I will try the aperture stepping again, now.
GH3 35-10mm F2.8 shipping in the US now!
- Thread starter mpgxsvcd
- Start date
I will try the aperture stepping again, now.
I tried to reproduce the stepping effect with the 35-100mm F2.8 and could not. In manual and Aperture priority modes it never changed the exposure no matter what I did with the zooming. I also confirmed that the aperture is indeed stepless.
I tried rapidly changing the aperture setting while filming in Aperture mode. I looked into the lens as I did this and could clearly see the aperture continuously change. However, it actually changes very slowly which is a good thing. It eventually got to the aperture settings I changed it to. However, it did it very smoothly and continuously.
There must be something different about how the 35-100mm is designed. It seems to be extremely video oriented. Really I am kind of shocked that more people are not lusting after this lens for videos.
I tried rapidly changing the aperture setting while filming in Aperture mode. I looked into the lens as I did this and could clearly see the aperture continuously change. However, it actually changes very slowly which is a good thing. It eventually got to the aperture settings I changed it to. However, it did it very smoothly and continuously.
There must be something different about how the 35-100mm is designed. It seems to be extremely video oriented. Really I am kind of shocked that more people are not lusting after this lens for videos.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Perhaps because a lot have already moved on to mainly using primes. I also think a lot were waiting to see the first user reports to see if the exposure would change during zooming. If what you say is accurate then perhaps more will want to jump on this lens. I also know some people who like the fact that the lens is F2.8 but they still want faster and prefer to use primes in those situations.
When I am outdoors I find I just don't need a lens this fast. The times when I do need a fast zoom to shoot an event I found myself actually wishing I had the 14mm to 140mm so I could cover the full range of what I need without having to stop the camera and switch lenses. The times when I do need a zoom I need it to shoot events which also means continous shooting and no switching lenses. Neither of these fast zooms seem to fit that need perfectly. 35mm just isn't wide enough to cover an entire event.
d1rockwild
Well-known member
I think it's also about the clients hiring you. Sometimes coverage is more important than quality/aesthetic. Also for yourself what is more important, better coverage or "better" aesthetic? I realize aesthetic is subjective.
and also, if you're seriously considering the 35-100, you probably can afford a used 14-140 in addition to.
and also, if you're seriously considering the 35-100, you probably can afford a used 14-140 in addition to.
Last edited:
ajcourtney
Active member
The Oly Zuiko 14-35/2 behaves exactly the same way. There is one spot in the zoom range that the aperture physically changes - you can see it and hear it. I've learned to mostly work around it.
At most apertures (f2-f13), the iris adjusts just after you clear 14mm. When you get to f14, no more iris adjustments.
Last edited:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
I was blown away by the IQ of the Panasonic 12-35mm on my GH2. I've got my 35-100mm on preorder already, and can't wait.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
Thanks for posting the lens was in stock. Just yesterday I was considering ordering from DigitalRev in HK.
Samy's is my primary dealer, & if you have a great history with them their prices cannot be beat.
Best,
Bern
We are. But the price tag is a little offputting.
Now, if the 14 -140 had the features of this lens at the same price, that'd be the real winner. (Or put another way, if this lens had a 14-140 zoom range and cost half as much.)
Right? It's like Panny took the range we need from a single lens and splt it up into two lenses. And then doubled the price of each lens, so we're paying about 4x what the 14 -140 cost.
Man, if only they'd make the 14 - 140 a constant 2.0, parfocal, internal zoom, that'd be the one lens we could use for everything. THAT lens would be worth $1400.
Last edited:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
The 35-100mm is $600 less than the comparable Canon lens (70-200 IS II). I think if the IQ is as spectacular as I've heard from early reviewers, I'd say it's priced right for a professional-quality piece of glass.
"Priced right" is always relative. The seller wants to charge as much as possible, the buyer wants to pay as little as possible. A balance is struck, or the price changes.
I find it telling that only a month or two after the $1200, 12-35 came out, the prices dropped by about $200. Personally, I still find it overpriced given the zoom range.
I find it telling that only a month or two after the $1200, 12-35 came out, the prices dropped by about $200. Personally, I still find it overpriced given the zoom range.
Just for the fun of it: take a good old Angenieux 12-120, f:2.2 lens, designed for 16mm film. Measure its size and weight. The same basic optical design was also "adapted" to get a 35mm film zoom lens, the Angenieux 25-250. Measure its size and weight. Yes indeed, it's much, much bigger and heavier.
Now your dream zoom lens, covering the MFT format, would probably fall a bit more than half-way the size and weight of these... Are you prepared to mount and use such a monster on a GH2? As to the price...
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I don't think it is overpriced at all. Compared to many other m4/3 lenses it seems to be priced just right. A constant zoom lens is always going to be expensive. Having that at f2.8 is huge. That is insanely fast for a zoom lens. Imagine if you will if you had to buy a f2.8 35mm prime, 50mm prime, 60mm prime, 75mm prime and 100mm prime and many other levels in between how much would you spend. With this lens we have darn near prime level quality and speed on a zoom lens. That my friends is worth every single penny this lens costs. That lens really is like 4 lenses in one.
The only problem I have is that for scripted work I prefer primes and for event work I really cannot switch lenses without missing some of the action. I would gladly pay $3,000.00 for a single zoom that would cover 12mm to 100mm or even a 20mm to 200mm at f2.8. At that point I would finally feel I could use the GH2 for non stop event work in the place of a $5,000.00 professional video camera so a single lens would be worth $3,000.00 or even $4,000.00 if it had a zoom rocker. About 4 moths ago I would buy these lenses in a heart beat but after shooting a couple of seminar type events for a client having to move between two lenses was a nightmare. I have no choice but to use two DSLR's for that kind of work right now which sucks.
The only problem I have is that for scripted work I prefer primes and for event work I really cannot switch lenses without missing some of the action. I would gladly pay $3,000.00 for a single zoom that would cover 12mm to 100mm or even a 20mm to 200mm at f2.8. At that point I would finally feel I could use the GH2 for non stop event work in the place of a $5,000.00 professional video camera so a single lens would be worth $3,000.00 or even $4,000.00 if it had a zoom rocker. About 4 moths ago I would buy these lenses in a heart beat but after shooting a couple of seminar type events for a client having to move between two lenses was a nightmare. I have no choice but to use two DSLR's for that kind of work right now which sucks.
I admit pining for just a wee bit more range at times... instead of using the smaller format to give us smaller, lighter lenses in the usual focal lengths and speeds as FF, deliver ff-size lenses with better speed or range... Rather like the Oly 2.0 zooms or a 14-50/2.8 and 50-200/2.8.
No sense making one lens do everything on an interchangeable lens camera.
No sense making one lens do everything on an interchangeable lens camera.
Bern Caughey
Veteran
The 35-100/2.8's aperture does not fluctuate, or click, while zooming, & it's physical length remains constant.
It's not truly parfocal, & loses focus briefly during snap zooms (confirmed by the AF100's distance readout), but seems better than the 12-35, or 14-140. Like all Lumix(s) it's fly-by-wire focus response is still non-linear so not appropriate for hitting marks with a follow focus.
To those worried about the purple tint of the outer barrel, this is completely normal, & the 12-35/2.8 is exactly the same. And the very slight whirling sound is the Power O.I.S. mechanism.
This lens may become my new standard for interviews, replacing the EOS 24-105/4, & surely live in my B-Roll grab bag.
Overall I rate it a keeper.
It's not truly parfocal, & loses focus briefly during snap zooms (confirmed by the AF100's distance readout), but seems better than the 12-35, or 14-140. Like all Lumix(s) it's fly-by-wire focus response is still non-linear so not appropriate for hitting marks with a follow focus.
To those worried about the purple tint of the outer barrel, this is completely normal, & the 12-35/2.8 is exactly the same. And the very slight whirling sound is the Power O.I.S. mechanism.
This lens may become my new standard for interviews, replacing the EOS 24-105/4, & surely live in my B-Roll grab bag.
Overall I rate it a keeper.
Last edited:
I filmed in the manual and aperture priority movie modes not the still modes. I will try to get the video of the aperture blades moving continuously up this weekend. I have a lot on plate at the moment though.
+1 This is spot on!
Erik Naso
Veteran
I'm looking at getting one soon. I like the 12-35 a lot so having both would be a great pair. When you use the Canon 24-105 do you lock the F-Stop at F4 with a Canon camera or are you using a electronic mount.