GH4 Best micro four thirds zoom lenses for shooting video?

S

Shenan

Well-known member
Hello everyone,

I was wondering what is the consensus on the better zoom lenses available for shooting video on micro four thirds, especially considering some particular factors that are not usually found on spec sheets, like stepless iris, quiet motors, good OIS that is less prone to micro-jitters, parfocal, etc?

For example, here's what I know so far:

Panasonic Leica 12-60 f/2.8-4
Stepless iris
Quiet
Trouble-free OIS
Parfocal

A couple of other lenses that I'm also curious about are the Olympus 12-100 f/4, Panasonic 14-140 f/4-5.8, Panasonic 12-60 f/3.5-5.6. How do these and any other zooms fare on these factors? If there are any adapted zooms that are noteworthy too, I'd love to hear about it. I've heard a lot about the Sigma ART 18-35 f/1.8. How does that one do on these factors?
 
Parfocal performance is going to depend on the accuracy of the lens mount FFD being used. I out this lens on a AF100,and got solid parfocal performance. Also, the iris change using the AF100 iris adjustment wheel, was as close to “stepless” as I have seen on any MFT lens. I also got the same performance on a Blackmagic Micro Studio 4K Camera, which is not auto correcting for any lens issues. Yes, not every camera is going to give true parfocal performance, but as you said, it is close. As for stepless iris control, it is closer than many other MFT lens I have tried, but not quite a smooth as a B4 ENG or true Cine lens, where the iris is being Servo or manually controlled on a dampened mechanical iris ring. While most MFT lenses use a stepping motor to control the iris in 1/2 to 1/3 EV jumps, you do not see this abrupt change with the 12-60.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
I have the 12-60 2.8-4 and on my GH5 it's OK as a general lens (light, good range, good AF and good dual IS) but for critical work where you want edge to corner sharpness throughout the range I need to stop it down to 5.6. On the P4k the edges at the widest setting are very soft at 2.8. Also in MF the 'fly by wire' system is poor. For critical work I much prefer the OL 12-40 2.8 which although it lacks lens IS is sharp wide open right to the corners of the frame and has much better manual focus. The 12-35 is OK but not optically as good as the OL at the wide end. The Sigma 18-35 1.8 is optically very good, MF is good, it's fast but AF is not that good and it's a very heavy and large lens so not ideal as a general purpose lens but IMO it's unique qualities make it a must have lens for any videographer with an M43 or S35 sensor camera system.
 
if you plan to focus manually I would suggest sticking to the Olympus PRO line: 12-40 2.8, 12-100 f4, 40-150 2.8 all extremely good lenses optically not parfocal but have superior manual focus clutch system.
All the Panasonic lenses are only good for push auto focus manual focus is simply impossible at least by my understanding.
 
No, the Veydras have smooth iris control, and were around $900 originally. The new Meike rep,ace nets are half that, see: http://www.pocketluts.com/meike-25mm-t2-2-cine-lens-veydra-reborn/. But these are not zooms. For a Cine Zoom you are looking at $3500-6K or more. Tokina has come out with some nice Cine zooms, but it will take two zooms to get the 12-60 range.
You can now get the Fujinon MF18-55 Cine zoom is going to be available in MFT mount, only $3800, and you get parfocal performance and stepless iris, but no autofocus.
Cheers
 
Just be aware that zooms that do not communicate electronically with the camera will not work well with IBIS since the camera needs to "know" what focal length you are shooting at at any given time to make IBIS work.
The only option I know of would be the canon 18-80 with an electronic adapter and it also has IS.
 
icarusfilm said:
if you plan to focus manually I would suggest sticking to the Olympus PRO line: 12-40 2.8, 12-100 f4, 40-150 2.8 all extremely good lenses optically not parfocal but have superior manual focus clutch system.
All the Panasonic lenses are only good for push auto focus manual focus is simply impossible at least by my understanding.
Click to expand...

What @icarusfilm said - we have the Oly 12-40 & 40-150 lenses for use with GH4 & AF101's, great set of lenses
 
icarusfilm said:
The only option I know of would be the canon 18-80 with an electronic adapter and it also has IS.
Click to expand...

Concur, & thought about picking up the 18-80mm, but having used it a handful of times, find it hard to differentiate between the zoom, & iris, rings in the heat of the moment. It’s goofy they’re so close together, & to the touch, feel exactly the same. Also both could be better dappened.

With regular use perhaps I’d adapt, but more likely be looking to modify one of these rings so it felt different from the other.
 
Last edited:
Also be aware that while you can use a speedbooster with the GH5 and the 18-80 you will I understand loose Parfocality.


Bern Caughey said:
Concur, & thought about picking up the 18-80mm, but having used it a handful of times, find it hard to differentiate between the zoom, & iris, rings in the heat of the moment. It’s goofy they’re so close together, & to the touch, feel exactly the same. Also both could be better dappened.

With regular use perhaps I’d adapt, but more likely be looking to modify one of these rings so it felt different from the other.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you everyone for your comments! This is helpful information that will help me narrow down to a few possible candidates.
 
Personally, I'd consider one of two pairs:

Either the Olympus 12-40 + 40-100 f/2.8

or

Lumix 12-35 + 35-100 f/2.8

Having constant f/2.8 aperture outweighs having to use two lenses for most situations. I'd pick the Oly for pure image quality, the Lumix for image stabilization.
 
joe12south said:
Personally, I'd consider one of two pairs:

Either the Olympus 12-40 + 40-100 f/2.8

or

Lumix 12-35 + 35-100 f/2.8

Having constant f/2.8 aperture outweighs having to use two lenses for most situations. I'd pick the Oly for pure image quality, the Lumix for image stabilization.
Click to expand...

I kind of agree but one significant factor in favour of the OL lenses is the vastly superior MF action.
 
Shirozina said:
I kind of agree but one significant factor in favour of the OL lenses is the vastly superior MF action.
Click to expand...
"Vastly superior" is stretching a bit, me thinks. They're both pretty bad for manual focusing compared to any "real" manual lens. The Oly is just less bad.* ;-)

* I just recently finished testing the Oly against the Sigma 13-35. The Oly focus ring felt like cheap plastic compared to the Sigma. The copy I rented even had rough spots. I'd still pick the Oly for a variety of other reasons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top