Barry_Green]

Will Olympus lenses work out of the box on the AF100 or will they need a special adapter?
Olympus Micro Four Thirds lenses will work out of the box. Olympus Four Thirds lenses will need the 4/3->m4/3 adapter.


This one looks good for 90% of uses :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html
That looks cheap, wide, and relatively fast. Not bad. I don't know if that's 43 or m43, so I don't know if it needs the adapter.

Keep in mind that Olympus lenses won't do the same things the Lumix 14-140 will. No OIS, for example. And no silent video-style autofocus. So they're not direct replacements for the 14-140; there are reasons why I think the 14-140 is going to be quite popular.


Still, I think this lens is going to be the basic lens for most AF100 shooters:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/682980-REG/Panasonic_Lumix_G_Vario_14_42mm.html
That's as wide, a little faster, and really cheap. For those on a micro budget maybe this would be their go-to, but if you can spend a little more, the 14-140 is really worth it. The silent video autofocus alone is worth it. Only the 14-140 has that (so far); no Olympus or other Lumix lens has that.

[Barry_Green]

Is there anything out there, comparably fast to the olympus that has IS? It seems the birger mounts will allow use of the lens IS, at leas on the canon side. And again this might be speculation, but I'm hoping this is true.
Canon has a 17-55 f/2.8 with IS. If the Birger mount allows for Canon's OIS, that should work. Not as fast or wide as the Olympus though. But less expensive than the Olympus, at $1100-ish.

Maybe Tokina or some other third-party lens manufacturer that has something out there? I don't know.

OIS is much less important in ultrawide lenses like the 7-14; OIS wouldn't do much of anything for you there. It's the longer lenses that really benefit from OIS.

[swanny]

C
OIS is much less important in ultrawide lenses like the 7-14; OIS wouldn't do much of anything for you there. It's the longer lenses that really benefit from OIS.

I've heard that 17-55 is a great lens. I think it was Phil Bloom who did a review on that particular lens. I'm really interested in a nice long zoom that might be a tad faster than the Lumix, but has IS. I guess we'll have to wait and see what happens with the adapter. I'm just getting anxious!

[ade4all]

theres the tamron 17-50mm 2.8 as well, decent lens, lot cheaper than the cannon

[LoganMackay]

It's a great general-purpose lens but it is slow. I think every AF100 owner will want it. But we're all gonna complain that it's not f/2.0 throughout! :)
I'm actually going to pester them to see if they'll consider making a faster/more-expensive zoom. If we could get the 14-140 exactly as it is, but with f/2.0 throughout, I'd pay 3x as much for that. Or, all we really need is like a 14-75, because that gives us about the same zoom range as a Super35 18-85 lens.



I think I would be happy with a 12-75 2.5/2.8

Please Panasonic (or someone..)

[Lpowell]

Will Olympus lenses work out of the box on the AF100 or will they need a special adapter?

This one looks good for 90% of uses :

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html


The Olympus 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 Mark II zoom is a superb lens that works perfectly with the Panasonic or Olympus 4/3 -> m4/3 adapter. For me, it was a major step up from the Lumix 14-140mm GH1 kit lens. Over most of its zoom range, the Oly 14-54mm is nearly two stops faster than the Lumix 14-140mm, and that makes a huge difference in your control over DoF. With the 14-140mm, I could only get a narrow enough DoF at the telephoto end of its range, where it's a slow f5.8 lens at best.

The auto-focus on the Oly works in AFS mode, giving you a focus lock with a half-click of the shutter. In manual focus mode, it can be set up to automatically engage the Focus-Assist magnification when you turn the focus ring. For video, this is all I really need from the lens, since I don't want the camera to readjust the aperture or focus after I start shooting anyway. For my purposes, the special "HD" features of the Lumix 14-140mm are of little use, making the Oly 14-54mm a much better option for wide angle shots.

[alaskacameradude]

It's a great general-purpose lens but it is slow. I think every AF100 owner will want it. But we're all gonna complain that it's not f/2.0 throughout! :)
I'm actually going to pester them to see if they'll consider making a faster/more-expensive zoom. If we could get the 14-140 exactly as it is, but with f/2.0 throughout, I'd pay 3x as much for that. Or, all we really need is like a 14-75, because that gives us about the same zoom range as a Super35 18-85 lens.


Should be available in February at the latest, if all goes well. I'm workin' on it. :thumbsup:

I agree 100%. I'd pay good money for a lens like that with this camera. I know they are
at least somewhat worried (well maybe not worried but at least conscious) about price, as
they want to appeal to the 'lower' budget people, and that's fine. But if they make a lens
like the one you are talking about, some of us would be VERY willing to pay the price for it!

[James Bridges]

I am going to try my Canon HDXS 17x2/3" lens. I purchased a 2/3" to FD and a FD to M4/3 adapter, will see how it will do. I will need to use the 2x extender so my F1.7 will be a F3.4. I also at this time will not be able to use the servo zoom.
Canon or Fujinon will hopefully come out with something soon, the technology is there and so is the want.

[Paul Vicente]

A lens for 2/3" camera will vignette on the AF100.

[Barry_Green]

Yep, the AF100's sensor is over four times larger than a 2/3" sensor. No 2/3" lens is made to cover a sensor that large. However, there are some 2/3" lenses that will cover, when using the 2x tele-extender.

[Dino]

I've found the perfect zoom lens for an AF100, the Fujinon/Arri Alura 18-80mm T2.6 PL-mount Cine zoom! Perfect if price doesn't matter--it's $25K. Could be worth considering as a rental lens on important projects?

[Yak]

I've found the perfect zoom lens for an AF100, the Fujinon/Arri Alura 18-80mm T2.6 PL-mount Cine zoom! Perfect if price doesn't matter--it's $25K. Could be worth considering as a rental lens on important projects?
Here is a link to the lens
http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/alura_zooms.html#_blank

[Doctor Wu]

Sweet!! Expensive but probably worth the price. Arri/Fujinon build quality and compact too. :love4:

[Yak]

Sweet!! Expensive but probably worth the price. Arri/Fujinon build quality and compact too. :love4:

For a compact try this one
http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_format_lenses/lightweight_zoom_lwz_1.html

[plasmasmp]

Go Big or go home.

http://www.abelcine.com/store/Angenieux-Optimo-24-290mm-Zoom-Lens/
:Drogar-Kriz(DBG):

[ade4all]

sorry to bring this thread back, but am just looking for clarification - was thinking of selling hmc151 & replacing with the af101 - am hoping the lumix14-140mm will work for event type work in a fairly similar way - with the cleaner image & ability to push up the iso/gain will the af101/14-140 combo be able to get a cleaner & brighter image than hmc151 pushed to 6db gain (the furthest i am willing to push it for image quality)?

[timbook2]

I doubt the Af100 will make you happy for event style shooting! Open iris will give a shallow DOF, no motor zoom will be difficult especially with the iris closing once you zoom in! If there was at least a low cost zoom with a constant iris through the whole zoom range...

[ade4all]

yes i realise its not ideal for events, thats only a small part of what i do but would be good to know that i could get by with af/14-140 & that it would at least be as good as hmc151 in poor light - would need to sell the hmc151 to finance the af, been using canon dslr for a while now for projects where i have more time to set up or can control my working environment, & other than event work the hmc151 is starting to get neglected. having said that the duel audio system with dslr is a real pain & would love to be able to have the af101 to cover all the different working scenarios. i have a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 for work in low light & for shallower dof but it would be nice to count on the 14-140mm in more run n gun situations

[dop16mm]

yes i realise its not ideal for events, thats only a small part of what i do but would be good to know that i could get by with af/14-140 & that it would at least be as good as hmc151 in poor light - would need to sell the hmc151 to finance the af, been using canon dslr for a while now for projects where i have more time to set up or can control my working environment, & other than event work the hmc151 is starting to get neglected. having said that the duel audio system with dslr is a real pain & would love to be able to have the af101 to cover all the different working scenarios. i have a tamron 17-50mm 2.8 for work in low light & for shallower dof but it would be nice to count on the 14-140mm in more run n gun situations

Apples to oranges I don't know the native rating of the hmc150, or what it would be at +6db. But Lets say you are shooting iso 400 at 2.8 on one camera that would be the same as 1600 at 5.6. We'll likely have to wait for them to be more out in the world and side be side comparisons made to know for sure. How clean the processing is at high iso's will be the the deciding factor as to what lenses are usable.

Some of the Olympus offerings look really interesting, and I've read that they are dropping development of the standard 4/3 format in favor of micro, so hopefully some of their designs will soon be available without adaptors, possibly with silent video capabilities? Surely the 14-140 won't be the only video lens for long.

[James Bridges]

Hey guys, Tell me what you think. I bought an adapter, I am concerned about convergence.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?215367-Canon-ENG-B4-Lens-on-GH1

It looks pretty good for a standard definition lens.