AF100 + 14-140 low light equal or lesser than ex3 or hmc150 etc

W

wbrock001

Well-known member
Is there any consensus that the af100 with the slow panny 14-140mm lens will give equal, lesser, or more performance than Sony ex3, the panny hmc150, etc in low light situations?

If it will do at least as well in low light as my hmc150 then I'm psyched with that lens combo. Thank you!
 
I've been wondering the same thing, and my hunch is that it will probably outperform, maybe not by a lot, but still be somewhat better than my HVX in low light. I base this on some 14-140 footage I've seen on a GH2 (I think) at night shooting a U2 concert.

The one place that lens will come up short, I know for sure, is that it's a 10x and will only get to 280mm (35mm equivalent), while my HVX is, I believe, 13x, and gets you around 400mm or so. So it won't get me quite as close without moving in.
 
I'm sorry, what? A u4/3 10-200mm f/1.2? I hope that's a joke, because I just checked the weather forecast and hell hasn't quite hit freezing yet...
 
So back to the topic...so then it is agreed that it will at least be as good as those cameras in low light with that lens combination? ha ha I too would love to carry around a 160mm front element sized lens! You wouldn't bother having rails, you'd just mount the camera to the lens as support!
 
No, they won't but...

The first company to market a fast m4/3 zoom is going to bank BIG $$$ overnight.
 
kylekmd said:
The first company to market a fast m4/3 zoom is going to bank BIG $$$ overnight.
Click to expand...
I don't know where this idea of "no fast zooms" comes from. Olympus already makes two f/2.0 zooms, and those are way faster than anything you'll find from Canon or Nikon for full-frame or APS-C. If you want a fast zoom, you want 4/3 or m4/3.
 
Paul Vicente said:
Barry, it can't be impossible. If they can make this:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0610/06100101zeiss1700f4.asp

Then a 20X f/1.2 lens can be made. The challenge is the cost. Obviously.
Click to expand...

I have a 200 f/2, and had a 200 f/1.8 before that. Both lenses are fairly large (almost at the limit of what I can handhold all day, anyways). A 200 f/1.2 (not even a zoom) would probably be at least twice as big, and likely several times the cost. Even if the technology and physics allow it (not my strong suit), a 10-200 f/1.2 zoom would probably weigh upwards of 100 pounds, and cost... well... if you have to ask...

Here's a monstrous Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8, for reference: http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/18247/sigma-apo-ultra-telephoto-zoom-lens/
 
Barry_Green said:
I don't know where this idea of "no fast zooms" comes from. Olympus already makes two f/2.0 zooms, and those are way faster than anything you'll find from Canon or Nikon for full-frame or APS-C. If you want a fast zoom, you want 4/3 or m4/3.
Click to expand...

How about: 14-140 constant f2.8

That would be pretty nice eh? How much would that make the lens cost $1500 at best, $2000 realistically?
 
Yes, but even with the SWD on the Oly 14-35, it is too LOUD (and not optimized) for video work.

I have the OLY 14-35 and the 35-100. They are awesome lenses, no question about it.

I'm referring to proper/dedicated video lenses...
 
Paul Vicente said:
Then a 20X f/1.2 lens can be made. The challenge is the cost. Obviously.
Click to expand...
And the laws of physics. And the size.

Faster lenses need to be bigger. Lenses that cover bigger sensors need to be much bigger than lenses that cover smaller sensors. Zoom lenses are more complex. Zoom lenses that maintain their iris are more complex still. And f/1.2 is incredibly fast -- you rarely see f/1.2 in a prime lens. Have you ever, ever, ever, in any manner or shape or size, seen 1.2 in a zoom lens? Even on a tiny palmcorder, you don't see 1.2 in a zoom lens.

Now let's go further -- a wide iris in a wide-angle is an extremely difficult thing to do. Please list all the 10mm lenses in the world with an f/1.2 iris. Wait, I'll go google it....
<none>

Yeah, that's the whole list. Even if you spent $20,000 for the Zeiss 10mm Ultra Prime, it's still only a t1.9. You're asking for a lens that lets in almost 3x as much light. It just doesn't exist.

Okay, so, now, let's examine what does exist -- the Red Pro 18-85. That's a 4.5x zoom, at a constant aperture of t2.9. It's 10 pounds and a foot long. Or the other lens in that bracket, the Cooke 18-100. It's a 5x zoom, and it weighs 14 pounds. And in both these cases, they're twice as much telephoto, and the iris is 2.75 stops slower (meaning, the proposed lens would let in over 6x as much light!)

Another lens that exists is the Angenieux 24-290. That's a 12x zoom, the biggest zoom in the world that covers a cinema frame (that I know of). That lens weighs 24 pounds and is a t2.8. So now you want a lens that's 2.5x wider, 1.4x longer in the zoom range, and lets in 5x as much light. Could it be done? Maybe. But it would probably cost a half million dollars, would probably be on the order of 8 feet long, and probably weigh 300 pounds. Wild guesses, yes, but probably not outrageously too far off.

So would anyone make a half-million-dollar, 8-foot-long, two-feet-in-diameter, 300-pound lens? No. So whether it's a technical impossibility or not, it's impractical enough for me to say that it will never exist and is therefore no different from "impossible." :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
How about: 14-140 constant f2.8

That would be pretty nice eh? How much would that make the lens cost $1500 at best, $2000 realistically?
Click to expand...
Go look around and find how many of those lenses exist anywhere in the world at any price. At ANY price. ANYWHERE.

Doesn't exist. There is no such thing.

Closest you'll find is the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. Or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. But 14-140? Doesn't exist. The 35-100 Olympus is 2.5x longer on the wide end, and 40% shorter on the long end, so it's not even in comparison. The Cooke 18-100 is a constant T3, nowhere near as wide, nowhere near as long, and costs $45,000.

You can get close to what you want with the two Olympuses, at 14-35 and 35-100, you have a two-lens solution that goes from 14-100 at f/2.0. And it'll set you back, what, $4000? If you want a single lens that can do all that, plus go 40% longer on the tele end... I don't know if that's possible at any reasonable price. But we'll see what the lens manufacturers come up with.
 
Last edited:
wbrock001 said:
So back to the topic...so then it is agreed that it will at least be as good as those cameras in low light with that lens combination? ha ha I too would love to carry around a 160mm front element sized lens! You wouldn't bother having rails, you'd just mount the camera to the lens as support!
Click to expand...
This guy asks a question, and it get derailed in an debate of lens technology. THAT IS THE JOKE! Part of a problem with this forum I must say.

My answer to the OP is most likely NO. Unless your bump the gain or ISO up to 1600 or 3200, low light with an f/4 lens (at 14mm) will be quite slow. Now is you put the Olympus 14-35 2.0 on there, you have what you want but at a heavy price tag.
Now comes the definition of "low light"? Night scene? Sunset? indoor halogen?
The Olympus 14-35 2.0 will be the "zoom" lens that will handle this assuming you need the flexibility of such a lens without a compact prime or such. But is it really that pricey when you talk about the 14-35? I tend to think no. Essentially its a 28-70 2.0 equivalent on a m4/3 as a canon 28-70 2.8 on a Slr. What would a 28-70 2.0 cost for a Slr if they made it? I would think near $3,000 if not higher.

So for guys that find themselves having trouble justifying the compact prime and want the zoom I feel your lens kit would ideally be:
14-140 f/4 the general lens for outdoor and lighted scenes
14-35 f2 the lowlight lens (not really a video optimized lens)
and the 7-14 f/4 for your full frame slr 14-28mm
Thats $4,000 in optics.
So you can go that way or buy one kick as compact prime of your choice.
 
Barry_Green said:
Go look around and find how many of those lenses exist anywhere in the world at any price. At ANY price. ANYWHERE.

Doesn't exist. There is no such thing.

Closest you'll find is the Nikon 17-35 f/2.8. Or the Canon 70-200 f/2.8. But 14-140? Doesn't exist. The 35-100 Olympus is 2.5x longer on the wide end, and 40% shorter on the long end, so it's not even in comparison. The Cooke 18-100 is a constant T3, nowhere near as wide, nowhere near as long, and costs $45,000.
Click to expand...

I think the opportunity with Micro Four Thirds is that the sensor is in fact SMALLER than full frame, APS, and S35 sensors. So if that is the case, the usual challenges become less significant. The Olympus zooms are a case in point.

The fact is that Panasonic has suggested that they are working on a 'fast, bright zoom' for MFT, and perhaps specifically for the AF100 (ie cine style with geared rings) so let's hope that is the case because as someone mentioned before, the first company to make such a lens, will make big $$$.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top