Documentary one lens: interviews, building tours, exterior shots of buildings in nyc

J

jimdmorrison

Member
I have been reading a lot of posts here and it sounds like I should get the Panasonic Lumix 14-140 for $800. I can only afford one lens, but will probably buy another one in a few months if I need to. I was also looking at a couple cheaper lenses.

Panasonic Lumix H-H014 Lens - 14 mm - F/2.5 $340
Panasonic Lumix H-H020 Lens - 20 mm - F/1.7 $348

Am I completely off base? Most of my footage will be static interviews, but I'd like to be able to do some building tours and get some exterior shots of skyscrapers.

Thanks!
 
jimdmorrison said:
Am I completely off base? Most of my footage will be static interviews, but I'd like to be able to do some building tours and get some exterior shots of skyscrapers.Thanks!
Click to expand...

Check out this current thread: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?247791-Lumix-14-140-pros-and-cons-with-AF100

I think you'll find a lot of dissatisfaction and disappointment with this lens. More and more members are finding better luck with a selection of prime lenses. Olympus and Panasonic 'zoom' lenses are designed for still cameras and have many limitations for video production. Do a search for 'Lumix 14-140' and you'll find a wide array of additional threads.
 
Read that thread and evaluate your needs, but i will HIGHLY recommend one of the following lenses with the corresponding novoflex adapter

1. Nikon 17-55 f2.8
2. Sigma 18-50 f2.8
3. Tamron 17-50 f2.8
4. Pentax 16-50 f2.8

any of those will give you manual zoom, manual focus, constant aperture, as well as smooth aperture adjustment during shots. Those will offer the most flexibility as well as a decent aperture for low light.
 
a lot of people like the olympus 14-35 because at 2.0 aperture you will blur the background to give it the filmic look. 2.8 on this size imager is like 4.0 or 5.6 on a 5dmkII. but the 14-35 is very expensive.
 
Will I not be able to get the blurred background for interviews in offices if I go with the Nikon? Unfortunately I'm going to be stuck with the lighting they have for the first couple of interviews until I can afford some lights.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
+2

It's become my primary lens. I occasionally use my Tokina 11-16mm when I need wider and a 50-135mm for tele, but the Nikon has been my workhorse.
Click to expand...

How would the Nikon 17-55mm compare with regards to sharpness to say a Nikon 35mm or a 50mm, is it close? Thanks.
 
Jarek Zabczynski said:
+2

It's become my primary lens. I occasionally use my Tokina 11-16mm when I need wider and a 50-135mm for tele, but the Nikon has been my workhorse.
Click to expand...

Will I be able to use the Nikon 17-55mm lens using my 'Nikon mtf' adaptor which I currently use for all my Nikon ais primes - do they have the same attachment mechanisms?
 
I have the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and I have no problem getting out of focus backgrounds, so you should be fine with the 17-55...I too use the adaptimax and am very pleased...just be sure the thumbscrew is out a ways (not completely out) so it doesn't rub on the lens as you put it on or take it off. Yes you should be able to use it with an mft to Nikon adapter, but the aperture control might be an issue if the lens doesn't have the built-in aperture ring.
 
In defense of the 14-140... last weekend at the Abel workshop we did a split-screen side-by-side of the 14-140 against the $28,000 Arri Alura, and it looked really, really good. Really good. Identical, for all intents and purposes, as viewed side-by-side through a switcher on a 50" 1080p plasma TV.

The 14-140 has lousy iris response, and it's slow, and you cannot zoom during a shot without it going out of focus during the zoom (it'll snap back into focus when you stop zooming). It's also got a great range, it's got OIS, it's got autofocus if you need it -- in fact it's the only lens that has actually decent to good autofocus performance.

So it depends on what you need. The 14-140 isn't a great lens, but its versatility is unmatched by anything else out there. In terms of raw sharpness and clarity, it can hang with the best. If you want a fully-manual lens and all you need is a fully manual lens, there are many better alternatives. But if you need auto functions and OIS, if you want the camera to act more like a conventional "video" camera, then the 14-140 is the only game in town.
 
Where can I find that adaptimax adapter in the US? Thanks for all your help! I'm scrambling to get everything before I leave next Monday.
 
jimdmorrison said:
Will I not be able to get the blurred background for interviews in offices if I go with the Nikon? Unfortunately I'm going to be stuck with the lighting they have for the first couple of interviews until I can afford some lights.
Click to expand...

At f/2.8, it should give you more than adequate bokeh at the long end of the lens, provided there is enough separation of the subject from the background.

if you are really concerned about those super shallow DOF shots, maybe pick up a cheap 85 f/1.4 like the bower here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/614837-REG/Bower_SLY85N_85mm_f_1_4_Manual_Focus.html

I love mine, and it is an amazing lens for the price. Sharp and matches well with the rest of my nikon glass. I love it as much as the rest of my nikon set, and it is one of my goto lenses. Really, great bang for buck fast prime for portraits.... and it is under $330 new.
 
Last edited:
I am using Canon FD lenses with thevNovoflex adaptor. For documentary interviews, I'm using the Canon 35-105mm f/3.5. As long as I have at least 1 meter of separation between the subject and the background I get a very nice blur of the background at f/3.5. The camera is about 1.5 to 1.7 meters back from the subject which allows for nice medium shot at the 35mm up to very tight closeups at the 105mm, all with a constant aperture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top