PDA

View Full Version : Need a zoom lens



Brian@202020
01-24-2011, 06:48 PM
I did some run and gun doc style shooting today with my AF100. After the shoot I realized the zoom range and f-stop range I would like for such types of shoots. I think somewhere around a 12mm to 85mm in a f2 or f2.8 zoom would be perfect. Does anyone know of a quality zoom that fits this description? I don't care about the brand or mount as long as it's good quality and there is an adapter avalible to convert the lens to MFT.

tacotim
01-24-2011, 07:02 PM
Right now it doesn't exist. Here's hoping the rumored panasonic 12-60 f 2.8 OIS actually shows up. The closest you'll get right now is the olympus 12-60 f2.8-3.5 But it will require the 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter, and it's not stabilized. I'd love to hear from anyone who has that lens what they think about it on the af100.

Brian@202020
01-24-2011, 07:15 PM
There has to be something in that range. It doesn't need to be stabilized and manual is fine and actually preferred.

Dino
01-24-2011, 07:32 PM
Brian, that's we bought the Arri Alura 18-80mm T2.6--but it's anything but a run and gun lens! It's cool to stay with one lens all day, but it's a lot heavier/bigger than just about any 35mm SLR lens, of course.

Bucknfl
01-24-2011, 07:53 PM
Red Pro 18-85 T2.9 $9975.00

kylekmd
01-24-2011, 08:11 PM
Right now it doesn't exist. Here's hoping the rumored panasonic 12-60 f 2.8 OIS actually shows up. The closest you'll get right now is the olympus 12-60 f2.8-3.5 But it will require the 4/3 to micro 4/3 adapter, and it's not stabilized. I'd love to hear from anyone who has that lens what they think about it on the af100.

I have the OLY ZUIKO 12-60mm SWD f/2.8-4 (I assume that's then lens you're talking about). It's great for the price. I did a quick short film with it and the ZUIKO 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. Here's a link below.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?235521-COUPLES-A-Short-Film-using-the-Panasonic-AF100

One thing to note is the aperature vs. focal length (Source: DP Review). Seems to change quicker than I'd like.
28981

I also have the 14-35mm SWD f/2 but, to be honest, I use them all fairly equally.

Shooter
01-24-2011, 08:19 PM
Here is one lens I know I could work with. (as a variable prime with some small zoom function if required.)

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Camera-Lenses/1960/AF-S-Zoom-NIKKOR-17-35mm-f%252F2.8D-IF-ED.html

It ticks most of my boxes - price, quality, speed, costant f-stop, heritage, build, focal range for my purposes and most importantly to me ..its manual.

CONS: It is a still lens, it will have a crop factor (from its APSC origins )

This lens ticks more boxs for me than any other I have found so far.

FWIW: I wont use a zoom that I can not monitor the aperture (adapter issue) ..hence manual and I wont use a lens that does not have a constant f-stop across the range.

kylekmd
01-24-2011, 08:27 PM
CONS: It is a still lens, it will have a crop factor (from its APSC origins ).

Yes, and I hate to bring this subject up again because it gets everyone crazed.... but m4/3 to APSC crop factor isn't too bad, only 1.3x or less (if 16x9 output taken into consideration).
That's something I can live with.
Looks like a great lens choice, Shooter.
28982

tacotim
01-24-2011, 08:41 PM
I have the OLY ZUIKO 12-60mm SWD f/2.8-4 (I assume that's then lens you're talking about). It's great for the price. I did a quick short film with it and the ZUIKO 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. Here's a link below.
.

yeah, that's the one i was thinking of. how is the focus ring on it? is it a really short throw, or smooth and long?

Shooter
01-24-2011, 08:43 PM
That Comparator image...does it come from a software application?

kylekmd
01-24-2011, 09:30 PM
http://www.abelcine.com/fov/

Shooter, it's from Abel Cine. Just plug in the two sensor sizes you're comparing and... voila.

But keep in mind, it doesn't take into account 16x9 framing/output which will make the crop factor even less. For example, APSC to m4/3 crop factor is actually something like 1.16x and not 1.3x, if I remember correctly.

tacotim, the focusing ring has a longer throw than other stills lenses I've used, requiring more than half a turn to go from infinity to the 25 cm setting. Focusing precision is excellent.

Ticheli
01-24-2011, 09:44 PM
I did some run and gun doc style shooting today with my AF100. After the shoot I realized the zoom range and f-stop range I would like for such types of shoots. I think somewhere around a 12mm to 85mm in a f2 or f2.8 zoom would be perfect. Does anyone know of a quality zoom that fits this description? I don't care about the brand or mount as long as it's good quality and there is an adapter avalible to convert the lens to MFT.

Unless some genius chemical engineer comes up with a super light-weight material with the characteristics of optical glass, such a lens is impossible, at least for a run and gun operation. That's a huge zoom range and a very wide aperture which demands a complex and very large design. It's physics, whose laws resist bending.

Not cheap either; the closest thing I can think of is the Alura, 18-80 T2.6, a truly wonderful accomplishment, but it weighs 10.4 pounds and costs $25,000.00.

But please keep dreaming; sometimes dreams do inspire reality.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

tacotim
01-24-2011, 10:57 PM
Unless some genius chemical engineer comes up with a super light-weight material with the characteristics of optical glass, such a lens is impossible, at least for a run and gun operation. That's a huge zoom range and a very wide aperture which demands a complex and very large design. It's physics, whose laws resist bending.

Not cheap either; the closest thing I can think of is the Alura, 18-80 T2.6, a truly wonderful accomplishment, but it weighs 10.4 pounds and costs $25,000.00.

But please keep dreaming; sometimes dreams do inspire reality.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Leo, I ask this out of ignorance, why is it impossible? in the 70's and 80's the most common lens on small 16mm cameras was an angenieux 12-120 f2.2. What is it that makes it so difficult to do now? It was a heck of a lens to have on a handheld beaulieu r16 or an arri-s, fantastic range, and a wide constant aperture. is it because of the size of the chip that the lens has to cover that makes it so difficult? Again, not trying to be argumentative here, i just want to know.


thanks, tim

LoganMackay
01-24-2011, 11:24 PM
Leo, I ask this out of ignorance, why is it impossible? in the 70's and 80's the most common lens on small 16mm cameras was an angenieux 12-120 f2.2. What is it that makes it so difficult to do now? It was a heck of a lens to have on a handheld beaulieu r16 or an arri-s, fantastic range, and a wide constant aperture. is it because of the size of the chip that the lens has to cover that makes it so difficult? Again, not trying to be argumentative here, i just want to know.


thanks, tim

Exactly. Smaller sensor size = easier to make big range glass.

Barry_Green
01-25-2011, 12:18 AM
Bigger sensor = bigger glass. You can get a 1/6" CCD camcorder with a 20x lens, no problem. But try to make a 20x lens that covers a huge 4/3 or S35 chip, and you'll be looking at a lens that's a yard long, half a foot in diameter, and weighs 30 pounds.

Brian@202020
01-25-2011, 05:57 AM
Cost doesn't matter as long as it's a mount that has a deeper flange depth and can be easily be adapted to fit future shorter flange depth cameras (future proof). As for impossible, apparently Panisonic can make something usable in a long focal range like the 14-140, and Olympus can make fast f2 zooms at shorter focal lenths, you would think with the right amount of money a company could make what I'm asking for.

Ticheli
01-25-2011, 06:16 AM
Cost doesn't matter as long as it's a mount that has a deeper flange depth and can be easily be adapted to fit future shorter flange depth cameras (future proof). As for impossible, apparently Panisonic can make something usable in a long focal range like the 14-140, and Olympus can make fast f2 zooms at shorter focal lenths, you would think with the right amount of money a company could make what I'm asking for.

What you want requires two things, a considerable zoom range from very wide to moderate telephoto and a very wide aperture. The former may be achievable, if a very complex design; the latter is not unless the lens is physically huge. You do know what the f stop is; this is very simple math, it simply cannot be smaller in diameter.

As I suggested earlier, even if such a lens could be designed and built, it would be very large and very heavy (unless a light-weight replacement for optical glass is discovered), and would undoubtedly be stratospheric in price. Bottom line; not going to happen.

Since price is not a problem, I suggest the Red 17-50; it's got a good zoom range for run and gun, is probably fast enough, and it's small and light-weight. Alternatively, the Alura at $25,000.00; much, much larger and heavier, but perhaps your type of run and gun can handle it.

Good shooting and best regards,

Leo

Brian@202020
01-25-2011, 06:55 AM
Well the rumored 12-60 f2.8 Panasonic lens mentioned earlier in this thread is a lot closer than the RED 17-50. I own the older RED 18-50 T3 and that lens is horrible. I do hear the new one is much better tho.

David W. Jones
01-25-2011, 07:44 AM
Since cost doesn't matter to you, I would suggest a two lens solution at this point since single lens coverage at this time is unavailable. A Duclos converted PL mount Tokina 11-16mm T2.8, and an Angenieux Optimo 17-80mm T2.2 will cover the range you specified.

As an aside, maybe it's just the frugal business owner part of me that must justify the validity of business expenses compared to the income they will generate, but it must be nice being able to say "cost doesn't matter".

All the Best!

Dave

mcgeedigital
01-25-2011, 07:49 AM
Well the rumored 12-60 f2.8 Panasonic lens mentioned earlier in this thread is a lot closer than the RED 17-50. I own the older RED 18-50 T3 and that lens is horrible. I do hear the new one is much better tho.

I have the RPZ 17-50mm and it is excellent.

It is a heavy bastard though.

Brian@202020
01-25-2011, 08:10 AM
Since cost doesn't matter to you, I would suggest a two lens solution at this point since single lens coverage at this time is unavailable. A Duclos converted PL mount Tokina 11-16mm T2.8, and an Angenieux Optimo 17-80mm T2.2 will cover the range you specified.

As an aside, maybe it's just the frugal business owner part of me that must justify the validity of business expenses compared to the income they will generate, but it must be nice being able to say "cost doesn't matter".

All the Best!

Dave

I own the Tokina 11-16 in a Nikon mount and I was using that for a bit of the run and gun stuff yesterday. I just wished it was a longer zoom range. It is one of the best lenses I own and would recommend it in a heartbeat. I was just in a situation where changing lenses was a huge inconvenience and a few shots were missed because I was either changing lenses or on the wrong lens at the time. A fast zoom with a somewhat longer zoom range is needed for this camera and the future competitors of it, and I'm sure some company will step up to the plate soon.

hammerhorror
01-25-2011, 08:29 AM
I highly recommend the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro II lens. I just purchased a nikon mount version of this lens and couldn't be happier. The lens features manual aperture, the lens does not extend while zooming and focusing, and it also holds it's focus while zooming. The best part is that they can be found on the used market for around $300.00.

There are newer versions of this lens, but be sure to find the f/2.6-2.8 version. This version features superior optics and performance over the newer versions of this lens.

You can find a lab test/review of this lens here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/276-tokina-af-28-70mm-f28-26-at-x-pro-ii-lab-test-report--review

Mac
01-25-2011, 08:50 AM
in the 70's and 80's the most common lens on small 16mm cameras was an angenieux 12-120 f2.2.

At that time, the equivalent lens that covered 35mm was the Angenieux 25-250 T3.4... I handheld it many times on an Arii IIc shooting rock concerts and love-ins n the late 60's - it's not something I would want to do again. And also, the 12-120 was f2.2 but T2.8.

I discovered that I could get by with primes, and changing lenses on the IIc... My plan for documentary shooting (personally I abhor the term "run and gun" - it implies a lack of artistry) with the AF100 is probably the 14-35 and my Leicaflex Angenieux 45-90 f2.8... I will also keep my HPX500 - and even the 200 until I've actually tried the AF100 (I've never even seen one yet).

Barry_Green
01-25-2011, 10:27 AM
Well the rumored 12-60 f2.8 Panasonic lens mentioned earlier in this thread is a lot closer
It's also only a "rumor" and has never been suggested or confirmed by any Panasonic source that I've ever seen. Maybe it will exist (would be nice) but it isn't something you can buy and use.

If that range is what you want, why not look at the Olympus 12-60? It's almost as wide (12mm vs. 11mm) as your Tokina, just as fast, and much more telephoto. 2.8 on the wide end, 4.0 on the tele end.
http://www.four-thirds.org/en/fourthirds/standard.html#i_012-060mm_f028-040_olympus
http://asia.olympus-imaging.com/products/dslr/lenses/12-60_28-40swd/

avro
01-25-2011, 01:29 PM
why not?
Because of CONSTANT "f" stop.

Even operating Lumix 7-14 Manually fast is a nightmare.
Iris wheel on AF100 is not as precise as on HVX200.One must work harder using that wheel...HVX200 iris wheel was faster and more responsive.
That is why any MANUAL ZOOM WITH IRIS CONTROL like Red Zoom is the best in a long run.:kali:

jiri

avro
01-25-2011, 01:45 PM
There are only 2 choices for AF100.
Cheap and not cheap.

CHEAP: buy Olympus 14-35mm f2.0 & 35-100mm f2.0.
BEST CHOICE: Duclos Tokina 11-16mm T2.8 & RED PRO 17-50mm T2.9

Guys buying $5000 camera must understand to get the best results one must spend another $5,000 on GLASS or more to get results fast & precise.
Do not forget camera bodies change.....what if one buys another camera with larger sensor 3 months later, Your Olympus glass is no good......

jiri

nyvz
01-25-2011, 01:51 PM
Bigger sensor = bigger glass. You can get a 1/6" CCD camcorder with a 20x lens, no problem. But try to make a 20x lens that covers a huge 4/3 or S35 chip, and you'll be looking at a lens that's a yard long, half a foot in diameter, and weighs 30 pounds.

This is why im surprised there arent faster zooms around for m4/3. From what I understand the olympus 14-35 & 35-100 f2.0 zooms are just 24-70 & 70-200 lenses redesigned with focal length reducers. Seems like if more companies did this, they could put 2x focal length reducers on FF35 zooms and turn something like a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 into a 14-150mm f1.8-2.8 or a 24-120 f4 into a 12-60 f2 that would still cover micro 4/3. I guess it will just take a couple years for m4/3 glass to catch up to what is out there for FF35 or even 16mm. I have a lightweight $300 9.5-57 f1.6 for 16mm sitting in front of me that could look good on m4/3 with a 1.5x extender as a 14-85 f2.4. Just cant figure out how to mount it with readily available teleconverters...

Shooter
01-25-2011, 02:00 PM
I think there are two types of users with this camera in regard to "what lens question".

"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" (movie converts).

Still guys are used to using Non Manual Lenses with electronic control of everything... including AF / AE.

Film Guys are used to manual lenses.

Film guys wont tolerate non constant aperture or inabilty to set an F-stop and know what it is. (eg via an adapter). Stills guys might tolerate these ( until they experience the "issues"they bring to motion picture work.

I said before..."its a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle and packaged as a Camera (BODY)".

Barry_Green
01-25-2011, 02:42 PM
This is why im surprised there arent faster zooms around for m4/3.
There are. The fastest zooms around are all for 4/3 and m4/3 (which are the same, as far as the optical plane is concerned, the only substantive difference is the flange focal distance). If you want a fast zoom, you want a 4/3 or m4/3 zoom.


From what I understand the olympus 14-35 & 35-100 f2.0 zooms are just 24-70 & 70-200 lenses redesigned with focal length reducers.
I've read that too, I don't know if it's accurate or not, I don't think Olympus has ever said that's what they're doing. Even so, whatever they're doing, it works. They have the fastest zooms around.


Seems like if more companies did this, they could put 2x focal length reducers on FF35 zooms and turn something like a 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6 into a 14-150mm f1.8-2.8 or a 24-120 f4 into a 12-60 f2 that would still cover micro 4/3.
No, apparently not, because while the 2x focal reducer would indeed get you the field of view, they didn't get a full two f-stops of brightness out of the Olympus lenses, they only got one additional f-stop of brightness. So a 28-70 f/2.8 (which is a common lens on SLRs) became a 14-35 f/2.0. And a 70-200 f/2.8 SLR lens, became a 35-100 f/2.0. And the 24-120 f4 became a 12-60 f/2.8. Even so, you've got the same field of view as the SLR lenses, and twice as bright, so that's still putting them ahead of the FF35 and APS-C guys.


I guess it will just take a couple years for m4/3 glass to catch up to what is out there for FF35
In what way? You already have the Olympus zooms from three years ago that are offering the same field of view and twice the brightness. How would that mean they need to catch up?

I would certainly like to see more fast zooms and more fast primes, and if optical reducers are the way to go, then by all means, let's go. They certainly haven't had a negative impact on the quality of the Olympus lenses! (assuming, of course, that that's what Olympus is actually doing).

biginvegas
01-25-2011, 03:49 PM
There is the Nikon G 17-55 2.8 (about $1k) and the cheaper Tokina 16-50 2.8 half the price.

nyvz
01-25-2011, 04:22 PM
No, apparently not, because while the 2x focal reducer would indeed get you the field of view, they didn't get a full two f-stops of brightness out of the Olympus lenses, they only got one additional f-stop of brightness. So a 28-70 f/2.8 (which is a common lens on SLRs) became a 14-35 f/2.0. And a 70-200 f/2.8 SLR lens, became a 35-100 f/2.0. And the 24-120 f4 became a 12-60 f/2.8. Even so, you've got the same field of view as the SLR lenses, and twice as bright, so that's still putting them ahead of the FF35 and APS-C guys.


I noticed that, but one would expect to gain 2stops from a 2x focal length reducer, just as one loses 2stops from a 2x teleconverter (plus minor transmission loss)... Any idea why they only got one?

Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize a 14-35 f2 on m4/3 as twice as bright as a 28-70 f2.8 on FF35, since technically the FF35 lens still allows about twice as much light to hit the sensor as the m4/3 lens, its just also spread over 4x the area. In the end, all else being equal, the FF35 lens and system should theoretically have 1stop less depth of field and 1stop more sensitivity than the m4/3 lens and system despite the higher f-stop.

Barry_Green
01-25-2011, 04:29 PM
I noticed that, but one would expect to gain 2stops from a 2x focal length reducer, just as one loses 2stops from a 2x teleconverter (plus minor transmission loss)... Any idea why they only got one?
No, not really... I read some article somewhere about it and they explained it, but I don't remember what they said, only that they got it.


Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize a 14-35 f2 on m4/3 as twice as bright as a 28-70 f2.8 on FF35, since technically the FF35 lens still allows about twice as much light to hit the sensor as the m4/3 lens, its just also spread over 4x the area. In the end, all else being equal, the FF35 lens and system should theoretically have 1stop less depth of field and 1stop more sensitivity than the m4/3 lens and system despite the higher f-stop.
What does it matter whether the light is spread out across 4x as much sensor space? What matters is whether the system lets you get the shot, or not. If you're trying to get an exposure, and proper exposure calls for f2, then the 4/3 with the Olympus will be able to deliver it, and the FF35 with the 2.8 lens won't. It'll be underexposed on that system.

avro
01-25-2011, 05:02 PM
I think there are two types of users with this camera in regard to "what lens question".

"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" (movie converts).

Still guys are used to using Non Manual Lenses with electronic control of everything... including AF / AE.

Film Guys are used to manual lenses.

Film guys wont tolerate non constant aperture or inabilty to set an F-stop and know what it is. (eg via an adapter). Stills guys might tolerate these ( until they experience the "issues"they bring to motion picture work.

I said before..."its a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle and packaged as a Camera (BODY)".

EXACTLY!
Best post so far.

Pietro Impagliazzo
01-25-2011, 05:38 PM
If there are 17-50 constant 2.8 zooms for APS-C, why can't there be 14ish-60ish constant 2.8 for M43? In my sheer ignorance, I can't really understand why.

Even reading about well, lenses would be huge and heavy... Well, I'm not asking for 14-140 constant f2. Just a little more reach from reasonable wide to slightly tele at a moderate f2.8.


I have a lightweight $300 9.5-57 f1.6 for 16mm sitting in front of me that could look good on m4/3 with a 1.5x extender as a 14-85 f2.4. Just cant figure out how to mount it with readily available teleconverters...

A 14-85 f2.4 for M43 would indeed be the killer lens.

nyvz
01-25-2011, 05:46 PM
What does it matter whether the light is spread out across 4x as much sensor space? What matters is whether the system lets you get the shot, or not. If you're trying to get an exposure, and proper exposure calls for f2, then the 4/3 with the Olympus will be able to deliver it, and the FF35 with the 2.8 lens won't. It'll be underexposed on that system.

Well it matters because if one system has twice as many photons coming in, that system is probably more likely to get you the shot. Of course this is a bit academic since we dont have proper FF35mm cameras for video available like we have for S35 and now have for m4/3. But I'm just saying I feel it would be misleading to tell people to expect they are more likely to get a shot at f2.0 on m4/3 than at f2.8 on FF35. I have shot a lot of EX1 and 7D together and in low light the 7D is clearly an order of magnitude better at f2.8 or even f4 than the EX1 at f1.9. f1.9 sounds like more light, but 1/2" is an awfully small area to be collecting light in. Compared to FF35, m4/3 is small area to be collecting light in, especially with a lens that collects half as many photons onto the sensor area.

ustein
01-25-2011, 06:34 PM
I used for indoors the Olympus 14-54mm on the GH1/GH2 and like it. Lighter and cheaper than the 12-60mm.

http://vimeo.com/18448243
http://vimeo.com/16108720

vicrattlehead
01-25-2011, 06:54 PM
There is the Nikon G 17-55 2.8 (about $1k) and the cheaper Tokina 16-50 2.8 half the price.

Today we shot a national TV spot with the AF100 and the Nikon 17-55 AFS G DX f2.8 lens. FANTASTIC lens on the AF100 with the Novoflex adapter. We had a heap of great fast glass on hand, but the 17-55 and the Nikon 85
f1.4 AFD were the only lenses used...

ustein
01-25-2011, 07:40 PM
>Novoflex adapter.

Allows aperture control?

bgundu
01-25-2011, 08:24 PM
it does.


>Novoflex adapter.

Allows aperture control?

Shooter
01-25-2011, 08:27 PM
it does.

But you wont know what it is....if that matters to you.

Pietro Impagliazzo
01-25-2011, 11:10 PM
I used for indoors the Olympus 14-54mm on the GH1/GH2 and like it. Lighter and cheaper than the 12-60mm.

http://vimeo.com/18448243
http://vimeo.com/16108720

Thank you Uwe, mine is on the way!

timbook2
01-26-2011, 01:10 AM
I think there are two types of users with this camera in regard to "what lens question".

"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" (movie converts).

Still guys are used to using Non Manual Lenses with electronic control of everything... including AF / AE.

Film Guys are used to manual lenses.

Film guys wont tolerate non constant aperture or inabilty to set an F-stop and know what it is. (eg via an adapter). Stills guys might tolerate these ( until they experience the "issues"they bring to motion picture work.

I said before..."its a conundrum wrapped in a puzzle and packaged as a Camera (BODY)".

Well said so let me add:
I think there are three types:
"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" and "Video Guys"

and the Video Guys want a zoom rocker, an ENG view finder and
One lens to rule them all, One lens to find them, One lens to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of lowlight where the Shadows lie...

Brian@202020
01-26-2011, 07:12 AM
Today we shot a national TV spot with the AF100 and the Nikon 17-55 AFS G DX f2.8 lens. FANTASTIC lens on the AF100 with the Novoflex adapter. We had a heap of great fast glass on hand, but the 17-55 and the Nikon 85
f1.4 AFD were the only lenses used...

The 17-55 Nikon might be the answer for right now. Thank you for letting us know your experience with this lens. One question: does the focus ring keep going or does it hard stop?


Well said so let me add:
I think there are three types:
"Film Guys" and "Stills Guys" and "Video Guys"

and the Video Guys want a zoom rocker, an ENG view finder and
One lens to rule them all, One lens to find them, One lens to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of lowlight where the Shadows lie...

Then there is the forth guy that comes from the worlds of all 3, stills, film, and video. I am one of these, I do lean heavier towards the film world tho. I learned a lot in the 16mm realm and the benefits of that discipline is huge. For me Manual Lenses are fine and actually preferred (film world). I do believe in constant apertures such as all the lenses should be an f2 or and f2.8 or what not with a few exceptions (film world). That said I don't necessarily need to know where I am on the lens at all times (stills word), I mean that's what the waveform is for (Video world), but the ability for all/most my lenses to act the same is beneficial (film world). This camera is the perfect video camera with film traits, and one needs to to meld their disciplines from all 3 worlds accordingly to get the best from the AF100.

ScottNelson
01-26-2011, 09:15 AM
Had planned on using the EOS Tokina 16-50 with the Birger adaptor but have decided to go with the Zuiko 12-60 based on this discussion. I like the extended range it offers and believe I can live with f/4 at the higher end - I can supplement it with a number of Nikon primes (50 and 85mm) if I really need f/1.4-2.0.

I believe Birger, undeliverable at this time, and double, triple or even quadruple the cost of other adaptors is greatly overpriced and that the makers are taking advantage AF100 users. I'm sure Novoflex and others have comparable EOS-M4/3 adaptors on the drawing boards at reasonable cost estimates.

wbrock001
01-26-2011, 09:30 AM
Have you watched the video on what the birger mount does on red cameras? If it truly allows aperture control, IS and autofocus (mileage may vary), it seems reasonable to me. Isn't the reason all of our video gear is so pricey is because it's a niche market? The birger mount sounds pretty niche to me, I just hope it does all it says and the remote control isn't as pricey as the one for red. I mean if you want pricey, those Olympus f2.0 lenses take the prize, especially without built in IS, in my opinion.

Barry_Green
01-26-2011, 11:00 AM
I believe Birger, undeliverable at this time, and double, triple or even quadruple the cost of other adaptors is greatly overpriced and that the makers are taking advantage AF100 users.
And I believe this statement is grossly unfair and completely indefensible.

How can anyone take advantage of you, without your permission? You have all the power in that relationship. All you have to do is ... not buy it. Buy a Novoflex or other adapter. If Birger's price is too high and nobody buys it, it is they who will suffer.

Birger is developing something that doesn't exist on the market yet, at any price. And nobody is required to buy it. I, for one, am glad that a company has decided to invest tons of dollars into r&d to create something that many users will find quite appealing. To insult them for taking that effort is just plain rude.

ScottNelson
01-26-2011, 05:40 PM
Birger is developing something that doesn't exist on the market yet, at any price. And nobody is required to buy it. I, for one, am glad that a company has decided to invest tons of dollars into r&d to create something that many users will find quite appealing. To insult them for taking that effort is just plain rude.

I'm sorry, Barry - I didn't intend to insult either Birger or especially, you.

I keep hearing that users want iris control and not auto-focus, especially with still camera lenses. This is not a run and gun ENG camera that requires rocker zooms and auto this and that.

I think that if Panasonic and Olympus can create M4/3 electronic adaptors for a little over $100 and Novoflex can offer units for a little more, then the $700 figure seems a bit out of line with today's economics and the members of this forum. Problem is, there doesn't seem to be another alternative for EF lenses which is why I switched to Zuiko glass based a lot on comments from you and Kylekmd.

Thanks for your help.

Barry_Green
01-26-2011, 05:55 PM
No problem snp, I just bristle when the people who are trying to help, get complained about. I figure, hey, he's doing something nobody else is, we should encourage him, right?

The Panasonic and Olympus adapters are very different -- because they're from Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds. Everything's the same, just the physical size of the adapter. It just has to pass the information through the electrical contacts and it's done. Whereas what Birger's doing is basically an entire computer -- it has to read the incoming requests from the AF100, and translate it into Canon protocol and then pass it on to the lens. It's an interpreting system, not just a simple pass-through.

If Novoflex or someone else wants to offer something comparable, hey, the market would welcome it. But right now I don't know of anyone who's even considering making an electronic translating adapter. All the novoflex and fotodiox and Ciecio7 adapters and all the rest, are simple mechanical things. It really is a horse of a different color, what Birger's trying to do.

Sorry for snapping!

wbrock001
01-26-2011, 06:25 PM
Birger is what has kept me from going to the f2.0 zuikos. I realize the zuikos are faster than canon L glass but what gets me more excited is the canon glass is much more platform independent if other camera manufacturers come out with other interesting products, many of the canon lenses have IS, and it's much easier to rent canon glass for more specialized needs. The zuikos are limited to Olympus and panasonic. So birger is doing us a great service with options...can also use tokina, sigma, and tamron...pretty cool.

Hawk_XP
02-02-2011, 03:02 AM
Hello everyone,
I bought a Panasonic AF101EJ a few days ago and I love it; the ability to work with manual settings is awesome. But I really need a zoom lens with push auto-focus in my work. I love to deal with manual settings but i don't always have the time to arrange the scene as I like... I owned a Lumix 14-140mm but he is quite ineffective for indoor shots. Olympus 14-35mm is too expensive for me at the moment. :cry:
I have two questions about Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html) Does it works on AF101 with push-auto focus? Can I use this lens for decent indoor shots? Panasonic does not mention anything on their website.
Or maybe is another suitable zoom lens for a decent price...
Anyone has some advise?

Pietro Impagliazzo
02-02-2011, 04:39 AM
The 14-54 functions with push AF (AFS) on my GH1. It should be the same on the AF100.

Anyone?

bgundu
02-02-2011, 06:58 AM
For what you want to do (which is not really what the AF was designed for) the 14-140 is your only option at this point.




Hello everyone,
First of all, please be patient with my poor english.
I bought a Panasonic AF101EJ a few days ago and I love it; the ability to work with manual settings is awesome. But I really need a zoom lens with push auto-focus in my work. I love to deal with manual settings but i don't always have the time to arrange the scene as I like... I owned a Lumix 14-140mm but he is quite ineffective for indoor shots. Olympus 14-35mm is too expensive for me at the moment. :cry:
I have two questions about Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5 II Zuiko Digital Zoom Lens. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/590390-REG/Olympus_261060_14_54mm_f_2_8_3_5_II_Zuiko.html) Does it works on AF101 with push-auto focus? Can I use this lens for decent indoor shots? Panasonic does not mention anything on their website.
Or maybe is another suitable zoom lens for a decent price...
Anyone has some advise?

Jim Simon
02-02-2011, 10:28 AM
Well, I'm not asking for 14-140 constant f2.I am. Weighing less than 2 lbs and costing less than half a K. With OIS, auto focus and auto iris.

It's what's needed and wanted.

Jim Simon
02-02-2011, 10:32 AM
and the Video Guys want a zoom rocker, an ENG view finder and
One lens to rule them all, One lens to find them, One lens to bring them all and in the darkness bind them. In the Land of lowlight where the Shadows lie...

Hallelujah, brother!

Jim Simon
02-02-2011, 10:35 AM
This is not a run and gun ENG camera that requires rocker zooms and auto this and that.

Ah, sadly no. But it should have been.

Shooter
02-02-2011, 12:31 PM
Ah, sadly no. But it should have been.

Not at all. This camera is for a different user and "is what it is".

It appears to be satisfying the user it is intended for.

Barry_Green
02-02-2011, 12:53 PM
Ah, sadly no. But it should have been.
No it shouldn't have been. There are plenty of ENG cameras on the market with rocker zooms and auto this and that.

Hawk_XP
02-02-2011, 01:01 PM
Really, my question was different and very specific. It is out of question to request auto here and auto there. Anyway, thanks to all for support.

Taylor Rudd
02-02-2011, 01:25 PM
Not at all. This camera is for a different user and "is what it is".

It appears to be satisfying the user it is intended for.

+1

Round peg goes in round hole, people need to realize this camera is a bit more square in shape.

Bucknfl
02-03-2011, 09:05 AM
It's not the camera that is lacking, it's the lense manufacturers. As more AF100s are sold along with F3s, dslrs, reds, etc. I think we will soon see some new cine/video friendly lenses.

jgardner
02-07-2011, 09:00 PM
Well the rumored 12-60 f2.8 Panasonic lens mentioned earlier in this thread is a lot closer than the RED 17-50. I own the older RED 18-50 T3 and that lens is horrible. I do hear the new one is much better tho.

Brian this lens is what it is. It's also really cheap. I've also shot with it a bunch on red and I never thought it looked "horrible". I'd actually love to have one for my AF100.

mcgeedigital
02-07-2011, 09:10 PM
It's not the camera that is lacking, it's the lense manufacturers. As more AF100s are sold along with F3s, dslrs, reds, etc. I think we will soon see some new cine/video friendly lenses.

If a lens manufacturer actually makes a decent zoom that covers the M43 sensor with a servo zoom on it, the only thing you will hear is the nashing of teeth when the price is revealed.

Brian@202020
02-07-2011, 09:15 PM
I'd actually love to have one for my AF100.

Jake it's a very soft lens. I just might sell you mine if you want it and the price is right. Call me if you're interested.

jgardner
02-07-2011, 09:34 PM
Jake it's a very soft lens. I just might sell you mine if you want it and the price is right. Call me if you're interested.
How much? I guess i disagree that it's "very soft". I'm not sticking up for it's build quality or saying its a great lens but I don't put up a stink if have to shoot with one. Wouldn't mind having the option to shoot with that instead of the nikons when I'm doing smaller shoots.

I attached a photo of a screen grab. GH13 and RED 18-50, no grade. I think it looks pretty sharp?

alaskacameradude
02-08-2011, 12:14 AM
If a lens manufacturer actually makes a decent zoom that covers the M43 sensor with a servo zoom on it, the only thing you will hear is the nashing of teeth when the price is revealed.

Well, Sony is doing it for the F3 which has a bigger sensor than the M43. Of course the price
hasn't been announced yet, so we'll have to listen close for those teeth......

Jon Furtado
02-08-2011, 12:56 AM
Bigger sensor = bigger glass. You can get a 1/6" CCD camcorder with a 20x lens, no problem. But try to make a 20x lens that covers a huge 4/3 or S35 chip, and you'll be looking at a lens that's a yard long, half a foot in diameter, and weighs 30 pounds.

And everyone was complaining that the micro 4/3 chip wasn't "big" enough ;) I talked to a lot of people that complained that they're gonna wait till they release a "full frame" camera. Doesn't this just exacerbate this issue?

Bucknfl
02-08-2011, 10:00 AM
The Red Pro 18-85 T2.9 $9975.00 is less than half the price of most of the other cine lenses available.

Brian@202020
02-08-2011, 10:08 AM
I guess i disagree that it's "very soft".

Well I really noticed it on the Rockford Mules music video I shot last year when I tried to cut RED 18-50 zoom footage with Zeiss Super Speed Footage. The Sharpness of the Zeiss Super Speeds cut really well with my Nikons tho.

Bucknfl
02-08-2011, 10:24 AM
http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/12/24/nikon-working-on-combo-manual-electronic-zoom-for-its-lenses/

jgardner
02-08-2011, 10:33 AM
Well I really noticed it on the Rockford Mules music video I shot last year when I tried to cut RED 18-50 zoom footage with Zeiss Super Speed Footage. The Sharpness of the Zeiss Super Speeds cut really well with my Nikons tho.

I'm sure you noticed a difference when comparing it to Zeiss Super Speeds! I'm just saying that the stuff I've shot with one I wouldn't call "really soft"

Barry_Green
02-08-2011, 10:34 AM
And everyone was complaining that the micro 4/3 chip wasn't "big" enough ;) I talked to a lot of people that complained that they're gonna wait till they release a "full frame" camera. Doesn't this just exacerbate this issue?
The 4/3 chip is almost the same size as 35mm movie film.

A "full frame" sensor would indeed exacerbate the issue, of course. It is approximately twice the size of the 4/3 chip.

benniles
02-08-2011, 01:11 PM
Well I really noticed it on the Rockford Mules music video I shot last year when I tried to cut RED 18-50 zoom footage with Zeiss Super Speed Footage. The Sharpness of the Zeiss Super Speeds cut really well with my Nikons tho.

Do you have an example that you can show us or a link to the video?

Jarek Zabczynski
02-08-2011, 01:31 PM
I just got the Nikon 17-55mm and to my surprise the lens does push forward a little when zooming. Not as much as other zooms in this range, but it does move. It seems like a great lens though. Any other lenses with a similar range that don't extend?

Brian@202020
02-08-2011, 01:39 PM
Do you have an example that you can show us or a link to the video?

The only example I have is the finished youtube video, which isn't a good example for several reasons. First, all the RED footage shot with the Zeiss Super Speeds and the GH1(3) 1080 24p footage shot with my Nikon glass was softened in post a little, where as the RED footage shot with the RED 18-50 and the GH1(3) footage shot in 720p was left alone. Then all the footage was muddied up quite a bit to achieve a look the director wanted. Also the youtube compression won't help my cause either. Believe me tho, sitting in the edit room looking at the footage side by side it was a night and day difference. Here is the link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfuP_B728Es) anyway if you want to see it. All the footage of inside the tent where the baby was being born was shot with the RED 18-50, as well as a few pick up shots.

maxxfish
02-08-2011, 01:44 PM
I recently got the Angenieux Optimo Rouge 16-42 T2.8, which will be my primary lens for the AF100. Sharp, fast, light, manual, decent range, and $$$, but should cover me for almost everything.

jgardner
02-08-2011, 07:08 PM
Do you have an example that you can show us or a link to the video?

Well, here's my link to a more recent video shot with the 18-50 and I think it looks pretty sharp. Definitely not shot on super speeds or any super spendy glass, but definitely not really soft. At least I think so anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYwURAgfJA

Sorry if I got off topic, I just wanted to stick up for this lens a little. Not saying it's the greatest, but if it's what you got to use I believe it can make some nice pictures.

benniles
02-08-2011, 07:30 PM
Well, here's my link to a more recent video shot with the 18-50 and I think it looks pretty sharp. Definitely not shot on super speeds or any super spendy glass, but definitely not really soft. At least I think so anyway.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQYwURAgfJA

Sorry if I got off topic, I just wanted to stick up for this lens a little. Not saying it's the greatest, but if it's what you got to use I believe it can make some nice pictures.


Here is a video
http://vimeo.com/6046859
I shot it with the 18-50 red and a set of Zeiss standard speed 2.1 PL lenses 16 through 85.
For the fisheye shots I had a century adapter on the front of the 16

I felt they cut together well.

As far as getting what you pay for I purchased my 18-50 used and its the best lens I own that cost me less than $3000.00

jgardner
02-08-2011, 07:37 PM
Here is a video
http://vimeo.com/6046859
I shot it with the 18-50 red and a set of Zeiss standard speed 2.1 PL lenses 16 through 85.
For the fisheye shots I had a century adapter on the front of the 16

I felt they cut together well.

As far as getting what you pay for I purchased my 18-50 used and its the best lens I own that cost me less than $3000.00

Nice vid man. Great art direction.

Jan_Crittenden
02-11-2011, 03:28 PM
Look at what the guys from Abel have been up to:
http://vimeo.com/groups/72874/videos/19839954

Jarek Zabczynski
02-11-2011, 05:55 PM
Look at what the guys from Abel have been up to:
http://vimeo.com/groups/72874/videos/19839954

Impressive.

mcgeedigital
02-11-2011, 06:48 PM
I recently got the Angenieux Optimo Rouge 16-42 T2.8, which will be my primary lens for the AF100. Sharp, fast, light, manual, decent range, and $$$, but should cover me for almost everything.

Such a great piece of glass. Kudos!

mcgeedigital
02-11-2011, 07:23 PM
Look at what the guys from Abel have been up to:
http://vimeo.com/groups/72874/videos/19839954

Man, I'm going to have to keep an eye on this and repurpose my Angenieux HD wide angle B4 lens for that.

Bucknfl
02-11-2011, 09:18 PM
Interesting. Now it's a camera for people that want to shoot ENG, EFP,documentary, and run and gun.

Tvdie23
02-12-2011, 12:13 AM
I highly recommend the Tokina 28-70mm f/2.6-2.8 AT-X Pro II lens. I just purchased a nikon mount version of this lens and couldn't be happier. The lens features manual aperture, the lens does not extend while zooming and focusing, and it also holds it's focus while zooming. The best part is that they can be found on the used market for around $300.00.

There are newer versions of this lens, but be sure to find the f/2.6-2.8 version. This version features superior optics and performance over the newer versions of this lens.

You can find a lab test/review of this lens here: http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/276-tokina-af-28-70mm-f28-26-at-x-pro-ii-lab-test-report--review


My question is... will 28mm wide enough?
Since it is run n gun, you won't have much time and space to run back a couple feet to get the shot. Other than that, $300 is a great price.

Jon Furtado
02-14-2011, 06:19 PM
My question is... will 28mm wide enough?
Since it is run n gun, you won't have much time and space to run back a couple feet to get the shot. Other than that, $300 is a great price.

I bought this lens from someone on the Marketplace forum. It's on my AF100 now via the Metabones Nikon to PL mount adaptor. I just shot with it on Friday. Overall, it's a great mid focal length zoom.

Jon Furtado
02-14-2011, 06:29 PM
Here is a video
http://vimeo.com/6046859
I shot it with the 18-50 red and a set of Zeiss standard speed 2.1 PL lenses 16 through 85.
For the fisheye shots I had a century adapter on the front of the 16

I felt they cut together well.

As far as getting what you pay for I purchased my 18-50 used and its the best lens I own that cost me less than $3000.00

Where did you get that century fish eye adaptor? have a set of Zeiss standard speeds I might be looking for wide angle adapters for.