difference between the two stock gh2 lenses only optical?

T

teuron

Active member
i was wondering if the only difference between the two stock gh2 lenses is only optical zoom?

otherwise do they both have the same functions (OIS, follow focus, etc)

would it better (seems cheaper as well) to buy the gh2 with the 14-42 plus the 45-200 instead of the 14-140?
 
Last edited:
They both have OIS. The 14-140 has HD-optimized focusing, whereas no other lens in the Panasonic lineup does. If you want to use autofocus in video, the 14-140 is much better at it than any other lens.
 
what exactly does that mean: "hd optimized focusing" ?
sounds like marketing jargon

pardon my ignorance but i thought a unit either had follow focus or it didnt.... as far as it being 'hd optimized' remains a mystery to me
 
teuron said:
what exactly does that mean: "hd optimized focusing" ?
Click to expand...
Having used both 14-140mm and 45-200mm Lumix lenses, I'm not really sure how much difference there is during video shooting. The 45-200mm focuses very quickly and silently for me, noticeably smoother than the Lumix 20mm, 14-45mm, or any of the Olympus Four-Thirds lenses I've used. The only lens I've seen beat the 45-200mm in subtle focus tracking is the Olympus native Micro Four-Thirds 9-18mm, but it has an inherent depth-of-field advantage.

Where the 14-140mm has a unique advantage is that to my knowledge, it is the only parfocal auto-focus zoom available. That means that it should hold focus even while zooming during a video take. As with other auto-focus Four-Thirds lenses I've tried, the 45-200mm will lose focus lock whenever you turn the zoom ring.
 
teuron said:
what exactly does that mean: "hd optimized focusing" ?
Click to expand...
It means it focuses like a videocamera lens, rather than like a still-camera lens.

pardon my ignorance but i thought a unit either had follow focus or it didnt....
Click to expand...
Your terminology isn't right here; you're saying "follow focus" but that's a physical wheel for adjusting focus on manual lenses. I presume you mean "autofocus"?

And no, autofocus is most definitely not an either-or situation. Stills lenses focus in jerks and stops and starts, and they're usually noisy. The Lumix 14-140 is quick and silent and acts like a video camera lens, not a stills lens.
 
lpowell said:
Having used both 14-140mm and 45-200mm Lumix lenses, I'm not really sure how much difference there is during video shooting. The 45-200mm focuses very quickly and silently for me, noticeably smoother than the Lumix 20mm, 14-45mm, or any of the Olympus Four-Thirds lenses I've used. The only lens I've seen beat the 45-200mm in subtle focus tracking is the Olympus native Micro Four-Thirds 9-18mm, but it has an inherent depth-of-field advantage.

Where the 14-140mm has a unique advantage is that to my knowledge, it is the only parfocal auto-focus zoom available. That means that it should hold focus even while zooming during a video take. As with other auto-focus Four-Thirds lenses I've tried, the 45-200mm will lose focus lock whenever you turn the zoom ring.
Click to expand...


thank you that clears things up.
i guess if the only difference (other than optics) between the 140 and 200 is the parfocal focus then i might go with the 200 and save a bunch of money to put towards a prime. (i cant see myself zooming while shooting that much in the first place since it will inevitably shake the camera, but in the odd time i might need to i can just manually pull focus

this will be my first interchangable lens camera (although i do use pro broadcast cams at work). im literally going from a pointnshoot to the gh2. cant wait!
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
It means it focuses like a videocamera lens, rather than like a still-camera lens.


Your terminology isn't right here; you're saying "follow focus" but that's a physical wheel for adjusting focus on manual lenses. I presume you mean "autofocus"?

And no, autofocus is most definitely not an either-or situation. Stills lenses focus in jerks and stops and starts, and they're usually noisy. The Lumix 14-140 is quick and silent and acts like a video camera lens, not a stills lens.
Click to expand...

i guess i was referring to focus tracking? (if a subject walks towards or away from the camera and remains in focus)
 
The 14-140mm is not parfocal, it is varifocal. It supports video-camera esque continuous auto-focusing which is both fast and silent.
 
teuron said:
i guess i was referring to focus tracking? (if a subject walks towards or away from the camera and remains in focus)
Click to expand...
Nothing does that (at least, nothing does it well). There's no feature for tracking focus, there's just autofocus and the better/faster the autofocus system is, the less noticeable it would be that the camera is autofocusing.
 
Ben_B said:
The 14-140mm is not parfocal, it is varifocal. It supports video-camera esque continuous auto-focusing which is both fast and silent.
Click to expand...

It seems to be slightly hybrid. I wouldn't expect it to be a true parfocal, but it largely acts like one. Set your focus to 10 feet, and you can zoom in and out the entire range, and your focus will always be set at exactly 10 feet.
 
Hmmm, I've noticed shifting but now that I think of it it's mostly in the closer end of focusing.

EDIT:
Just played around with it a bit, it seems like it's ALMOST parfocal...meaning that if you're focusing all the way zoomed in by the time you get to the wide end the focus HAS shifted but the object is so small now that you can't tell.
 
On the AF100 it gives a readout of what the lens's focus position is, and you can see that it's still reading exactly the same as it was at tele.
 
Barry_Green said:
On the AF100 it gives a readout of what the lens's focus position is, and you can see that it's still reading exactly the same as it was at tele.
Click to expand...

Gh2 in theory does something like that with the focus post, will give it a go.....

Stays the same in certain areas, but not all. If you set it to minimum focus distance @ 140mm and move it to 14mm and bump the focus again the focus post shows it about 4/5ths of the way toward minimum.
 
teuron said:
i guess i was referring to focus tracking? (if a subject walks towards or away from the camera and remains in focus)
Click to expand...

I do not know the terminology, but used the 45-200 lens for a presentation we shot. The room was long and narrow, with the presenter set up on one end. He had posters on the wall behind him, as well as running down one wall. When we walked from side to side within the "plane" he was in, the 45-200 held focus well. As he walked a bit forward and down the one wall to the posters, we lost the sharp focus on him. He probably didn't ever venture more than 6-8 feet forward, but was enough to walk out of the depth of field.
 
ChipThome said:
As he walked a bit forward and down the one wall to the posters, we lost the sharp focus on him. He probably didn't ever venture more than 6-8 feet forward, but was enough to walk out of the depth of field.
Click to expand...

I've been playing with that and this is where a quick half press of the shutter button almost instantly snaps the new focal point. I agree with lpowell, the 45-200mm is super quick focus, 20mm pancake is painfully slow. lpowell disappointed to hear 14-45mm is not as fast focus wise as 45-200mm, that was my next purchase, i was hoping for similar response. Bummer.

What about the 14-42mm, is it the same focal speed as 14-45mm?
 
rambooc1 said:
lpowell disappointed to hear 14-45mm is not as fast focus wise as 45-200mm...
Click to expand...
After testing them both at 45mm under identical conditions I'd have to say they feel about the same to me. It may be that in marginal lighting conditions the 14-45mm didn't focus as well for me, due to its f5.6 maximum aperture at 45mm.
 
lpowell said:
After testing them both at 45mm under identical conditions I'd have to say they feel about the same to me. It may be that in marginal lighting conditions the 14-45mm didn't focus as well for me, due to its f5.6 maximum aperture at 45mm.
Click to expand...

Ok thanks, that may be good enough for me as my usage is for outdoor good light and the range i want is from 28- 38mm. Funny how it's more expensive than the 45-200?
 
Umm... that's interesting.. the 45-200mm also appears to be parfocal or varifocal from the tests i've been doing, at least when going from 45 to 200 with the shutter held half pressed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top