GH4 A Proper Video Lens

J

Jim Simon

Veteran
I'm in the market for a new zoom lens, primarily for event work - weddings, dance recitals, school plays, birthday parties, etc. I'm having some difficulty finding proper 'video friendly' lenses out there, so in addition to my own search, I thought I'd ask of the experience of others.

So these are what I consider the barest minimum of features on a proper zoom lens designed for video use.

1. 2.8 or faster at all focal lengths. (Photographers can get away with 5.6 lenses, but for video, that just doesn't cut it.)
2. Inner focus, inner zoom. (No barreling or rotation of the lens, a sure sign of a photographer's lens.)
3. Three rings. Declicked Iris ring on the lens barrel, closest to the lens mount and rotating counter-clockwise to open. Fluid-damped zoom ring in the middle of the barrel, rotating clockwise to zoom in. A focus ring farthest from the lens mount, rotating clockwise to focus nearer.

Zeiss makes a couple models in the $20,000 range, but I don't need that kind of quality to shoot a wedding. Are their any affordable, proper video lenses out there?
 
As you know, 4/3 is 4 times the size of 1/3. Well, f-5.6 on 4/3 has the same depth of field as f-1.4 on 1/3. So bear that in mind, first of all.

Second, like you I started with 12x, even 20x, power-zoom lenses. It seems optically impossible to build a corresponding lens for large sensors that is lightweight, small, and cheap --- or even lightweight, small, and expensive. So I kept reevaluting my true needs. "Okay, I can get by with at least 10x . . . with at least 5x . . . with at least 3x." Right now I'm playing with the idea of just running around with a normal, prime lens. It has a number of advantages, and you'd be surprised at what you can achieve. Yes, I am an extreme case. Yes, it takes a certain shooting and editing style.

But that's the state of the union. The closest thing I know of to what you're looking for is Sony's 28-135mm f-4.
 
Jim Simon said:
I'm in the market for a new zoom lens, primarily for event work - weddings, dance recitals, school plays, birthday parties, etc. I'm having some difficulty finding proper 'video friendly' lenses out there, so in addition to my own search, I thought I'd ask of the experience of others.

So these are what I consider the barest minimum of features on a proper zoom lens designed for video use.

1. 2.8 or faster at all focal lengths. (Photographers can get away with 5.6 lenses, but for video, that just doesn't cut it.)
2. Inner focus, inner zoom. (No barreling or rotation of the lens, a sure sign of a photographer's lens.)
3. Three rings. Declicked Iris ring on the lens barrel, closest to the lens mount and rotating counter-clockwise to open. Fluid-damped zoom ring in the middle of the barrel, rotating clockwise to zoom in. A focus ring farthest from the lens mount, rotating clockwise to focus nearer.

Zeiss makes a couple models in the $20,000 range, but I don't need that kind of quality to shoot a wedding. Are their any affordable, proper video lenses out there?
Click to expand...

Good luck.

Seriously if such a lens existed you would likely have heard about it by now because everybody would be talking about it. No manufacturer of lenses can make fast lenses with a huge focal range for a larger sensor like m43.

Honestly one of the best options may be the Panasonic DVX200. Sure not a super bright lens but its pretty darn bright compared to any other long zoom range lens for m43 or any other DSLR. Plus a 13x zoom range with built in ND filters and darn good stabilization is pretty impressive as well. Yeah the camera will be $4,200 but thats probably how much a DSLR lens would cost with those specs as well. So this way you get a second camera to work along side your GH4 with a picture that should match fairly close.

The other option is to get two GH4 bodies and the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8 and the 40-150mm f2.8 lens. Why Olympus? Because of the longer zoom range. Arguably two cameras will almost always be better than one at an event like a wedding so not only do you gain the ability to have 12mm-150mm at f2.8 but you gain two camera angles and the ability to edit back and forth in post. This not only gives you wiggle room to swap lenses, move the camera or adjust focus without wrecking the shot but also makes for an ultimately more interesting video for the viewer.

If you really need the stabilization of the Lumix lenses than go with those but the 35-100mm f2.8 is a bit more limited in how far it can reach inside of a church or long venue. Not that 100mm vs 150mm is a huge amount.

Another option if you go the two body route is to look into the Rokinon 135mm f2.0 lens. Thats basically the same focal length on the long end of the 14-140 lens but vastly brighter. 3 stops brighter to be exact which is huge. Yeah its a prime but with 2 bodies you can swap primes on one camera and keep the other camera going as your master track. The Olympus zoom is a stop slower but gives you a lot more freedom to frame shots so that may still be a better option for you. If sucking in as much light as possible is important however the Rokinon may be worth looking into.

One last option although expensive and huge is an adapted Canon or Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 lens on one body. This gives you a bit more reach than the Olympus and a lot more reach than the Panasonic 35-100. Of course thats a really tight lens so you may find yourself swapping a lot as well.
 
You know what would be awesome? A lens mount that rotated primes, like the old school movie cameras. Have three primes loaded up and rotate 'em through - I'd do a 14, 25, and 50.

Sorry, not terribly helpful for what you're asking. The lens I chose was the Olympus 2.8 12-40. I love it, but it does barrel out when zooming. Still, best zoom lens I've ever owned. Hardly even touch my primes, and it's sharp as a tack all the way open at 2.8.
 
You asked for everything except parafocal! Think about it for a second, not Canon, not Zeiss, not even Cooke have any glass at any price to do what you are asking for. The best you can come by is a Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 with a speedbooster or a teleconverter to swap in and out.
 
Thomas Smet said:
Honestly one of the best options may be the Panasonic DVX200. Sure not a super bright lens but its pretty darn bright compared to any other long zoom range lens for m43 or any other DSLR. Plus a 13x zoom range with built in ND filters and darn good stabilization is pretty impressive as well. Yeah the camera will be $4,200 but thats probably how much a DSLR lens would cost with those specs as well. So this way you get a second camera to work along side your GH4 with a picture that should match fairly close.
Click to expand...

This ^
 
All I want is a 12-240mm f/1.4 stabilized parfocal servo zoom lens that weighs 1 pound and costs $1000. Is that too much to ask for? ;)

Seriously, though, I don't think what you're asking for exists, unfortunately. I'm in the same boat as you, shooting theatrical events as my bread and butter. I usually use prime lenses, sometimes at f/0.95 if it's really dark. I would do anything to own a lens like what you're after, but I don't believe it's physically possible without paying LOTS of money.
 
I have an 18-1000mm f2.8 parfocal Canon lens I use on my m4/3 camera. I used it last night to shoot the supermoon. The original price was $60,000, but they can be had for under $1000 now. What's the catch?

It weighs 40 lbs.

As said, good luck finding a run and gun lens for m4/3. The only thing that comes close is the 2/3" ENG lenses with a 2x extender. They come up to 20x and a reasonable size and weight. But you may not like the quality of the image. The other option is the S35 cinema lenses, but you need a fat bank account and big muscles for those.
 
Yeah, like Balazer said, using a zoom lens from either a broadcast camera or 16mm camera would probably be your only choice to get what you want for under 5 figures.

The adapter he posted is a bit expensive, probably because it's an optical adapter which sounds similar to a reverse speedbooster to compensate for the vignetting caused by the smaller image circle. There are much cheaper adapters for B4 (and B3? I'm not very familiar with broadcast lenses) to MFT that are not optical, so you would likely have to use ETC mode to compensate. Example: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/994985-REG/fotodiox_b4_mft_p_adapter_for_2_3_b4.html

Same thing with 16mm lenses. Angenieux made some great zoom lenses for 16mm film cameras (they still make cine zooms for Super 35 in the 5 figure range new), and you can find a bunch of them on ebay. Example (12-120mm f/2.2 cine zoom for $400): http://www.ebay.com/itm/Angenieux-1...accessories-/252106886299?hash=item3ab2bdcc9b

Whatever lens you think you may go with, search the net to read others' experiences adapting them to your camera or similar cameras to make sure if works right.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
No manufacturer of lenses can make fast lenses with a huge focal range for a larger sensor like m43.
Click to expand...

I didn't really specify what the focal range had to be. The Olympus 40-150 you later mentioned is on it's way to being a proper video lens. It has items 1 and 2 on my list, but it's missing item 3. So I don't believe optical science is a barrier here.

Same with the 70 to 200 lenses. They have features 1 and 2, but are missing the iris ring on the barrel, as they're designed for photographers, not for video. (Kind of pricey, too.)

The Rokinon 135 is something I've not seen before. Shooting at 4K, that gives me a range of 135 to 270 (with post zoom and 1080 delivery). Nice price, too.
 
Last edited:
Jaime Valles said:
All I want is a 12-240mm f/1.4 stabilized parfocal servo zoom lens that weighs 1 pound and costs $1000. Is that too much to ask for?
Click to expand...

Man, that's really close. My ideal ceremony lens is a 20-200, constant T2.0 (I can live with 2.8) inner focus, inner zoom, parfocal model with OIS and the proper ring design.

I don't need servo zoom, just a properly fluid damped zoom ring so I can do it smoothly. And I'd go up to $2000.

My ideal reception lens is a similarly designed 12-48 T1.4.
 
Last edited:
Paul F said:
I have an 18-1000mm f2.8 parfocal Canon lens I use on my m4/3 camera. I used it last night to shoot the supermoon. The original price was $60,000, but they can be had for under $1000 now. What's the catch?

It weighs 40 lbs.
Click to expand...

OK, so no one can make that from 18 to 180 for a reasonable price? I don't need Hollywood quality here.
 
So here's an interesting candidate.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/967345-REG/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm.html

18 - 35, constant 1.8, proper zoom ring, inner focus and zoom, for only $800. Would make a decent reception lens.

This lens has items 1 and 2 on my list, and is only missing item 3, in this case the iris ring.

And I have to wonder how much cheaper, smaller and lighter this lens could be if it was made for m4/3 natively, instead of ASP-C only.

So optical science is definitely NOT a barrier to lens makers giving us lenses properly designed for video use, and affordable enough for event work. They just need to do it already.
 
Last edited:
Here's another one.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/689579-REG/Sigma_589306_70_200mm_f_2_8_EX_DG.html

70-200, constant 2.8, inner focus and zoom and OIS for only $1,200. All it's missing is the iris ring, like so many other lenses designed for photography.

And again I can't help but wonder how much smaller, lighter and cheaper this lens could be if it were designed specifically for a 4/3 sensor instead of full frame only. (Or maybe, how much wider it could go.)

Optical science is definitely NOT the barrier some would make it out to be.
 
No, optical science is not a barrier. But when combined with mechanical requirements that cinematographers want, it gets very expensive.

Neither of those lenses will behave the way you want for video and neither is what you specified for zoom range, proper internal focus, and iris ring.

Focus - Neither has a true manual focus. The focus ring is electronic. It is an input to a focus motor. There are no footage marks on the rings. Trying to pull a focus is not easy and is not repeatable.

Big range zooms for big sensors with proper internal focus and iris is big money. Consider the 35-100 f2.0 from Olympus, made for the 4/3 format for $3000 (new). The problem with this lens is that its motors make noise. You won't like the way the focus works. We've all been wanting what you want. It doesn't exist. Even in the smaller 2/3" format, where the lens you want is made by the truckload, the price is above $10k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top