Best run n gun zoom lens suggestions
- Thread starter 811productions
- Start date
groveChuck
U-matic Member
You'll have to settle for Youtube- check out his doc and thread- page 2 he talks about the Tokina
[video]http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?256861-Hudson-River-A-Wildlife-Film-shot-on-AF100[/video]
Shooter
Veteran
Forgetting any delusion that there is a perfect zoom lens for "run and gun" ...for the AF100 ...but it maybe worth taking a look at the Olympus 14-54 or 12-60mm 4/3 lenses with the Panny adapter. (DMW-MA1) Four Thirds / Micro Four Thirds.
After getting over my initial shock at lack of M4/3 lens choices for my recent purchase of a GH2 body only... I decided on the Olympus 14-54 ED Mk2.
I can not subjectively report on it yet, as it has not arrived, but it was a considered choice for a run and gun shoot I am planning. The focal length range seems ideal for general doco work. It has sharp glass and it feels superior mechanically and by construction to the Panasonic lenses. The front element does not rotate although it does extend (25mm)
I have my Nikkors etc which work great on the GH2 (and the AF102) but this project has requirements that pushed me to buy a lens without an aperture ring and some auto functions. It does not have OIS function.
It is likely to be used as a variable prime (ie no zooming..maybe some creeps/push/pulls). I have been playing with the GH2 fully manual mode and it works very well with manual lenses. Just like the AF102 does.
Doubt it will ever get used on my AF102 ..but ..who knows.
After getting over my initial shock at lack of M4/3 lens choices for my recent purchase of a GH2 body only... I decided on the Olympus 14-54 ED Mk2.
I can not subjectively report on it yet, as it has not arrived, but it was a considered choice for a run and gun shoot I am planning. The focal length range seems ideal for general doco work. It has sharp glass and it feels superior mechanically and by construction to the Panasonic lenses. The front element does not rotate although it does extend (25mm)
I have my Nikkors etc which work great on the GH2 (and the AF102) but this project has requirements that pushed me to buy a lens without an aperture ring and some auto functions. It does not have OIS function.
It is likely to be used as a variable prime (ie no zooming..maybe some creeps/push/pulls). I have been playing with the GH2 fully manual mode and it works very well with manual lenses. Just like the AF102 does.
Doubt it will ever get used on my AF102 ..but ..who knows.
Andrew J. Allsbury
Well-known member
I love my Tokina 28-80 and 80-200 they are both f2.8 and great for run and gun.
I have the Angenieux version of the Tokina as well (and, yes, be careful, there are subsequent iterations that aren't as good as the original Angenieux formula). Used it on a recent job. Sets up nicely with mattebox, ff, etc. Client was blown away by the image...
Bern Caughey
Veteran
I'm a huge fan of the Olympus 14-35/2 on the AF100. I has a beautiful look, especially wide-open, & the focus ring has a nice feel. I treat it as a variable focal length lens, so am not that bothered by it's iris glitch, or varifocal.
Last week it got splashed by an ocean wave, but so far it's weather-proofing seems to have prevented damage. It got a fair amount of sand in it when a crew member hastily attempted to dry it with a beach towel, causing the focus, & zoom, to grate when rotated, but after working them for a few minutes the sand was gone, & the lens back in action.
Best,
Bern
Shooter
Veteran
I think (hope) that the advantage of using a 4/3 lens on a M4/3 camera offers a native "true focal length" instead of the crop factor involved with full frame lenses.
eg the 14mm four thirds lens should be considerably wider than a 17mm full frame lens.
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
Haven't tried it - but it's on my list. After using the original 18-50 for the last 7 months, I think that I would really like to have just a little bit more at the long end without switching to the 50-150. You are right though at 9.9 (why not just say 10) pounds it certainly would add some extra weight out front.
They have a 'Battle Tested' 18-85 in their webstore right now for $6K… Been eyeing it closely as the U.S.$ tanks and the CDN$ get stronger.
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
Huh??
Rant/
Put an af100 on a tripod then:
-Put a 14mm M4/3 lens on the af100
-Then put a PL mount 14mm lens on the af100 and the picture will be exactly the same!!!
The lens is a lens is a lens regardless of the mount - 14mm is 14mm This Crop factor BS has to do with the sensor not the lens.
/end rant
Shooter
Veteran
Understood, but to qualify what I was saying in a clumsy fashion...I also said...
eg the 14mm four thirds lens should be considerably wider than a 17mm full frame lens.
FOV
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
Granted
I took them as two separate thoughts… a 14mm 4/3's lens is wider than a 17mm full frame lens - in exactly the same way as a 14mm full frame lens is wider than a 17mm full frame lens.
It's like everytime a 'new' guy gets hired in to work with us and he brings up the 'crop' factor thing, we take bets then put on an array of lenses with different mounts and show him that a lens is a lens is a lens no matter the mount or camera it was meant for- even a lens meant for our 16mm film cams shows exactly the same frame inside the vignette as a PL or FF lens does.
I don't remember, I've had it for over 10 years (it's on an Audio-Technica) and I bought it back then from B&H, but I know there are similar (or maybe identical) ones still out there. I like it because it works well as a wind screen and protects the mic from bumps.
I want to ditto the request in this thread for a 6:1 zoom lens, although I know that a 5:1 would be easier to produce at f2.8 - and would be significantly lighter.
As for a zoom motor, I personally don't use them (I even remove them from my 2/3" lenses). I don't like using a lens for a handle but, more importantly, I like to be able to snap in to focus and snap back within a shot, which can be a problem with a motor (of course, this presupposes a parfolal lens). However, an external motor could easily be made available as an affordable option, filling both group's needs. It's just a motor with a gear after all - and I do use a motor on my Canon and Cooke super16 lenses, but I have the option of easily removing it.
I forgot to say that I have the Zuiko 14-54mm zoom lens (I think I mistakingly said 14-56 before) and think it is the best documentary lens available that communicates with the camera. It's f2.8 wide and f3.5 zoomed, which is acceptable with the ISO capabilities of the AF. It's not quite long enough - a 5:1, or 14-70, would be much better. It does, annoyingly, extend in length, but not so much it can't be used with a matte box, unlike the 14-140, which is ridiculous. It isn't parfocal, unfortunately, but learning to quickly refocus is possible with a good finder like the Zacuto. And, it's cheap!
I would whole-heartedly endorse it except that, as I pointed out above, the iris changes in chunks so you can't seamlessly follow stop during a shot. This is apparently a problem with all auto still lenses. It is going to take a revolution in design to get control back in the hands of the operator.
I would whole-heartedly endorse it except that, as I pointed out above, the iris changes in chunks so you can't seamlessly follow stop during a shot. This is apparently a problem with all auto still lenses. It is going to take a revolution in design to get control back in the hands of the operator.
Shooter
Veteran
Wonder a little what others consider "run and gun" actually is. By definition ...what is best "run and gun lens"
To me its mostly hand held, supporting / resting the camera on convenient objects, occassional use of the tripod etc...
I know I can not hand held a lens like 100m full frame ( eg. 4/3 14 - 54mm = 28 - 105 full frame) so I know I would be on a tripod well before then.
If I went from run and gun to a tripod shot....I would happily switch the lens out for an even longer one at same time.
To me its mostly hand held, supporting / resting the camera on convenient objects, occassional use of the tripod etc...
I know I can not hand held a lens like 100m full frame ( eg. 4/3 14 - 54mm = 28 - 105 full frame) so I know I would be on a tripod well before then.
If I went from run and gun to a tripod shot....I would happily switch the lens out for an even longer one at same time.
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
I recently shot in Costa Rica what I would consider 'Run and Gun' Shot with the AF100 / 18-50 combo on horseback, while ziplining above the tree canopy, handheld while waist deep in the ocean surf, handheld over the side of a moving boat / out the window of a moving car… Interspersed with shots where the camera was on the deck, on a chair / table and on sticks when I had time to set them up.
Erik Naso
Veteran
Awesome.
john deaver
Well-known member
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but shouldn't a fast zoom (say 14ish-70ish f/2.8ish) be much easier to make for m4/3 than it is for full frame cameras? Seems like cameras with smaller sensors have proportionally larger range lenses with faster apertures
for instance the HMC 150 (1/3 inch chip set) has a 3.9-51mm f/1.6-3.0 (35mm Equivalence 28-368mm) that would be an insane lens on the AF100, as long as your arm and 60 lbs. But I'm trying to figure why panasonic didn't release what should have been (relatively) easy and produce something like Canons 24-70 f/2.8 which goes for under $1400. Heck olympus already has their 14-35 f/2 but its $2300 and for me that range is just a little short and it doesn't support auto focus or OIS.
And if panasonic didn't want to go to the trouble (after all there not exactly a lens company) don't their pro cameras come with Fujinon glass and the prosumer stuff all come with Leica branded glass. seams like someone cold have made a phone call ya know.
for instance the HMC 150 (1/3 inch chip set) has a 3.9-51mm f/1.6-3.0 (35mm Equivalence 28-368mm) that would be an insane lens on the AF100, as long as your arm and 60 lbs. But I'm trying to figure why panasonic didn't release what should have been (relatively) easy and produce something like Canons 24-70 f/2.8 which goes for under $1400. Heck olympus already has their 14-35 f/2 but its $2300 and for me that range is just a little short and it doesn't support auto focus or OIS.
And if panasonic didn't want to go to the trouble (after all there not exactly a lens company) don't their pro cameras come with Fujinon glass and the prosumer stuff all come with Leica branded glass. seams like someone cold have made a phone call ya know.
heavyG
Underwater Giraffe Member
I wouldn't say that all the footage was great, some of it was a complete disaster… But good enough to tell the story, put a giant smile on the clients face and get me the rest of their work for 2011 - 2012.