GH3 Alternative to the 14-140?

HotConductor

HotConductor

Well-known member
I love this lens... Is there a close alternative step up? I love being able to get a wide shot as needed. Already have the 45-175... Consider the 35-100 F2.8, but hate that it starts at 35! Any suggestions would be great!
 
HotConductor said:
I love this lens... Is there a close alternative step up? I love being able to get a wide shot as needed. Already have the 45-175... Consider the 35-100 F2.8, but hate that it starts at 35! Any suggestions would be great!
Click to expand...

Step up in terms of what zoom range or aperture?

There are some cool Nikon super zooms around 18-200 and even a 18-300 I believe. They are still f3.5-f5.6 which isn't horrible and even slightly faster then the 14-140. Of course you lose a lot of control like autofocus and aperture control but they are a step up in a way. They are not priced badly either. Really wish somebody like Tamron would turn one of these into a native M4/3 mount. The one nice thing about the Nikons is that with the Speedbooster adapter they could potentially become full manual 13-210 f2.8-f4.0. Of course large beasts compared to the Lumix lens. I doubt we will ever see a super zoom at a constant f2.8 without it looking like garbage or being as large as a tank.
 
The speedbooster does look very cool but it is not a reality YET.

I should have clarified what I meant in terms of an upgrade... I really wish I could grab a 14-140 X series lens with servo zoom and a constant 2.8... Thats my dream.

My hope was that someone knew some great lens that I simply overlooked. At the moment it sounds like I'm getting another 14-140 as a good 'all around' lens.
 
I'm with you, but with the 14-140 I don't have to lens swap. I have never used the 12-35 but I have a feeling I'd constantly be missing the zoom. With the 35-100 I feel like I'd be missing my wide shot.
 
HotConductor said:
I'm with you, but with the 14-140 I don't have to lens swap. I have never used the 12-35 but I have a feeling I'd constantly be missing the zoom. With the 35-100 I feel like I'd be missing my wide shot.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I sold my 14-140 - It was too slow for indoor shots. I hate going over 32o ISO. But I do miss it. It was super sharp and a great range.
I use a Tamron 17-50 2.8 for interviews.
 
The Lumix 14-140mm has to be one of the least video-friendly lenses I've tried. Its widest aperture varies with focal length, it loses focus when you zoom, its front barrel extends too far to use with a matte box, and its electronic focus ring is completely unsuitable for use with a follow focus. Speaking of the upcoming Metabones Speedbooster, here's a link to a discussion of compatible lenses, along with a list of video-friendly lenses I compiled:

[h=1]Metabones Speed Booster - Will you change your lens buying habit?[/h]
 
HotConductor said:
I'm with you, but with the 14-140 I don't have to lens swap. I have never used the 12-35 but I have a feeling I'd constantly be missing the zoom. With the 35-100 I feel like I'd be missing my wide shot.
Click to expand...

It sounds like what you want is a 1/3" or 1/2" video camera. Yeah they cost more but what you make up in lens costs kind of balances it out in the end. By the time you pay for a 12-35 and a 35-100 and a body you are at the price point of a darn good 1/3" video camera. The video camera has an even longer reach zoom lens and the lens is perfect for shooting video. I doubt zooming on a DSLR will ever be an optimal situation for shooting video. Some non M4/3 lenses work better but none of them have the range a video camera lens will. At f5.6 the GH2 isn't much brighter than a 1/4" video camera. Going to even just 1/3" will get you the low light you need outside of fast primes.

The f2.8 zooms are very impressive and a massive step in the right direction but nowhere near the feel and capabilities of a true video lens.

It amazes me how much we have all forgotten about professional video cameras. We think of them as the antichrist and don't even want to consider using them when in fact for a particular shoot they could be a much better solution. A 1/2" video camera will smoke the GH2 in most situations. The proper tool for the job.
 
Thomas Smet said:
A 1/2" video camera will smoke the GH2 in most situations.
Click to expand...

Yes and No.. I have shoot at summer time some commemoration at the park..daytime.. two cameras: Sony EX3 and GH2 with 14-42mm.. Needles to say, picture from GH2 was far superior than EX3.. sharper, more latitude.. even, better sound onboard..

Same story with dance show ( theatre like shooting - indor in the hall ).. GH2 sharper than EX3..
 
leteeci said:
Yes and No.. I have shoot at summer time some commemoration at the park..daytime.. two cameras: Sony EX3 and GH2 with 14-42mm.. Needles to say, picture from GH2 was far superior than EX3.. sharper, more latitude.. even, better sound onboard..

Same story with dance show ( theatre like shooting - indor in the hall ).. GH2 sharper than EX3..
Click to expand...

That is aliased detail not raw detail. I am a bit shocked because I have used a cheap HMC-40 video camera that had more detail and much better audio than my GH2. Sold it eventually because of low light performance but that was only a 1/4" video camera. A properly setup video camera can easily beat the detail of the GH2. Take a look at the GH2 vs AC90 comparison video to see how well even that smaller than 1/4" compares to the GH2 with the 14-140 lens.
 
Lpowell said:
The Lumix 14-140mm has to be one of the least video-friendly lenses I've tried. Its widest aperture varies with focal length, it loses focus when you zoom, its front barrel extends too far to use with a matte box, and its electronic focus ring is completely unsuitable for use with a follow focus. Speaking of the upcoming Metabones Speedbooster, here's a link to a discussion of compatible lenses, along with a list of video-friendly lenses I compiled:

[h=1]Metabones Speed Booster - Will you change your lens buying habit?[/h]
Click to expand...

Not sure if I would consider a non constant aperture to be video unfriendly. Most video cameras have lenses that do not hold a constant aperture during zoom. Even on the professional end they usually move from f1.8 to f2.8. It is actually pretty rare in the video camera world to have a constant aperture and most will lose a stop or maybe even more across the zoom range.
 
HotConductor said:
I'm with you, but with the 14-140 I don't have to lens swap. I have never used the 12-35 but I have a feeling I'd constantly be missing the zoom. With the 35-100 I feel like I'd be missing my wide shot.
Click to expand...

You may want to consider the Panasonic FZ200. DSLR form factor very much like the GH2. Built in servo zoom lens that has a 24x zoom with a constant f2.8. Friend just bought one and I tried it out last night. Insane camera for the price of a 14-140 lens. The sensor is not as sensitive and it falls apart quicker at ISO's above 800 but is one heck of a zoom lens alternative. The gravy with the camera is that it shoots 1080p 60p and 720p 120p. Quality may take a small hit compared to a GH2 but it is worth checking out. The main downside for me is it doesn't shoot 24p. Yes there is a potential hack in the works.
 
Thomas Smet said:
You may want to consider the Panasonic FZ200. DSLR form factor very much like the GH2. Built in servo zoom lens that has a 24x zoom with a constant f2.8. Friend just bought one and I tried it out last night. Insane camera for the price of a 14-140 lens. The sensor is not as sensitive and it falls apart quicker at ISO's above 800 but is one heck of a zoom lens alternative. The gravy with the camera is that it shoots 1080p 60p and 720p 120p. Quality may take a small hit compared to a GH2 but it is worth checking out. The main downside for me is it doesn't shoot 24p. Yes there is a potential hack in the works.
Click to expand...

I have been hunting all over to find good footage from this camera. I feel like almost every clip I have seen online was overexposed, handheld and fuzzy/soft in terms of focus. I am tempted to get one just to see what kind of image I can get out of it! I want to rip the 2.8 constant lens off it and duct-tape it to my GH2! The 120fps is something I have been looking into on other high end cameras. I can't expect the same quality out of this little guy compared to other pro cameras, but I am very curious if the 720p/120fps footage will actually cut well with 1080p concert/documentary footage.

You have given me a fun alternative to consider. They are so cheap I am tempted to just get one and see what I can make of it. Would love to see a hack for this!!
 
If you want one lens that does it all - like a 14-200 constant f2 for the Gh2/3, it doesn't exist. I have two bodies one for wide 12mm F2, one for the 35-100 f2.8 and its absolutely no hassle at all. I also use the 45mm Olympus F1.8 which is a cheap fast and very sharp prime. I like the prime because you need to think a little about the shot, even take a step back or forward to frame, but it's worth it.
The 14-140 is a dog - hence the price and usual giveaway with the body.
 
Mark Williams said:
Hotconductor, take a look at this


<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PvZk1VijAQ&feature=player_embedded" target="_blank">




Be sure to watch at 1080p. Also, some reading here http://www.personal-view.com/talks/...00-topic-24x-zoom-with-constant-f2.8-aperture
Click to expand...

Actually I was on Personal View earlier today looking over that thread. The video you linked to is a great example of the camera used right, but there is no use of slow motion within those examples. I will probably pick one up tomorrow and see what the footage actually looks like. Really curious what 120fps in 720p looks like when used correctly. Lots of videos online done by folks who have no clue how to properly use the footage.
 
Considering with the GH2 in order to shoot slow motion you have to shoot 60p at 720p I wouldn't consider having to use 720p for the 120p all that bad. Sure it isn't optimal but neither was any slow motion until the GH3 came out. If you don't really need 120p then you still get 60p with the FZ200 at 1080p or basically one notch better than the slow motion on the GH2.

I played with one of these and the zoom is amazing. It actually isn't as small as I thought it would be either. Very close to the GH2 size in terms of feel. May be a bit lighter. Menu system was different but many of the same controls and options so a no learning curve camera for a GH2 user. In fact I showed my friend how to use it since he was new to DSLRs. I was able to figure everything out within seconds.

The ISO did seem a bit noisy north of 800 which is to be expected from a smaller sensor. I doubt it would be your best camera in low light even with the f2.8 lens but having a 20x power zoom when you really need it sure does help. If you need that sort of reach you can dream all you want it just doesn't exist for any DSLR anywhere.

Wish I would have grabbed some comparison shots before my friend flew home.

Honestly though a ag-ac130A would be even better if you want to spend a lot more. I think it would beat the FZ200 and much better fit a video event workflow. If that is out of your price range than the FZ200 is a good option. I finally bought a 14-140 lens because I was tired of not being able to shoot live events like lectures at the college I teach at without stopping the camera. Now that I have it however I am thinking for the money I should have bought a FZ200 instead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top