GH2 Appropriate focal length?

C

craigbuckley

Active member
So I am trying to plan my big investment in my next lens. I want it to be a winner. I have a gh2 and I know there is a sensor crop factor, so I am trying to choose the right focal length. I have a wide angle (12mm) and a 50mm(close up) but I still need a primary medium shot. What would you guys recommend for focal length?

And I am looking for a professional lens, maybe one of the canon L series or a carl zeiss? Which do I go for? I will be shooting documentaries and short films so I do want something that people don't leave focus right by moving.
 
A 24-28mm would be a very useful focal length for you. I'd recommend checking out something in that range.
 
Thanks Zxander. I have the 24mm canon FD 2.8 but its not really what I'm looking for, especially with low light...

My company gave me a little bit of money to invest in a good one and try it out so I was thinking maybe the Canon EF 24mm 1.4 , a Carl Zeiss in the 24/25mm range, or a voigtlander 25mm F.95 (budget is around $1,000)

Could anyone help me compare/choose the three for shooting video? I am looking for best quality image: lets just say someone wanted to shoot a professional single camera (comedy) TV show with the lens.
 
So the voigtlander is in a different class than the rokinon/samyang? Its only $100 more than the CINE version of the 24mm rokinon, so I may go with the voigtlander now.

Are the voigtlander 25mm and the Canon L series 24mm comparable? Does one give better quality, for a professional film?
 
If one of your concerns is holding focus when people move in the frame, then shooting wide open at f1.4 or at f0.95 in the case of the 25mm Voigtlander is probably not what you want. At those apertures, the depth-of-field is going to be razor thin. You may not be able to have it both ways. You will need to choose either a lens that allows you to shoot in low light (something f1.4 or faster), or you need to choose a good lens for documentary-style shooting where the subject moves unpredictably. In the latter case, a fast prime doesn't seem like a good idea.

What seems better for the latter situation is a variable focal length zoom lens. The new Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 would provide everything from wide shots to a decent mid-shot to close-up lens. I know f2.8 isn't super-fast, but it would give you a deeper depth-of-field and an ability to keep the subject in focus more easily.

If the idea is to have a lens useful for a single camera TV comedy, be aware that stylistically a TV comedy is often lit and shot at f2.8 to f4, under lighting that's sufficient for 400 to 500 ISO.

If you eventually get a GH3, you can safely shoot at 800 ISO, which would make an f2.8 lens the same exposure as an f2 shot at 400 ISO on the GH2. Just something to consider.
 
Last edited:
Buy the Voigtlander. You won't regret it. Besides, if you need a deeper depth of field just stop down the aperture to somewhere between 2.8–4. That should make it easier to follow focus. It is an excellent lens… I can't recommend it highly enough.
 
Last edited:
craigbuckley said:
so I do want something that people don't leave focus right by moving.
Click to expand...

Fresno Bob said:
That's entirely up the aperture, not the lens
Click to expand...

It isn't entirely the aperture, but the aperture is the easiest thing to change vs having to change your shot & lens.

DOF is determined by the combination of: is the length of the lens (24mm vs 12mm vs 50mm); the aperture (f/2 vs f/4 vs f/16); & the distance from the camera to the subject (2ft vs 5 ft vs 10ft).

Change any of those & you'll change your DOF.

If you want wide DOF, get a shorter lens, closed aperture & have the subject farther away.

If you want shallow DOF, get a longer lens, wider aperture & have the subject close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top