5D with 50mm f/1.2L VS GH2 with Olympus Zuiko 14-35mm f2

M

meltedspider

Member
Hi everyone! Thanks for taking your time to read this! I am going to purchase a camera kit for work. I will be shooting a variety of stuff from children's birthday parties, short docs, short narratives to music videos. I have the option, with my budget, to go for either:

A) 5D with the 50mm f/1.2L

OR

B) GH2 with Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 Zuiko

I have enough money left over to buy a glidetrack a decent tripod and a Rode VideoMic Pro for both kits. With the Canon kit I'll only get one standard length lens but that incredible shallow DOF with the GH2 I'll get a more flexible 14-35 focal length which equates to 28-70mm on full frame 35mm. So, will I be fine with just the 50mm on the 5D for most situations or would I be better off with the more flexible lens of the GH2?
 
Why the 1.2? If you're doing mainly video work, the 1.4 will be sufficient. With the savings, pick up an 85 1.8, a 20 2.8 or 28 1.8 and you're golden. The 1.2 is a good lens, but in my opinion, needs badly to be updated. The main benefit of it would be the weather-sealing (and the extra stop, of course), but from your post, it doesn't sound like you'll be shooting in the desert or the rain forest, so I doubt you'll need it:happy:

If you're on a budget and still want quality, but are willing to give up autofocus (which doesn't work in video mode anyway), check out the Rokinon primes. Top notch imagery in my opinion, and super sharp at a fraction of the cost of the canon 'L' glass. Many people compare the 35 and 85 to canons L's...

About the GH2? Never shot on it, so I'll leave that debate to those with experience
 
GH2 is half the price of the 5D with no moire... The canon 50mm f1.2 L is around a 1,500 dollar lens new... The Voigtlander 25mm f0.95 is around a 1,000 dollar lens new with a similar FOV to the canon 50mm f1.2 L on the GH2... It comes down to which you like better, try searching the boards, this question is done to death.-Adam
 
the gh2 would fare better if you really want quality. Being able to shoot in I-frames is where it drew me in. Just for comparison, the upcoming 1DX will have the option to shoot intra as well
 
ryan brown said:
an 85 1.8, a 20 2.8 or 28 1.8 and you're golden.

autofocus (which doesn't work in video mode anyway),
Click to expand...

I agree with the 3 lenses as a great place start for fast primes on a budget, but I have to disagree about the value of auto focus when it comes to shooting HD. Being able to quick focus between camera rolls is how I shoot most run n gun work. It's fast accurate and easy.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I have to disagree about the value of auto focus when it comes to shooting HD. Being able to quick focus between camera rolls is how I shoot most run n gun work. It's fast accurate and easy.
Click to expand...

+1

If you are ever doing any ENG or documentary work it becomes invaluable.
 
With limited budget you could better go for a cheaper 50mm for video. If money is no issue go for the 50mm 1.2 by all means but for what your going to use it buy a old zeiss 50mm or the new sigma 50mm. Youll have about 1000$ left for 1 or 2 other lenses.
Samyang 35mm is also a great lens and cheap ( instead of the 50mm)
 
Yeah, IMO the 1.2 (or really an L glass) is overkill for video where you won't be able to take advantage of the lenses resolution and the sharpness may cause more problems than it's worth.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Go GH2 for video. 5D for stills.

However the GH2 was a nice evolution in still usage considering the GH1.
Click to expand...

+1.
Get both if you can. GH2 is no slouch for stills. I would also get the Voigtlander.
Of all the L glass primes, the 50/1.4 is probably the one that fares best against its big brother.
 
The GH2 is a better video camera. Even more so after the hack. But your lens choices are strange - why a (super-expensive) prime on the 5D but a (also super-expensive) zoom on the GH2?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top