Just bought AF100, need lens suggestions under $3K

nedcam said:
...and am a little confused as to how important the difference between say 2 or 2.8 is from a 1.4, in terms of the AF100. Can't you just dial up the ISO, or is it too noisy?
Click to expand...

I think for most folks the difference has less to do with light levels and more to do with the depth of field. I can dial up the ISO to 1,600 with my scene file setting and not need to really worry about noise (and the gamma is set to Cine-D to boot). The shoot I mentioned a few posts back in part involved shooting a couple of interviews in a nearly completely dark room with only a 500w light and a 250w light (both with heavy gridcloth for diffusion) at f/2.8 and ISO400 and it looked just fine.
 
With either the Olympus 35-100mm or 14-35mm lens, do they require additional support when used with the Af100? Or are you confident just connecting either of them to the DMW-MA1 Lumix adapter and then to the camera? I do a mix of tripod, handheld, and dolly shots.
 
The 14-35 *could* be used without rails, but it's a pretty big, pretty heavy lens. The 35-100, no possible way, you will have to have rails under it.

However, I wouldn't go with the 14-35 anymore, unless you absolutely MUST have that last f-stop. The Lumix 12-35 is a much better choice in so many ways; it's half the price, it's wider, it has OIS, it has video-style autofocus, it's a native-mount lens so there's no need for an adapter, and it's also comparatively tiny; drawback is that it's f/2.8 throughout the zoom range instead of the Olympus's f/2.0. As for the 35-100, there isn't a direct competitor yet but there will be, Lumix has announced that they're making a Lumix 35-100 f/2.8 lens, and I would guess (only a guess!) that it will be comparable to the 12-35 in all the same ways -- half the cost, much smaller size, no need for rails, autofocus and OIS, and all that.
 
Yeah - if you want a versatile wide zoom on the AF100 there really is no other lens to consider - 12-35 --- I actually think it's TOO wide, but lots of folks like those wide open spaces... with the (hopefully) coming 35-100 you could shoot nearly everything with two light lenses.
 
Mac, I'm close to making a decision to get the 12-35; and I think I'm hearing enough positives from you and Barry to go with it. Yes?
 
Allow me to be the velvet glove that pushes you over that precarious precipice.

The 12-35 should practically come packaged with this camera.

Since there's not currently a "best" ~35-100 to complement it, the best current solution is to adapt somebody else's constant f2.8 zoom in the ~24-105 range and make do until the Lumix is introduced. I went with a Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5. It's non-constant and varifocal, but sharp and ridiculously cheap.
 
I have the Vivitar, got it for $60 - they're around, check old camera stores.. It's a little soft, but very pleasing on women's faces - precludes the use of diffusion... I use it often in other situations as well, but it isn't nearly as crisp as the 12-35 so you have to be careful - One thing I like about the Vivitar (its a 28-85 BTW) on this camera is that the focus ring is also the zoom which means that you can rack focus as you push or pull.. that helps since it isn't parfocal...

I should add that the crispnesss of the 12-35 (and the Voigtlander 17.5) is somewhat non-cinematic to me - I know many like that "you are there" video feel these days, but I don't like images that look like the clips they run to sell HD TVs in stores - it makes my teeth hurt (one of my mother's old expressions) - like fingernails on a blackboard - I often export clips to FCP7 and apply a Tiffen diffusion filter to tone them down, then reimport the clips into FCPX - that makes the Vivitar a close match.
 
Last edited:
Erik Naso said:
Nikon manual lenses are a good deal and give excellent results. Novoflex adapter is top notch. Enjoy!
Click to expand...

I second this. I have a ton of old Nikons and they're wonderful. Save some money and get yourself a nice 24 or 28mm, 35 (maybe), 50, 85. Then invest a bit more in a wide of some kind. That's a way to save some dough but that might not be your goal :p
 
Since I'm out in dusty environments many time, having lots of Nikon options & changing lenses often is not very desirable thus my interest in the new 12-35, along with other nice features this lens seems to have.
I do have the older 14-50 2.8-3.5 Lumix which is OK although no constant F2.8, plus a Tamron 28-105 2.8 which has always done well. So I'm OK, I just like the smaller new lenses coming out...hate the cost though.
 
I recently got the new Lumix X 45-175mm f4-5.6 motorized zoom, and I really like the way it works with the AF100. The lens communicates perfectly with the AF100, updating all numerical displays and auto-focusing quickly and quietly. The zoom works either manual or motorized, has three speed settings, and holds focus well at the slowest setting. In addition, the front barrel of the lens neither rotates nor extends when either zooming or focusing. That makes it very convenient to use with a matte box or steadicam. IMHO, it's the most usable long zoom yet for the AF100.
 
lpowell said:
I recently got the new Lumix X 45-175mm f4-5.6 motorized zoom, and I really like the way it works with the AF100.
Click to expand...

When stopped down to f/5.6 does the aperture fluctuate as the lens zooms?

How do you like the lens on the GH2?

Is it usuable handheld?

Thanks,
Bern
 
Bern Caughey said:
When stopped down to f/5.6 does the aperture fluctuate as the lens zooms?
Click to expand...
No, the aperture is steady at f5.6 and narrower, with no audible clicks. Panasonic seems to have figured out how to eliminate the iris clicking you can hear in legacy Four Thirds lenses.

With OIS at the wide end of the zoom range, the 45-175mm is totally handholdable, especially on the GH2 (and the GH1 as well, minus on-screen displays). On the AF100, it depends on how conveniently your rig is set up for left hand access to the lens' zoom controls. I have a Manfrotto 521PFI iris/focus remote mounted on the front of the AF100's top handle, and that setup works well with the 45-175mm's zoom buttons.
 
Joe Robbins said:
I do have the older 14-50 2.8-3.5 Lumix which is OK although no constant F2.8,
Click to expand...

I have that lens as well, and think it works pretty well on the AF... it's not constant 2.8, but it IS constant if set to 3.5, just a half stop lower. Nice smooth zoom and focus rings (albeit the latter is infinitely spinny), and iris doesn't change mid-zoom. Sharpness and speed a little better than the 14-140, range a little better than the 12-35.

Frankly I wish is sucked a lot more than the 12-35, because then I wouldn't hesitate to sell it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top