GH2 12-35mm VIDEO

Psynema

Psynema

Well-known member
First spin with the 12-35mm Panasonic


12-35mm makes an appearance for - Bridal Prep (though a 2 shots are 35mm 1.4), Processional, and the wide angle for the reception on the glidecam.

Other lenses were 25mm 1.4 panasonic, 135mm FD f2, 85mm 1.4 & 35mm 1.4 Rokinon.

Still have to do give it a final pass through, but presentable enough.
 
Wolfenbarg said:
You are very good at what you do. I completely forgot that this post was about a lens. Beautiful work.
Click to expand...

Thanks.

Overall my time with the 12-35mm was only this day as it and the 25mm 1.4 were both rentals. But my initial conclusions are that the 12m Olympus autofocus more accurately and more quickly. The Panny seemed slower, which is good if you have the subject in focus, but if you're waiting for it to get in focus...can be a minor nuissance. But not many focus issues at 12mm though I do prefer the look of the 12mm Oly especially since it's a stop faster, then again the Oly isn't a zoom, which comes in handy big time for weddings. I also did get lucky with an unusually well lit reception so ISO was 800 max for the reception (darker scenes towards the end I took it off for the 25 and 85).

The Oly I can just point it and it pretty much focuses smoothly and ASAP to the subject, the 12-35 you would need to touch the screen a few times to be sure at the long end, but obviously for a zoom that's understandable. Still kind of torn as I held off buying anything undecided on the 12 oly vs. the 12-35 panny. 12mm on the panny seemed fine af wise and maybe just a hair shy of the Oly's af in my opinion.

What REALLY IMPRESSED me was the 25mm 1.4...I f'n love that lens and it's LIGHT YEARS ahead of the 20mm 1.7 and always cringed when someone suggests the 20mm over the 25 - HOGWASH. If I could turn back time I'd probably shoot the bridal prep with the 25mm instead. RAZOR SHARP and even though it's not really the same focal range as the 35 rokinon, I left the 35mm rokinon in the bag most of the night, which is hard because I like long lenses. As appreciative of the Rokinon line up as I am, the 25mm panny really shows what autofocus and COATINGS can do and now I'm really curious to compare the 75mm Oly with the 85mm Rokinon. I dismissed the Oly 75mm for being a stop slower and being very happy with the 85mm rokinon, but Panny/Oly, you have to give them credit, IMO ARE ARGUABLY the best wide open lens makers out there, so I'm really wanting to try out the 75mm next. It's good to have modern/native glass sometimes. 25mm 1.4 gets some flack for being $600 whereas the Canon 50mm 1.4 is $400...and I'll say it's WORTH THE EXTRA COST (well we all know wider focal lengths get pricier than midrange ones regardless of crop factors) but the panny just gives a way better image than Canon's 1.4....the 1.2 L of course is probably a different story.

12-35 I can't wait to try again but just not at a wedding - not knocking the lens at all, but I think it's just meant for other types of shoots. Short primes are best for bridal preps, long teles/zooms for ceremonies, and long fast primes for receptions and 2.8 may be too dark for a lot of weddings. But seems like a great close range documentary lens if you have a shoulder rig or monopod for it. When I zoomed in and used the glidecam as a monopod on top of my bag, I did have to fiddle with AF at 35mm which was too short a lot of times and was wishing for MF when zoomed all the way in on a couple of occasions. I would say in closing 12mm on the pany is close enough the oly to warrant buying it for glidecam work, but things like having a sudden foreground subject pop into the frame the 12mm Oly will handle better, but again, only used the Panny for a day. So hypothetically, let's say you're gliding and start off with a shot of a room as a location establishing shot and glide backwards to headshot of a person about a foot or so in front of the lens, the Oly will handle the AF better so long as it's not backlit. The panny will take a bit longer and if that person's head is too close to the lens, it may give the AF some minor trouble.
 
Last edited:
Psynema said:
What REALLY IMPRESSED me was the 25mm 1.4...I f'n love that lens and it's LIGHT YEARS ahead of the 20mm 1.7 and always cringed when someone suggests the 20mm over the 25 - HOGWASH.
Click to expand...

Do you like it much better because of the image quality? Or the usage (autofocus, etc...) ?
 
Have you had a chance to compare the Voigtlander 25 0.95 and the Panny 25 1.4? Of course, one has af and the other doesn't, but what about IQ for video and is the additional speed of the 0.95 usable in practice or is it not relevant? I say that, because many times I've seen people get hung up on some lens being nominally "faster", but the reality is that it's really not usable due to softness or other issues at its widest, and a competing lens that's slower is better because at the widest usable aperture, the slower lens may actually be faster!... like say, one lens is f/1.2 and the other is f/1.8, but the f/1.2 is not usable until f/2.8 whereas the f/1.8 is usable at 1.8, so if you went for the 1.2, thinking it's "faster", you'd actually do yourself a disservice...

In any case, of course, the speed difference between 0.95 and 1.4 is huuuuuuge, so I have no doubt that when light is at a premium, go for the 0.95, but still, I was wondering how you see those two lenses - in case you've used both, that is.
 
OldCorpse said:
Have you had a chance to compare the Voigtlander 25 0.95 and the Panny 25 1.4? Of course, one has af and the other doesn't, but what about IQ for video and is the additional speed of the 0.95 usable in practice or is it not relevant? I say that, because many times I've seen people get hung up on some lens being nominally "faster", but the reality is that it's really not usable due to softness or other issues at its widest, and a competing lens that's slower is better because at the widest usable aperture, the slower lens may actually be faster!... like say, one lens is f/1.2 and the other is f/1.8, but the f/1.2 is not usable until f/2.8 whereas the f/1.8 is usable at 1.8, so if you went for the 1.2, thinking it's "faster", you'd actually do yourself a disservice...

In any case, of course, the speed difference between 0.95 and 1.4 is huuuuuuge, so I have no doubt that when light is at a premium, go for the 0.95, but still, I was wondering how you see those two lenses - in case you've used both, that is.
Click to expand...

Have yet to use a nokton.

But yeah I know what you're saying and that has had me conflicted for a while over which 25mm to kerplunk on. .95 will come in handy and it looks good enough though I'm not a fan of glow. 25mm Panny I did hear is sharper at 1.4 vs. the nokton. Then again the close focusing of the nokton should make for better bokeh.
 
I wasn't there, so maybe this is an actual representation of the event, but it seemed deadly serious. The bride and groom barely cracked smiles the whole time. The weddings I've been to were pretty joyous affairs with the people involved smiling from their asses to their foreheads. Basically I'm saying, if this was how it went down, it looks great, but if there were more smiles to be found at the wedding, they need to work their way into the video.
 
Justinec101 said:
I wasn't there, so maybe this is an actual representation of the event, but it seemed deadly serious. The bride and groom barely cracked smiles the whole time. The weddings I've been to were pretty joyous affairs with the people involved smiling from their asses to their foreheads. Basically I'm saying, if this was how it went down, it looks great, but if there were more smiles to be found at the wedding, they need to work their way into the video.
Click to expand...

There were plenty of smiles there. They weren't hooping and hollering or anything. However, there were definitely plenty of smiles in the first part of the video.
 
Wow, I must agree. You do great work. That looked great! I would say that it was money well spent to rent the lenses as well. I don't think the 25mm F0.95 would have fit in with the sharp m4/3s lenses. I like the video just the way you did it.

I also agree that the 25mm F1.4 is an excellent lens and much better than the already fantastic 20mm F1.7.

What I cannot wait for is the 35-100mm F2.8. That lens will be perfect for hand held video. Was this stabilized video? Were you using wearable stabilization? Also what did you use for the sliding shots? Those were exceptional.
 
mpgxsvcd said:
Wow, I must agree. You do great work. That looked great! I would say that it was money well spent to rent the lenses as well. I don't think the 25mm F0.95 would have fit in with the sharp m4/3s lenses. I like the video just the way you did it.

I also agree that the 25mm F1.4 is an excellent lens and much better than the already fantastic 20mm F1.7.

What I cannot wait for is the 35-100mm F2.8. That lens will be perfect for hand held video. Was this stabilized video? Were you using wearable stabilization? Also what did you use for the sliding shots? Those were exceptional.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

Used a glidecam and monopods or tripods throughout, with only the 12-35mm having OIS. Glidecam was just the hd-1000, no vest. Never was a big fan of vests, which to me, work better as a wearable tripod and not so much a wearable steadicam, unless your outdoors with all the room in the world. Sliding shots were the Glide Gear which is a VERY VERY VERY SMALL slider that can be had for $100. Generally not a huge fan of it but for weddings I prefer smaller sliders since you have to be on your toes and easily maneuverable. I'll probably get a Micro Motion Slider by 24phd instead.
 
mcbob said:
6 12-35's for $850 each?

Sounds like something "fell off a truck"...
Click to expand...

Auction is back up, still looks like a normal bid and not a buy it now. Looks like $750 was the starting bid, $850 the last bid before he pulled that auction, but who knows.
 
That is some really nice work there.

I'd love to know what you used for EVF and LCD guides so you could frame properly for a 2.39:1 aspect?
 
Didn't mean to derail.

What was the ISO/aperture on the 12-35? Did you have any additional lighting?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top