GH4 First Lens Choice.

C

CustomerGH4

Well-known member
So I have been going around the Internet and asking questions. I want to get GH4, but I haven´t decided on the first lens yet. I want an overall performer for both set-up situations and also for run and gun. The lenses that Im torn between are the following:

Should I get:
http://www.photographyblog.com/revi..._x_vario_12_35mm_f2_8_asph_review/conclusion/
Lumix G X 12-35mm F2.8:
+ O.I.S
+ Fast autofocus (The new depth from defocus system compatible with GH4 when using a native lens.)
+ Weather sealed
+ Better range
- Expensive

or

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_18_35mm_f1_8_dc_hsm_review/conclusion/
with this adapter http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/983711-REG/metabones_mb_nf_m43_bm1_nikon_f_to_micro.html
Sigma18-35mm F1.8
+ Better picture quality
+ F 1.8 for better low light performance
+ Cheaper, even with the adapter.
- No O.I.S
- Not weather sealed
? Don´t know about the autofocus compability.

One person has suggested Lumix and one person recommended the Sigma lens. So Im still in the middle of deciding.

1) Does the adapter I chose for Sigma fit? And can I add speedbooster? Or I can just get speedbooster as an adapter?
2) What are the limitations with using the adapter, could it hurt the sensor somehow?
3) GH4 is said to have constant autofocus during video shoot like a camcorder. Does it apply with all the lenses, indcluding the Sigma one?
4) Anything else I should consider regarding those two?
5) Anybody have experience with both on them on GH4?

So yeah, what would you people recommend? Any help is appreciated, Thanks!
 
I went 12-35 2.8 and love it. Auto Focus, adjustable aperture and low 2.8, zoom, OIS, small.... I wanted one good lens that mated with GH4 with all the bells and whistles. Delivers just fine.
Zooming through 2.8 though, you can see it get darker, it is not smooth as you would think with 2.8 zoom. Just so you know. It stays at 2.8 but you can see/hear the stops change. Others have reported this also.

I also own Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 EF mounted and use with a $12 adapter from Amazon that works great. Also works with aperature'd Kipon adapter I have. Yes, the Sigma is VERY HEAVY, and good.
 
If you're set on those two, it depends how you prefer to shoot.
- Sigma 18-35 is MUCH larger (think 1lb pickle jar) and lacks auto anything, but is close enough to parfocal and can do dependable focus pulls. No adapter will tell you exactly what your f-stop is. Adapter can be either Speedbooster OR normal (get one of each).
- Panny 12-35 is very compact (think half a soda can) with very very good auto functionality and OIS and better range, but is slower, focus by wire (cannot do dependable focus pulls), and exhibits some aperture fluctuation if zoomed while shooting

I own both and use each for different situations... 12-35 for general work, shooting on the move, still+video work, and compact kits; 18-35 (with or w/o speed booster) for interview WID/MED/MCU and general low light shooting. I don't notice much image quality difference between the two at similar apertures.

Neither does anything telephoto or intimate very well. 35mm on m43 can work OK for portraiture, but it's always going to feel a little short. You're not going to catch details of any process unless you get right the hell up on it.


Now as to what I'd personally recommend... depends on budget

If ~$1000, then the 14-140/3.5-5.6. Outstanding autofocus, excellent range, good image, just a bit slow (but well within many working conditions)
If ~$1500 and you are OK with large all-manual lenses, then a Nikon mount Sigma 18-35/1.8 and 50-150/2.8 (non-OS) plus normal and SB adapters
If ~$2500, then the 12-35 and 35-100/2.8
If ~$3000 and you love all-manual ultra-speed primes, then a matched set of Voigtlanders (17.5, 25, 42.5)
If $++++ and you love compact fast auto primes, then Leica 15, 25, and 42.5
If $++ and you want auto primes, then the Olympus 12, 17, 25, 45, and 75 should be on your list
If $---- but you still like auto primes and small packages, the Panasonic 14 and 20 (v2) pancakes aren't too shabby
Look into the Panny 7-14/4 and 100-300 if those ranges suit your needs
If you can get a mess of legacy lenses cheap, buy adapters (SpeedBoosted or not) and have fun

If less, you could work with a used old version 14-140 (~$350) for a while until you save up enough for something else. I still use mine almost every doggone shoot.
 
Dan Keeble said:
Lumix 12-35mm

...then the Lumix 35-100mm
Click to expand...

mcbob said:
I own both and use each for different situations... 12-35 for general work, shooting on the move, still+video work, and compact kits; 18-35 (with or w/o speed booster) for interview WID/MED/MCU and general low light shooting. I don't notice much image quality difference between the two at similar apertures.

Neither does anything telephoto or intimate very well. 35mm on m43 can work OK for portraiture, but it's always going to feel a little short. You're not going to catch details of any process unless you get right the hell up on it.


Now as to what I'd personally recommend... depends on budget

If ~$2500, then the 12-35 and 35-100/2.8
Click to expand...

Whoa wait now Im confused, what If I would get 35-100 2.8, the reviews are great everywhere (better than 12-35mm 2.8 ones http://www.photographyblog.com/revi...x_vario_35_100mm_f2_8_asph_review/conclusion/)

My question now is that why would I need the 12-35mm one if I get 35-100mm first?
If Im not mistaken with the 35-100mm I would get better portraits, no distortion with the face aka nose looking to big etc like with wide lenses, correct?
And also with the 35-100mm in terms of video shooting I can cover close-ups, medium shots and long shots with this lens, correct?
Plus with the 35-100mm I would not have the aperture jump problem during the zoom as with the 12-35, also correct?

Thanks for answers so far!
 
Last edited:
CustomerGH4 said:
Whoa wait now Im confused, what If I would get 35-100 2.8, the reviews are great everywhere (better than 12-35mm 2.8 ones http://www.photographyblog.com/revi...x_vario_35_100mm_f2_8_asph_review/conclusion/)

My question now is that why would I need the 12-35mm one if I get 35-100mm first?
If Im not mistaken with the 35-100mm I would get better portraits, no distortion with the face aka nose looking to big etc like with wide lenses, correct?
And also with the 35-100mm in terms of video shooting I can cover close-ups, medium shots and long shots with this lens, correct?
Plus with the 35-100mm I would not have the aperture jump problem during the zoom as with the 12-35, also correct?

Thanks for answers so far!
Click to expand...

I own both, and think they're both fantastic. BUT, as others have said, it depends on what you're shooting. I shoot a lot of medical stuff, including doctor web bios that require b-roll that is shot in very small quarters (exam rooms). The 35-100 just wouldn't cut it because it can't get wide enough. For talking head stuff, or situations where you have some space between you and the subject and don't need to get too wide, it's great.

Also, the 12-35 really only starts to fish-eye between 12mm and 15mm-ish, and it's not that bad.

As far as apurture jump, I've never noticed anything but consant apurture. the 14-45 isn't constant I don't believe, but the 12-35 is.

I wish Panasonic came out with a 14-140 like lense that was constant 2.8, but realistically, that thing would cost in the ballpark of $4k probably.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I own both, and think they're both fantastic. BUT, as others have said, it depends on what you're shooting. I shoot a lot of medical stuff, including doctor web bios that require b-roll that is shot in very small quarters (exam rooms). The 35-100 just wouldn't cut it because it can't get wide enough. For talking head stuff, or situations where you have some space between you and the subject and don't need to get too wide, it's great.
Click to expand...

My plan is to shoot action. For example rally. Or MMA. That is why I decided on GH4, it has constant autofocus features and also that 96fps which would be great for punches etc.. And yes talking heads style too for occasional interviews.
The thing is that in my previous experience I have used ENG style cameras (Sony HVR-A1 or Sony HXR-NX) where I never needed to change lenses. But now its time to move forward with the 4K , slow-mo and the camcorder like focusing that the GH4 is capable to provide.

Btw I plan to only buy one lens for overall work. The rest of the money will be spent on audio equipment. And if needed additional lenses will be rented.
So yes, the question is to have the best overall lens to go with GH4, native, because I want all the abilities the GH4 can provide, so now my choice has boiled down to either Vario G X 12-35mm 2.8 or Vario G X 35-100mm 2.8.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
...my choice has boiled down to either Vario G X 12-35mm 2.8 or Vario G X 35-100mm 2.8.
Click to expand...

If you are in the US, do yourself a favor and rent the 35-100 first to see how it fits in with your overall requirements. Consider it a small investment. The other option is a good dealer who takes returns. And if renting, Lensrentals is a great resource.
 
CustomerGH4 said:
Btw I plan to only buy one lens for overall work. The rest of the money will be spent on audio equipment. And if needed additional lenses will be rented.
So yes, the question is to have the best overall lens to go with GH4, native, because I want all the abilities the GH4 can provide, so now my choice has boiled down to either Vario G X 12-35mm 2.8 or Vario G X 35-100mm 2.8.
Click to expand...

Man, that is a tough call, right there. This may or may not help.... the 100 would get you up close to the sweat, punches, tires etc.... but you could rarely get a decent wide shot from it - say like walking around a car up close (35 equally 60 or whatever the crop x is). The 12-35 WOULD lt you get some closer things being wider... BUT, and I tested this out just last night, you CAN use the GH4 2x or 4x to make the lens SEEM like a much more zoomed in lens - so you COULD get closer up shots with it. At least that is the theory I'm going with. :)

Has anyone really tested how clean the 2x 4x settings are yet?

On the other hand, there is NO WAY to get more wide out of the 35-100 with a setting.
So, that is what I am doing, but I shoot more wide than zoomed in anyway overall. But the fake 4x zoom is there if needed. For me.
 
stoneinapond said:
If you are in the US, do yourself a favor and rent the 35-100 first to see how it fits in with your overall requirements. Consider it a small investment. The other option is a good dealer who takes returns. And if renting, Lensrentals is a great resource.
Click to expand...

Not in US, but thanks for advice.

wwjd said:
Man, that is a tough call, right there. This may or may not help.... the 100 would get you up close to the sweat, punches, tires etc.... but you could rarely get a decent wide shot from it - say like walking around a car up close (35 equally 60 or whatever the crop x is). The 12-35 WOULD lt you get some closer things being wider... BUT, and I tested this out just last night, you CAN use the GH4 2x or 4x to make the lens SEEM like a much more zoomed in lens - so you COULD get closer up shots with it. At least that is the theory I'm going with. :)

Has anyone really tested how clean the 2x 4x settings are yet?

On the other hand, there is NO WAY to get more wide out of the 35-100 with a setting.
So, that is what I am doing, but I shoot more wide than zoomed in anyway overall. But the fake 4x zoom is there if needed. For me.
Click to expand...

Ha, that is actually good news, I did not know about the digital zoom. But I reckon that when usually digital zoom is crap (at least with camcorders), then there is a possibility that if shot in 4K, the digital zoom would be better looking than usual.

dustylense said:
I just have to state that the Lumix 12-35 should be paired with every GH camera. It's an excellent lens.
Click to expand...

Care to elaborate what exactly it is that in Your opinion makes it excellent?
 
Have both the 12-35 and 35-100 and it'd be really tough to choose between them. Both are excellent lenses although I do use the 12-35 more.
My only knock against them is that Lumix lenses do tend to look a little more video-ish compared to something like the Voigtlander 25mm.
 
SuperSet said:
Have both the 12-35 and 35-100 and it'd be really tough to choose between them. Both are excellent lenses although I do use the 12-35 more.
My only knock against them is that Lumix lenses do tend to look a little more video-ish compared to something like the Voigtlander 25mm.
Click to expand...

Just found out that the LUMIX G X VARIO 12-35mm F2.8 was chosen as lens of the year in 2012 by photography blog. http://www.photographyblog.com/news/lens_of_the_year_2012/

So thats a plus, but then again its been 2 years already.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top