Best standard zoom lens for video on my GH2

nyvz

nyvz

Veteran
I am somewhat torn between a Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 and Olympus 12-60 f2.8-4 lens for my new GH2. Anyone with experience with either of these lenses have an opinion?

Here are my main concerns:

Nikon 17-55
PROS
-Faster lens, constant f2.8
-High build quality, barrel does not telescope as much as most still zooms, looks as good as a still lens can on a video camera
-Future proof, long FFD and APS-C coverage will allow it to work on future cameras (Sony NXCAM35 or RED EPIC-S may become my A-camera if they ever become available).
-With Nikon G adapter, smooth aperture control
CONS
-Image, from what I've seen the aperture often exhibits non-roundness and internal vignetting which are a pet peeve of mine (this shows up as bumpy-circle bokeh or cats-eye bokeh)
-Shorter range, it is a very usable range for m4/3, but for future cameras, I'd prefer 24-70mm for APS-C/S35
-Seems to also exhibit some of the green ghosting issues that I can't stand about modern Canon glass

Olympus 12-60
PROS
-Very nice images, from what I've seen, aperture is perfectly round and does not change shape toward edges of the frame, best looking bokeh I have ever seen in a still zoom (in my opinion, I like sharp, even, round bokeh throughout the frame)
-Longer 5x zoom range the usual 3x zoom range for constant-aperture lenses, only compromises 1fstop at the long end
CONS
-Not as nice build, telescopes quite a bit through zoom, though it is a bit more compact overall
-Steppy aperture, only opens and closes electronically and in discreet clicks, useless during a shot
-Cannot be shared with other format cameras, this lens will only work on 4/3 or m4/3, so it will probably never be shared with any other camera I'll own except when I occasionally shoot with an AF100 (I do not plan on owning one)

Both lenses seem to fall in a pretty close price range, especially after accounting for the price of m4/3 mount adapters for each and I'm personally very used to pulling focus on lenses with very short throws and can switch easily to either direction of rotation so that isnt as much of an issue for me.

What do you guys think? I currently have a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 on my Canon 7D which is a wonderful lens that I really think is my ideal <$1k lens for Canon, but for m4/3 I really need the wide end to be at least as wide, since 24mm on my 7D is not that wide but I get by well with it.

I base some of my image quality observations on looking through many random flickr photos shot with these lenses, which obviously isnt good for judging lens color contrast or sharpness, but its great for seeing differences in bokeh and to some extent strengths of a particular focal length range. Otherwise from what I can tell briefly using the lenses, they both hold focus quite well throughout their zoom range and do not breathe much, all I need is for them to have perfect and even bokeh and nice flaring characteristics (olympus seems to excel at this better than nikon though).
 
Last edited:
Lens breathing is another issue w/ non-m43 zooms. A set of primes and m43 zooms would be ideal, but we need faster m43 zooms.
 
I looked at various reviews of both lenses and for me sharpness is the least of my concerns for 1080p video (only 2MP). Though I'm confident both lenses would perform well even in ETC mode given their sharpness. Right now for me it is really coming down to image attributes and build quality. For some reason I'm very bothered by the fact that so many of Nikon's rounded apertures are so inferior compared to Olympus's rounded apertures in terms of their roundness. It's rare to find a lens with a completely even, round aperture throughout its range and all over its field of view besides very expensive Cine lenses, but right now Olympus is looking like a good candidate. As for the 14-45, I don't like its range or its stop for my uses. I already feel like I'm compromising DOF and low light a little in my switch to the GH2, so I'm not very comfortable with any lens much slower than the 24-70 f2.8 that I'm used to.
 
Last edited:
mpgxsvcd said:
Are any of them parfocal? Next please.
Click to expand...
Apparently the 17-55 and 12-60 perform very well in terms of holding focus through their range, so for most purposes they could be considered parfocal, even if they are not necessarily designed to be. This may depend slightly on the copy of the lens you get, but based on quick look I had of the 12-60 it held a macro focus point through its zoom quite well as far as I could tell on the little LCD. More than I can say for most still zooms.
 
Last edited:
I like my 14-45 (not the 42) Panny. It is a really well made lens, and has extra qualities, color, etc. I like the smooth edge to edge evenness, and I like the IS, of course. Sharpness is outstanding.
Is it sharp enough for video? Definitely. But I like my AF primes even better. Slightly. But what a pain to drag around.
That said, the Olly looks very nice as well.
 
Right now I am using...

Panny 14-45 ( for Daylight or well lit scenes )
Panny 45-200 ( for Daylight or well lit scenes )
Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 ZF ( with Voightlander nikon adapter )

The next lens I want to buy is the Voightlander 25mm f/0.95, but I don't want to pay the eBay premium right now. ( B&H lists this lens as $819 US )

Later this year I expect there will be at least one fast IS zoom for M 4/3 from either Panasonic / Olympus / Sigma, which should be super popular once it's out.
 
W/ 2x crop factor, Olympus 14-35 2.0 is a standard zoom. Lately I'm hearing good things about the lens from AF100 users. The world's first 2.0 zoom. Only little breathing. Mechanical focus. Like other 43 lenses, aperture can be controlled from GH2. Adorama sells it at $2050 http://www.adorama.com/IOM1435.html

Most of all, usable at 2.0 in all range. The difference between 2.0 and 2.8 in GH body is big. Try it with 1.4 prime. 1.4 is often too shallow. In close range, I can't even focus a face. Step down to 2.0. Shallow DOF isn't completely lost. Yes entire face focus possible. Step down to 2.8. Shallowness is significantly reduced.
 
stonebat said:
W/ 2x crop factor, Olympus 14-35 2.0 is a standard zoom. Lately I'm hearing good things about the lens from AF100 users. The world's first 2.0 zoom. Only little breathing. Mechanical focus. Like other 43 lenses, aperture can be controlled from GH2. Adorama sells it at $2050 http://www.adorama.com/IOM1435.html

Most of all, usable at 2.0 in all range. The difference between 2.0 and 2.8 in GH body is big. Try it with 1.4 prime. 1.4 is often too shallow. In close range, I can't even focus a face. Step down to 2.0. Shallow DOF isn't completely lost. Yes entire face focus possible. Step down to 2.8. Shallowness is significantly reduced.
Click to expand...

I have a set of f2 or faster primes, and love short depth of field in stills, but I'm constantly surprised how I want to turn down to f4 for most moving people shots. Getting people in focus is good in my book.
 
For fast moving subjects, I like m43 zooms. Deep DOF is advantageous in this case.

Some might laugh... but I'm getting concerned. Those great lenses w/ full of metals and thick glasses might cost a lot more to produce as the price of commodity goes up. Lately rare earth metal price speculation. They have broad range of application in camera & lens productions.

If the current price is $2K, will it stay same next year? I think the chance is higher price. Also used price will go up, too. I might just get the Oly lens now. It's about twice more expensive than all of my lenses, but who knows? I might make some profit when I sell it.
 
I really want proper IS so that I can get smooth hand-held shots, and right now I don't think any of the f/2.8 or faster zooms have working IS.
 
TheDingo said:
I really want proper IS so that I can get smooth hand-held shots...
Click to expand...
Have you checked out the Leicasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 zoom? This is my favorite hand-held lens, with drop-dead steady OIS. It's also unique among Four Thirds zooms in having an actual aperture ring. and on the GH2 it will auto-focus in AFS mode. Here's an example of the kind of hand-held shot you can pull off with this lens:

 
Bucknfl said:
Take a look at Olympus 14-54 2.8-3.5
Click to expand...

I've used that lens a lot on the AF100 and optically and financially it's nice but is near impossible to pull focus on due to its servo-only focusing. 12-60 is better optically and actually usable mechanically so it seems like a good option.

I've heard good things about the 14-35, but for me that is not enough telephoto reach to be useful for me, I'd have to change lenses for closeups so it might as well be a prime, < half the range of 12-60 for twice the price makes me not really consider it.
 
Last edited:
I have the Olympus 14-54mm, but picked up a Pany 14-45mm because I wanted something with image stabilization. The pany also focuses a lot faster, although the Olympus of course still maintains its appeal.
 
lpowell said:
Have you checked out the Leicasonic 14-50mm f2.8-3.5 zoom? This is my favorite hand-held lens, with drop-dead steady OIS. It's also unique among Four Thirds zooms in having an actual aperture ring. and on the GH2 it will auto-focus in AFS mode.
Click to expand...
Another fine choice, and a lens that will hold its value even if Panny brings out a fast zoom.
 
I'm also looking into a good quality standard zoom lens. I was also looing at the Leica 14-50mm but I've heard and read about a mechanical problem that seems to be common with this lens. Judging from the reviews of the lens on B&H and other forum comments (which we, of course, always have to take with a grain of salt), I'm not sure I want to shell out a grand on a lens that might be problematic in the near future. Anyone else heard about this "common" problem or experienced it?

It would be nice if Panasonic would do its homework and get a nice micro 4/3 constant 2.8 standard zoom lens on the market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top