GF1 official!

yslee said:
No it doesn't. The movie icon on the GF1 dial has "P" next to it, unlike the "M" next to the GH1.
Click to expand...

This is what has me confused. It's straight from the press release:

"The GF1 also provides a colour mode, film mode and carries over 11 different scene modes from photo scene modes in movie recording. Motion picture Program mode that lets you change the aperture and the shutter speed for more creative HD movie recording. You can try professional-like movie recording with these variety of options like you do with photo recording".

There is also a mention on imaging-resource (I think, I've read so much the past 2 daze I can't remember what I saw where) that said the aperture was adjustable while recording. But dpreview says no manual nuttin
 
Ben_B said:
You're paying for a tiny little lens that slims down the form factor and has auto focus, etc. It crops to 40mm yes but is still one of the cheapest, fastest, wide lenses available for the GH1, and is M4/3 which is nice.

Also it is 20mm, not 40mm, even though it crops, which means it will be useful for deeper depth of field type shots when you stop down, or at least deeper DOF than an actual 50mm (cropped to 100mm.)

It looks like it's taken some really nice photos actually, with pretty shallow, that I would have to get pretty far back and stop down a bit to get with my 50mm Nikon f/1.4....and the Nikon is nowhere near this sharp at those apertures.
Click to expand...
I'm comparing format to format. The 20 is no way considered wide.

Consider this: In 35mm film photography cameras, the normal is about 43mm. For Micro 4/3s, it's about 22mm. So I'm essentially comparing normal lenses. Lenses around the normal focal length are easier to design; that's why they're cheap. US$400 for this? Sure, if it's metal-barreled, and has a proper focus ring, with distance and DOF indicators.
 
I was initially looking at the Summilux 25mm f/1.4.
How would you compare these two lenses besides the summilux costing 2x as much.
 
Are we resorting to the "it's the only game in town so it's affordable by default" argument?

The 25/1.4 is half a stop faster, and has the Leica name to jack up the price a bit.
 
I was saying that I was interested in this lens because it was one of the widest available in that price range and at that speed. It's true that it's not a wide angle in the normal sense, and those of us with GH1s are already having to get used to shooting further back, etc, thanks to the 2x crop factor. The reason I am saying it is a good lens to get is that although it might have normal lens FOV it does not have the DOF you'd expect from a normal lens with that sort of aperture, with a 20mm lens it's going to be deeper, although, as you can see from the above photo, still somewhat shallow with a more open aperture, which also means it can serve as more of a normal lens, as you say, with the advantage being that we can get closer in than with using a traditional 40 to 50mm lens on the GH1, which means a less shakey handheld image, etc.

It is not the only game in town. I already have a Sigma 24mm f/1.8 which was actually a little cheaper and I'm still interested in this lens because of the small size, the fact that it gives a 40mm full-frame FOV instead of 48mm, and will likely be slightly deeper DOF in low light conditions (additionally my 24mm is also a macro which makes it somewhat finicky to use in certain situations.)

What would a good, affordable, fast, wide angle for the GH1 be? The Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 is slower than this lens, and costs $600, all for a lens which, on the GH1, has no aperture control.

Sigma makes a few lenses that are wider than this, but at f/2.8 and higher, and for several hundred dollars more (and that's for used.) Additionally Sigma is not exactly well known for build quality, and their lenses are usually pretty large. I love my Sigma 24mm...but the thing has a 77m filter thread and is very large and bulky, comically so for a non-telephoto lens, on the GH1.

This lens has a great form factor, is one of the widest/fastest available in it's price range for the GH1, will auto-focus, etc.

There is more to a lens than FOV. Just because a lens is affected by a 2x crop factor does not mean that it does not still have the properties of that kind of lens. This 20mm lens at f/1.7 looks sharper than say, a Nikon portrait lens, 50mm, at f/1.8, whether it's on a full-frame camera or not, despite the fact that the 20mm gets a normal lens' FOV on the GH1.

I've been shooting around with a borrowed Nikon 135mm f/2.8 and it looks great, despite the fact that it's getting cropped to 270mm. I love the shallow DOF look that it gives me, and I actually like it better than my 50mm f/1.4. Does that mean that I'll need to get further back from my subject, have a shakier shot, and be able to use it in less situations? Yes. But do I like it as a lens despite the limited FOV? Yes.

So again, I'll ask, regardless of what you interpret this lens' function and capabilities to be, show me a lens you would consider "better" that has the same FOV or wider, and is as fast, slightly slower, or faster, and that is in the same price range. I will go buy that lens instead. I will give you the small size and autofocus as freebies you don't have to address. I am in the market for a wider lens for my GH1 and I don't want to spend $600-1000 on a used lens or a lens that you can't set the aperture on. (I don't have anything against used lenses but we really should be comparing new to new.) Go ahead. Wow me.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure why you're so defensive over this lens. Did I strike a raw nerve somewhere?

As someone who used to shoot with a 24/50/100 setup, believe me, I like my small primes.

I just don't like the idea of paying US$400 for what is the m4/3's normal lens. US$300 maybe.

Is there a lens that's like that? Of course not. But does it mean the US$400 is justified? Maybe. But I'm feeling like Panasonic is doing a bit of gouging here. Will I buy it? Maybe. I want my small fast primes too.

To give another example of what I'm railing against: Nikon several years back released, along with the FM3a, a 45/2.8 pancake with the CPU-chip to allow AF cameras to meter with it. It was highly lauded, but at US$400-500 (even more expensive than the 20/1.7) I questioned the sanity of those who bought it. It wasn't even groundbreaking lens design: Just a slightly updated Tessar.

$500 for an updated Tessar?

Needless to say, I somehow managed riled up people in the same way. Go on, they said. Show us a lens that's like this. All metal, pancake, and meters with AF bodies.

Of course there was no comparison. Nikon's last pancake, the 45/2.8 GN was an AIs affair only, and couldn't matrix meter with any modern AF camera in Nikon's lineup then (the F4 being discontinued).

Still. $500 for THAT lens?

A few more things:

The Sigma f/1.8 wide angles are not macro lenses. It's a misnomer on Sigma's part, to attach some fancy marketing to them. They're close(r) focus lenses at best.

The Tokina is a retrofocus wide-angle in design, is a zoom, and is very sharp. Considering that it's US$200 more compared to a normal lens (once again I need to reiterate that normal lenses are both simpler to design and make), I'm once again feeling that Panasonic is doing a bit of opportunistic pricing here.
 
First of all I reject your assertion that this is m4/3 "normal lens" because although this has comparable FOV to a normal lens (maybe a bit wider...I usually would call 50mm normal) it does not behave in the same way, and as I discussed above there is more to what makes a lens a lens than FOV.

Ok so you're railing against a price that you view as too high but the fact is that if it's desireable, which I think it is, then you pay the price they've set. A lot of the m4/3 lenses have been a little on the expensive side, look at the GH1 kit for example. Would I expect to pay $900, despite it's great focal range all it's technical goodness like distortion correction, OIS, etc, for a lens that is f4-5.6? Probably not. We're on the bleeding edge of a new format here and sometimes that comes with higher prices.

That said this thing is priced at about $100 higher than the Olympus m4/3 17mm f/2.8...is that extra price worth it for f/1.7, 3mm increased focal length (probably a bad thing), and (if I'm not mistaken..is it silent? I assume so) silent auto focus? I don't know. I think it probably is. I might end up going with the Olympus, maybe not. So...go get that one, that's $300 like you asked :) Here. Go order one. It's backordered though >.< http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/631778-REG/Olympus_261502_M_Zuiko_Digital_17mm_f2_8.html

In any case my point is complaining that the price is too high when it's one of the lowest priced lens of it's kind available for any system, not just for the GH1, then I don't really understand how you can say it's too expensive. By the same logic a $12,000 new car is too expensive because I wish I could get one for $1000. Buuuuuut...you can't. So $12,000 is "cheap."

As for the Sigmas, I would call it a Macro. It focuses extremely close, something like 18 centimeters although I've sworn it's less, and at open gives a band of focus that's about a centimeter thick or so. Furthermore the focus ring is incredibly fine-tuned, and variable, taking about 4 times the turning to go from 0.18 meters to 5 meters as to go from 5 meters to ∞. If that's not a macro I don't know what is...the thing is clearly designed for sensitive focusing at close distances. It might not be a macro in the traditional 1:1 sense but not many lenses today claiming macro are, especially not wide lenses, so the definition has changed some what. Regardless my point still stands, it's designed for focusing at close distances, which is a reason I am considering getting another lens with a similar speed/focal length.
 
Last edited:
Are you sure you're not confusing 4/3 standards with 35mm still standards? Because that's what you appear to be doing.

It is a normal lens, make no mistake. The fact that the DOF is deeper has nothing to do whether it's a normal lens or not.

And yes, on a 4/3 system, it *is* comparable to a 50mm on a 35mm still system, or a 35mm on an APS-C system. Bringing up things like DOF obsfucate the argument (which will always increase with the smaller imager); the focal length of the lenses compared are close to the diagonal of the imager.

Same goes for the phrase "Macro". Just because no wide angles do 1:1 doesn't mean the definition has changed. It just allows a marketing wannabe (Sigma is a close Canon follower) to (mis)place it on a series of wide angles that allow for very close focusing.

Finally, you *are* going for the "it's cheap because it's the only game in town" argument. Not a favourite stance of mine, because it doesn't let the argument about the object stand or fall on its own merits.
 
It's not the only game in town. It's the cheapest game in town. You can get fast 20mm lenses that will work fine on the GH1. I just said, ignoring autofocus, etc, show a cheaper one, from Nikon, Canon, etc, I don't care.

Yes I realize it has the same FOV as a normal lens does on 35mm due to crop factor, but my point is that it does not have all of the properties traditionally associated with a normal lens, which is a reason why it is more expensive than say, a (pre-AI at least) 50mm Nikon f/1.4.

As for Macro, a definition is only as good as it's real-world meaning, the term Macro, for better or for worse, has shifted away from the classical definition. At some point we're just debating diachronic vs generative linguistics and I have no interest in doing that, there is no real answer.
 
Last edited:
haojan said:
I was initially looking at the Summilux 25mm f/1.4.
How would you compare these two lenses besides the summilux costing 2x as much.
Click to expand...

It looks like it compares favorably. I have the Summilux. You have to factor in the cost of the 4/3 to micro4/3 adapter as well. If the 20mm 1.7 ends up being a really nice lens then I'll likely sell the Summilux and adapter and then spend the extra money on something else. The Summilux and adapter are alway quite bulky on the GH1. Not a big deal if your on rails, but for handholding and stills it's balanced a bit off. Not terribly but it's a little front-heavy.
 
@admactanium

How noisy is the AF on the 25mm f1.4?

I know the new 45mm macro is silent AF, but not sure about the new 20mm f1.7.
 
vip77 said:
@admactanium

How noisy is the AF on the 25mm f1.4?

I know the new 45mm macro is silent AF, but not sure about the new 20mm f1.7.
Click to expand...
Very noisy. It sounds like a homemade robot wrestling match. Wheeet. Wheeet. Chunk.

I'd assume the 20mm will be very quiet for AF since it's also built specifically for a hybrid still/video camera. The Summilux was obviously built just as a stills lens and they didn't concern themselves with the quietness of it. Spectacular lens though. If the 20mm is even close IQ-wise then it'll probably be worth it for me to switch them out and spend the extra money perhaps towards the 7-14 or some FD lenses.
 
admactanium said:
Very noisy. It sounds like a homemade robot wrestling match. Wheeet. Wheeet. Chunk.
quote]

That's fantastic for when i'm filming people doing the "robot" dance.

Does the 25mm Autofocus whilst recording video?

Is there a way to dampen the sound?

If the Leica were to AF in the middle of a deserted forest would anyone hear it? <joke
Click to expand...
 
admactanium, the 20 doesn't have the HD designation like the 14-140 has. It may still have some noise when focusing.

Incidentally your description of the 25 sounds like that of the Olympus's 17/2.8. Whirr whirr wheet click.
 
vip77 said:
admactanium said:
Very noisy. It sounds like a homemade robot wrestling match. Wheeet. Wheeet. Chunk.
quote]

That's fantastic for when i'm filming people doing the "robot" dance.

Does the 25mm Autofocus whilst recording video?

Is there a way to dampen the sound?

If the Leica were to AF in the middle of a deserted forest would anyone hear it? <joke
Click to expand...

From what I have read, it will auto focus except for the noise.
As to how noisy I do not know.
Ordered the 20mm f/1.7 and hope it is quiet and as good as the famed Summilux.
Hopefully Panasonic doesn't pull another "GH1 distribution" on this lens.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top