Best run n gun zoom lens suggestions

[ScottNelson]

This is one of the most interesting threads lately on these pages - thanks to all who have contributed. As I stated earlier, I've got a bag full of primes plus the 11-16 but have an occasional need for a wide to mid length OIS lens for mostly outdoors run 'n gun shooting.

I've had the Oly 12-60 and 14-54 and have passed both of them on via Marketplace but am now looking seriously at an inexpensive alternative: the Lumix 14-45 OIS lens. Photozone gives it a pretty good review. http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/414-pana_1445_3556 and I like the fact it's native MFT with no adaptor. Shooting outdoors, I'm not really worried about the 3.5-5.6 f/stop

B&H is probably getting sick of me returning lenses after 10 days but I've got the 14-45 arriving on Aug 2 for a test shoot. Anyone else tried this lens?

 

[Shooter]

Here is the revelation I discovered recently Scott (snp)

If you want wide to medium on a M4/3 mount you have to go native M4/3 lens or even 4/3 (on an 4/3 to M 4/3 adapter.)

In your case you are adding OIS into the proposition so you will be "stuck" with a Panny lens. The Olys have OIS but it's in the camera mand not the lens.

In all cases you need to work out the optical quality and your needs into the overall compromise that you need to consider. And it is a compromise situation using any still lens on a movie camera.

Good luck to you Scott.

(Thanx for the other PM correspondence BTW - it was very helpful)

 

[ScottNelson]

In all cases you need to work out the optical quality and your needs into the overall compromise that you need to consider. And it is a compromise situation using any still lens on a movie camera.

I agree, we are in a compromise situation for certain needs (eg: Oly OIS being inoperable on the Af100) . With the negative reviews the Pany 14-140 has received, I overlooked the 14-45 which hopefully won't be compromised too much.

Last week I had a river running gig where I pulled the HVX200 off the shelf in order to shoot the rapids. I have a similar action shoot coming up soon that I want to try with a native MFT on the '100.

Regards,
Scott

 

[groveChuck]

When I was at UCLA in the late '60s I shot a student film for a friend, a drama, entirely with telephoto lenses.. The shortest was 180mm, on a std 16mm Arri S. I think the longest was 400mm. All the interiors were shot through windows, some from across the street with cars passing in the foreground. So, there is not a formula for what will work, in drama or documentary.

However, the question asked in this thread addresses the concept of shooting, I assume, handheld, on the move. I've been doing that most of my getting-to-be long life, and thus far there is not a perfect lens for the AF100. Not even close.. As I've said, I make do with the 14-54 Zuiko, but it's not something I would recommend to anyone.. I've said it before, and I'll say it again - we need a good, well-designed manual zoom for this camera!

Ha ha, I knew there had to be a conceptual film like that out there!

I was wondering, has a 2/3 B4 ENG lens + Ciecio7 adapter been mentioned anywhere in the 9 pages of this thread?
I wonder how they do in a run n gun situation? As a variable prime that is, not necessarily servo zoom.
Maybe a little lacking on the wide end (at least for those of us liking the Wide Side), since a 9mm (after 2x extender + crop factor) = 36mm, but I haven't seen them used/mentioned lately... who has them, Monkeyking and Coco, among others?

 

[811productions]

I have the Tokina 11-16 and Tokina 16-50 2.8 plus a bag full of FD primes and a Canon 70-200 2.8. The biggest objection I have to the 16-50, though it's parafocal, is the increasing length of the lens as you zoom out, making the use of a matte box difficult if not impossible. I'm seriously looking at the Canon L 16-35 for the simple reason that it remains a constant length and with a FF can be used with a matte box and is incredibly sharp.

The other sleeper lens I heard about on these pages and now own, is a FD 35-105 3.5. It's sharp, parafocal, does breath a little but produces great images for $94 from KEH.

SNP-Thanks for the sleeper lens suggestion. I just picked one up and it seems to be a pretty nice little lens that fills a hole for me...I have to say that since the days of posting this thread I have done a few paid gigs where the Tamron 17-50 barely made it off one of my af-100s. I just wanted to let others know that this is a pretty decent lower cost zoom. There are some pluses and minuses though. The pluses are the price , I got mine for around 350, that it's par focal, and is really sharp wide open at 2.8 and its 2.8 all the way through the range. The minuses are that using a matte box won't work. The nose of the lens extends a lot during zooming. There also is no manual aperture ring, so the use of the novoflex or adaptimax adapters are needed. (FWIW i have the novoflex and love it.) I think all in all it's a pretty good lens and have been using it a lot lately. I even geared the zoom ring so I can do controlled zooms via my follow focus unit when the client asked 'Can you do a little zoom out or in or something?'

SNP- Thanks again and say high to my Mother-in-law. She's out in Bend hanging out with her horses. Take care.

 

[Mac]

I was wondering, has a 2/3 B4 ENG lens + Ciecio7 adapter been mentioned anywhere in the 9 pages of this thread?

I'm personally considering the Abel adapter with the Hot Rod PL adapter/baseplate (that's why I set $7,000 as the amount I'd be willing to pay earlier in this thread). I have a good 2/3" Fujinon lens, but without the 2x (I don't like them, and what I've seen from the ones used on the AF, I'm not much impressed). That setup would be short and light enough to shoulder-balance the camera (with the Zacuto EVF).

The only thing that's keeping me from the Abel is the fact that the effective maximum aperture would be around f4. 2.8 I could live with, but f4 would require regular lens changing, which would be a hassle with my MFT adapted Leica lens because of having to change out the base supported PL adapter.

Damn, there is not yet even close to a perfect solution...

 

[Lpowell]

The more I look, the more I look back at getting the Panasonic 14-50 2.8-3.5 OIS lens. I have the Olympus 14-54mm 2.8-3.5 but I find myself constantly missing the OIS.

The Olympus 14-54mm II used to be my favorite handheld zoom, though I used it only for pre-focused shots as a variable prime. However, I sold the Olympus soon after I got the "Leicasonic" 14-50mm f2.8-3.5. Its focus ring has limited tactile feel and it breathes heavily, but the OIS on the Leicasonic is in a class by itself, far more effective than Panasonic's Micro 4/3 lenses. Two details I really like are the 14-50mm's manual aperture ring and how its front barrel extends only 3/4" when zoomed out.

Here are a couple of zoom tests I did that allow you to both see and hear the operational differences between the two lenses:

Olympus 14-54mm II f2.8-3.5

Panasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5

 

[Steve R]

Here is the revelation I discovered recently Scott (snp)

If you want wide to medium on a M4/3 mount you have to go native M4/3 lens or even 4/3 (on an 4/3 to M 4/3 adapter.)

Hey Shooter, can you explain what you mean by this? What led to this revelation?

I'm not sure I quite understand what you're saying. Is it simply about lens availability - or a technical reason?

 

[Shooter]

Absolutely its "technical"

To get a wide lens on a M4/3 sensor...you need a "native" 4/3 lens. 14mm native 4/3 is a wider 'FIELD OF VIEW' than a 35mm full frame lens 14mm lens.

FWIW... the revelation ( obvious as it maybe) came from when I purchased a GH2 and had need to take a look at native M 4/3 and 4/3 lenses.

 

[CineStill]

Ha ha, I knew there had to be a conceptual film like that out there!

I was wondering, has a 2/3 B4 ENG lens + Ciecio7 adapter been mentioned anywhere in the 9 pages of this thread?
I wonder how they do in a run n gun situation? As a variable prime that is, not necessarily servo zoom.
Maybe a little lacking on the wide end (at least for those of us liking the Wide Side), since a 9mm (after 2x extender + crop factor) = 36mm, but I haven't seen them used/mentioned lately... who has them, Monkeyking and Coco, among others?

I have tested a 7.8 to 164mm f1.8 B4 Canon lens with a Ciecio7 adaptor on the AF100. Even with the doubler I feel the lens is plenty fast and wide enough. The problem is that it is relatively soft. Now this lens was designed for standard definition so it is understandable but for the right application it has an amazing zoom range, fast and potential to run the servo zoom (with the right power adaptor & battery).
If you have any projects where a soft look is wanted then I would definitely recommend testing some B4 lenses.

 

[Jesse Brauning]

Absolutely its "technical"

To get a wide lens on a M4/3 sensor...you need a "native" 4/3 lens. 14mm native 4/3 is a wider 'FIELD OF VIEW' than a 35mm full frame lens 14mm lens.

FWIW... the revelation ( obvious as it maybe) came from when I purchased a GH2 and had need to take a look at native M 4/3 and 4/3 lenses.

Shooter, that's just not correct. a 14mm native lens and a 14mm lens of any other kind should have at the very least almost identical fields of view. Crop factor is a function of sensor size, and all lenses are the measured on the same scale. 14mm is 14mm.

What I've discovered is that unless you want to use C-mount lenses, the issue is actually one of availability. Try finding a Canon FD mount 7mm lens, or a full-frame rectilinear lens that starts at 7mm. Yeah, see, no.

 

[Mac]

The Olympus 14-54mm II used to be my favorite handheld zoom, though I used it only for pre-focused shots as a variable prime. However, I sold the Olympus soon after I got the "Leicasonic" 14-50mm f2.8-3.5.

Interesting... In your footage the aperture doesn't noticeably change - is that because it is locked, or that it iworks better than the 14-54? The aperture clunkiness is my major complaint with the Zuiko. Also, this 14-50 is still a varifocal lens, correct?

I do like the fact that it has an aperture ring, although I've read elsewhere that the build quality "isn't up to Leica standards". I'm going to check it out though...

 

[Steve R]

Absolutely its "technical"

To get a wide lens on a M4/3 sensor...you need a "native" 4/3 lens. 14mm native 4/3 is a wider 'FIELD OF VIEW' than a 35mm full frame lens 14mm lens.

FWIW... the revelation ( obvious as it maybe) came from when I purchased a GH2 and had need to take a look at native M 4/3 and 4/3 lenses.

So just to be clear: You're saying that (for example) a 14mm MFT lens on the AF100 would give an actual wider field of view than a 14mm FF lens?


That would also mean that something like the Voigtlander 25mm Nokton (native MFT) would show a wider field of view than, say, a Zeiss ZF.2 25mm lens - correct?

I didn't think that was the case.

Sould be pretty easy to confirm, as there must be someone out there with access to the above two lenses (Voigtlander and Zeiss 25mm).

 

[groveChuck]

So just to be clear: You're saying that (for example) a 14mm MFT lens on the AF100 would give an actual wider field of view than a 14mm FF lens?

No, it would not.

That would also mean that something like the Voigtlander 25mm Nokton (native MFT) would show a wider field of view than, say, a Zeiss ZF.2 25mm lens - correct?

Incorrect.

I didn't think that was the case.

It's not.

Sould be pretty easy to confirm, as there must be someone out there with access to the above two lenses (Voigtlander and Zeiss 25mm).

That would be an unnecessary test.

As the great poet Barry Green once wrote, "A 25 is a 25 is a 25..."

 

[Steve R]

Thanks groveChuck - that was exactly my understanding.

 

[heavyG]

No, it would not.

Incorrect.

It's not.

That would be an unnecessary test.

As the great poet Barry Green once wrote, "A 25 is a 25 is a 25..."

Thanks groveChuck - that was exactly my understanding.

I think during my next free time in the studio I'll shoot the same focal length on different lens mounts and post the screen grabs… End this silliness once and for-all.

G.

 

[groveChuck]

I have tested a 7.8 to 164mm f1.8 B4 Canon lens with a Ciecio7 adaptor on the AF100. Even with the doubler I feel the lens is plenty fast and wide enough. The problem is that it is relatively soft. Now this lens was designed for standard definition so it is understandable but for the right application it has an amazing zoom range, fast and potential to run the servo zoom (with the right power adaptor & battery).
If you have any projects where a soft look is wanted then I would definitely recommend testing some B4 lenses.

I suppose much of the softness comes from having the doubler on?

I'm personally considering the Abel adapter with the Hot Rod PL adapter/baseplate (that's why I set $7,000 as the amount I'd be willing to pay earlier in this thread). I have a good 2/3" Fujinon lens, but without the 2x (I don't like them, and what I've seen from the ones used on the AF, I'm not much impressed). That setup would be short and light enough to shoulder-balance the camera (with the Zacuto EVF).

Mac- Without 2x, I guess you'd be forced to use the longer half of the focal length? Would that work, and be less soft than when using the 2X?

 

[groveChuck]

I think during my next free time in the studio I'll shoot the same focal length on different lens mounts and post the screen grabs… End this silliness once and for-all.

G.

Shoot the test, make it a Sticky, and we'll buy you a pot of Chai! :thumbsup:

 

[Lpowell]

In your [Panasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5] footage the aperture doesn't noticeably change - is that because it is locked, or that it iworks better than the Olympus 14-54? The aperture clunkiness is my major complaint with the Zuiko. Also, this 14-50 is still a varifocal lens, correct?

Yes, the Panasonic 14-50mm is varifocal, though I've found its focus to remain pretty stable throughout most of its zoom range. As you saw in my test shots, the Olympus 14-54 clicks and flashes noticeably while zooming. The Panasonic's iris is much better behaved - it clicks only once at f3.5, and not at all at f4 and higher.

 

[plundstr]

The Zuiko 14-54mm 2.8 is an awesome lens for the price given the image quality it produces. It also feels very... sturdy.