Got my GH3 and loving it! Trying to decide whether to get Lumix 35-100 f2.8 with autofocus ( which I can use for church ceremonies as well) or get Nokton f0.95 25mm or 17.5mm. Have variety of Canon and Nikon lenses I will be using with adapters. Love the autofocus feature of the 35-100 but the low light of Nokton draws me!! Can only afford one additional lens now .....
GH3 Best AF lens for low light wedding receptions
- Thread starter awomias
- Start date
jmw
Active member
I think the flexibility of the zoom and autofocus would be your best bet for live events. Don't get me wrong, I have the Nokton 25mm and it's my favorite lens without a doubt, but I use it for more controlled situations. I personally haven't used the 35-100mm but everything I've seen has been pretty solid. Maybe look for a mountable LED / ring light to compensate a bit at wedding receptions?
Keep in mind for the Nokton, f/0.95 is nice but it's quite soft and results in a razor thin focus plane. For low light, I'm typically at f/2.0 and dip into the magic aperture bag for emergencies
Keep in mind for the Nokton, f/0.95 is nice but it's quite soft and results in a razor thin focus plane. For low light, I'm typically at f/2.0 and dip into the magic aperture bag for emergencies
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
I would buy the 35-100 as it would give you more options in everyday shooting and will take your shooting choice further. Then maybe pick up the Lumix 20 1.7 for some super low light as that lens is pretty good and does not break the bank.
Weddings move too fast for the Nokton .95. That lens is great in controlled situations. There is no control of weddings....
Weddings move too fast for the Nokton .95. That lens is great in controlled situations. There is no control of weddings....
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Keep in mind f2.8 is good but it isn't great for low light shooting. Getting some autofocus primes between f1.4 or f2.0 is going to give you much better low light. I have the 20mm f1.7 and it is a great lens. I heard the 25mm f1.4 is much better at autofocus however. Sometimes 25mm isn't wide enough which is why I stick with my 20mm for now. Also don't forget about the Olympus lenses. They have no stabilization but the autofocus works very well. I heard the 12mm f2.0 is a killer lens for fast and wide.
Get the 35-100mm which is the best lens you can get for this situation. Wedding receptions are usually in larger than normal venues, with the 35mm it's plenty wide and the 100mm will allow you to focus on key things. If you need a fast lens I would look at a 45mm f/1.8. No need to get fast wide lenses as f/2.8 is more than enough, you need fast lenses to single subjects out, this is where the 45mm will become very useful.
Also you do not want a 20mm as you will be to close to your subject and will make them feel more than likely uncomfortable.
d1rockwild
Well-known member
Definitely the 35-100, my new workhorse. But the Voigtlander shouldn't be ignored imo. If manual focusing is in any part of your setup for event work/weddings, the 25mm isn't particularly difficult unless you're shooting wide open at closer distances. It also has really a good close-focusing distance which is great for details and even prefer it over my macro options as the 50mm equiv. looks natural, as opposed to the intense, bug-eyed macro lenses and setups. The Voigtlander is ideal for getting ready, open dancing, cake cutting, and the bouquet and garter toss. So, not THE most critical moments, but just wanted to throw in another opinion that I think the Voigtlander is very useful for weddings. Taking the original post head-on, I'd say the Voigtlander would get more play in low light wedding receptions actually. But, as an all-arounder, definitely the 35-100.
Ianscreations
Well-known member
Funny you should ask this. I bought the gh3 primarily for weddings and asked a similar question a month or so ago. I have opted for the 35-100 and the 25mm 1.4. I find the 12-35 doesn't zoom enough for me for ceremony/reception work. I have my first wedding with the Gh3 this Friday, so I'll let you know how it goes!
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Really depends on your shooting style. I know a lot of wedding videographers who swear by the 20mm and prefer getting closer to the subject. Heck many of them have switched to the 12mm f2.0 for this very reason as they wanted even wider. And no f2.8 is not good enough. Many wedding shooters consider f2.0 about as far as they will go and typically prefer f1.8 or better. Not saying this is the only way to do it but f1.7 and f2.8 is a pretty big difference once the lights go down. It can mean the difference between ISO 3200 or 1600.
I agree a zoom is more practical if you are a shooter who doesn't like to move your feet and get close to the subject. Different solutions for different people.
I completely disagree....... When using a short tele lens you do not need such a fast aperture as you are dealing with less things in your framing. Furthermore the point is key people so a wide lens makes no sense outside of establishing and just showing the crowd a couple of times.
With a 35-100mm lens and 85mm 1.4 I can shoot any wedding.
I remember our old dvx cameras which were no where as light sensitive and we did just fine.........
If you want autofocus, then the Voigtlanders are not viable choices.
For even money, you might opt for a good used version of the Olympus 35-100/2. Slightly faster, much bigger. Autofocus is slow, though.
The Panasonic 2.8 zooms are excellent if 2.8 is fast enough for your needs.
I'd nix the 20/1.7 merely because its autofocus absolutely stinks.
Oly 12/2, PL 25/1.4, Oly 45/1.8, and 75/1.8 are all excellent fast prime choices (with the inherent issues of using prime lenses)
For even money, you might opt for a good used version of the Olympus 35-100/2. Slightly faster, much bigger. Autofocus is slow, though.
The Panasonic 2.8 zooms are excellent if 2.8 is fast enough for your needs.
I'd nix the 20/1.7 merely because its autofocus absolutely stinks.
Oly 12/2, PL 25/1.4, Oly 45/1.8, and 75/1.8 are all excellent fast prime choices (with the inherent issues of using prime lenses)
Last edited:
Do they have something like a 28 -200mm lens/image stabilization/autofocus lens for the GH3? Love this lens for my Nikon. Great for travel and all around.
If not, it seems the 35-100mm f/2.8 is considered the all around travel, event, family lens to go for if I want to just get one lens for the GH3 for now. Is that true?
If not, it seems the 35-100mm f/2.8 is considered the all around travel, event, family lens to go for if I want to just get one lens for the GH3 for now. Is that true?
ATL Media Group
Veteran
Hands down.. 20mm 1.7 or 25mm Leica 1.4
f2.8 is good but faster is always better for receptions.
f2.8 is good but faster is always better for receptions.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Hey I am just basing this on what a lot of people I know do in a wedding environment. I don't doubt it works for you but like I said different styles for different people. Just because it may not work for you doesn't mean other people might prefer to shoot that way. I know some people like to actually get in the crowd on the dance floor and in those situations you need even wider then 20mm. Some people just prefer to swap primes as they are needed such as the 12mm, 20mm and 45mm.
BillStrehl
Active member
You don't say which Canon and Nikon lenses you have, but after reading all the posts, I suggest you consider getting yourself a GH2 at $499 at either B&H or Amazon and either the 20mm 1.7 or 25mm 1.4 lens and have two cameras with different lenses. The lens you mentioned above cost enough that you could buy the GH2 plus the 17mm and 25mm for abouth the same price.
This would also make a lot of sense if you already own a zoom lens by canon or nikon.
I actually use the olympus 12mm f/2.0 at weddings all the time and it rocks for use of the gh2 on a stabilizer. Gives the filmic look, but wide enough that stabilization in the lens isn't as necessary. Does great in low light. Not perfect but the best I've come across in a very compact package. I was thinking of selling my nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and olympus 12mm to get the 12-35 and 35-100. Since built in stabilization of the 12-35 will make up for its slower aperture in most cases...I figured anyway.
...There's always the old 14-140mm zoom ( equivalent to a 28-280mm in Full Frame 35mm Still Photo terms ), but it's very slow: f/4.0-5.8
Keep in mind that the 35-100mm f/2.8 is essentially equivalent to a 70-200mm f/2.8 Full Frame 35mm Still Photo lens in terms of angle of view and lens speed, but is a fraction of the size and weight, and costs almost half the price.
I think you will end up wanting both that and the 12-35. The first for ceremonies, and the latter for receptions. Both have constant 2.8, which is good. Both have autofocus and Image Stabilization, also good for event work. But in my experience, even a 25mm just didn't get wide enough for reception work. I had to stand way to far away to fill the frame appropriately on a lot of shots, like the cake cutting. And you know there often isn't a whole lot of room to back up on those shots. Unless you do a lot of weddings at Madison Square Garden, I think you'll find the 12-35 far more useful for the bulk of the reception.
And definitely consider the 20mm 1.7 as a third lens. There's no IS, but man the light this thing lets in...