GH2 kit setup (lenses)

T

thebighappyface

Active member
Hi,

Everybody has been so helpful around here so first and formost i would like to thank you all!

Im on a budget and am going to by a gh2. If you were to pick, would you get the gh2 with the 14-42 and the 20mm pancake, or the 14-140? Im also thinking about picking up some older manual nikon lenses. If you were on a budget, what lens set up would you go with?

Thanks again!
 
You could post this in the lens sub forum.


Is this for stills, video or both?

I don't have the 14-42, but the have 20mm and 14-140. The 20mm is an excellent performer optically and is quite fast to boot. It's AF for video is rather counterproductive, so if you are willing to do manual focus in video, take it by all means.

The 14-140 covers a useful range and is good quality lens for video & stills considering the size, IQ, OIS, AF in video etc. On the downside, it turns into a paper weight in low light scenarios.

I don't know about the cost implications or availability, but 14-140 + 20mm would be a better combo as they compliment each others weaknesses.
 
Let's not forget the 14mm f/2.5 pancake coming out too - I can't wait for that lens. I was going to pick up the samyang 14mm f/2.8 with an adapter but it's basically impossible to use filters on that lens and so I will wait for the pancake. You should see a pancake with an anamorphic adapter attached (have done it with the Olympus 17mm f/2.8...not recommended for the faint of heart).
 
Being on a budget, I would proceed gradually.

- First I would purchase the camera with the 14-42mm kit lens. This lens should be inexpensive as a kit lens and covers the need of a walk around lens both for stills and for video. Should be enough to see how the camera behaves, strengths and weaknesses.

- Then I would gradually build a fast vintage prime lens set (mainly for video, but also for low light photography, alas with no autofocus -for photos I intend-). Manual lenses are imho better for video, because they are indeed dedicated manual focus lenses and may have better feel while focusing and longer rotation of the focusing ring.

Being on a budget I would consider Canon FD mount lenses which are proven to be excellent on the gh1 and relatively inexpensive.
I'd look at the following focal lengths:
1) 20mm or 24 mm f 1.8 - 2.0 (as my normal lens)
2) 35 mm and/or 50mm f 1.4 or f 1.8 - 2.0 (as my medium length - portrait)
3) and then some short telephoto (85mm, or 100mm or 135mm) which would cover the longer end. The last one if longer than 85mm may not be very fast since it would probably get limited use indoors.

M42 Pentax lenses are also a fine alternative but they usually fetch higher prices because are sought after by other dslr brands users too.

You can consider more expensive vintage lenses as Zeiss Contax Yashica too which would be breathtaking for 16mp stills, but then we would not talk about a limited budget.

In the above approach you loose the wider end of the range but then you could look at the Zenitar fisheye 16mm 2.8 lens or the new 14mm Panasonic.
 
I do understand you are on a budget, but I have to say there is a real difference with good glass. I have an assortment of pretty good Pentax lenses from my film SLR days and have tried them on the GH13 with adapters. I have not been satisfied with the image sharpness and chromatic aberrations. The problem is that these full frame 35mm lenses don't resolve as well as a lens designed for the smaller micro 4/3 sensor. I find that even the 14-140 kit zoom is much sharper than the old SLR lenses. So, I would save my pennies and buy either native micro 4/3 lenses, the original 4/3 mount lenses, or only the best of the SLR lenses (Canon L glass or Zeiss).

In micro 4/3, I currently own the 14-140 kit lens, 20mm, 45mm macro, and for those wide shots, the 7-14mm zoom. I will be picking up the new 100-300mm for bird shots (I do nature photography and videos). I consider all of these lenses to be really fine and am amazed at the results with all of them. You get the benefit of lens meta data, autofocus, auto aperture, and image stabilization (on some). Of course, you can turn the automation off when this is preferred. The only down side to the micro 4/3 lenses is the free spinning focus ring, which makes focus pulling harder. These lenses will work on the AF100 if you want to move up later. Some people want power zoom for the AF100 to make it like an ENG camera, but my feeling is that good cinema should use very few zoom pulls.

Indications are that the GH2 has better resolution than even the hacked GH13, so it will show up lens flaws even more than the GH1 or GH13. What people have found usable on the GH13 may not be good enough for the GH2 to get the best results. After doing my own testing, I think there is no substitute for great glass. I am sure this will become even more true in the future when there is a GH3 (LOL!). Remember that the camera bodies will change over time, but the glass is an investment for a long time to come.
 
Budget restrictions aside, from my point of view, the choice of older glass is a conscious one. Vintage glass has character and it confers a great (more "cinematic") look to the footage. Regarding resolution, even old glass outperforms the sensor's resolution especially for video.
If you want to shoot stills of course autofocus is handy. But then again I think my best shots on the t2i were taken with old m42 glass from the sixties. Panasonic has the advantage of being able to adapt almost any lens. You just have to be creative.
 
Hey guys,

I plan on buying the GH2 as well. I was considering the Canon's T2i/550D, 60D and Nikon's D7000 as well. I think I'm set on the GH2 though.

What lenses would you recommend for portraits -- getting a more extreme shallow DOF?
And what lens would you use for low-lighting shooting -- especially for video ?

My plan is to get a good all-around Lumix lens that is compatible with the AF system. I'll buy a lens adapter for my old Canon tele.
After that, I think I'll need a pancake lens or a nice wide angle...
 
NPrincen said:
I do understand you are on a budget, but I have to say there is a real difference with good glass. I have an assortment of pretty good Pentax lenses from my film SLR days and have tried them on the GH13 with adapters. I have not been satisfied with the image sharpness and chromatic aberrations. The problem is that these full frame 35mm lenses don't resolve as well as a lens designed for the smaller micro 4/3 sensor. I find that even the 14-140 kit zoom is much sharper than the old SLR lenses. So, I would save my pennies and buy either native micro 4/3 lenses, the original 4/3 mount lenses, or only the best of the SLR lenses (Canon L glass or Zeiss).

In micro 4/3, I currently own the 14-140 kit lens, 20mm, 45mm macro, and for those wide shots, the 7-14mm zoom. I will be picking up the new 100-300mm for bird shots (I do nature photography and videos). I consider all of these lenses to be really fine and am amazed at the results with all of them. You get the benefit of lens meta data, autofocus, auto aperture, and image stabilization (on some). Of course, you can turn the automation off when this is preferred. The only down side to the micro 4/3 lenses is the free spinning focus ring, which makes focus pulling harder. These lenses will work on the AF100 if you want to move up later. Some people want power zoom for the AF100 to make it like an ENG camera, but my feeling is that good cinema should use very few zoom pulls.

Indications are that the GH2 has better resolution than even the hacked GH13, so it will show up lens flaws even more than the GH1 or GH13. What people have found usable on the GH13 may not be good enough for the GH2 to get the best results. After doing my own testing, I think there is no substitute for great glass. I am sure this will become even more true in the future when there is a GH3 (LOL!). Remember that the camera bodies will change over time, but the glass is an investment for a long time to come.
Click to expand...

The Canon "L" lenses are prized for the ruggedness of the build as compared to other Canon lenses. "L" lenses are built for journalists who may be diving in and out of foxholes and the like. As for sharpness they are on a par with equivalent good lenses.
 
I'd get the 14-140mm now, get some fast cheap nikon primes or equivelant, then later get the 20mm.
 
Black_Ste said:
The 20mm is an excellent performer optically and is quite fast to boot. It's AF for video is rather counterproductive, so if you are willing to do manual focus in video, take it by all means.
.
Click to expand...

When you mean the AF for video is counterproductive, are you refering to just the AF noise? or AF speed? If speed I wonder if that will change with the GH2 since the AF speed is improved over the GH1
 
Dazza said:
When you mean the AF for video is counterproductive, are you refering to just the AF noise? or AF speed? If speed I wonder if that will change with the GH2 since the AF speed is improved over the GH1
Click to expand...

The 20mm AF tends focus hunt, which is not so cool when in video. I will not trust AF of 20mm on my Gh1 to do anything important. There is AF noise as well, but that's not a major drawback for me.

I doubt GH2 can make the 20mm act like a 14-140 AF equivalent. It is certainly not built for that.
 
Black_Ste said:
The 20mm AF tends focus hunt, which is not so cool when in video. I will not trust AF of 20mm on my Gh1 to do anything important. There is AF noise as well, but that's not a major drawback for me.<br />
<br />
I doubt GH2 can make the 20mm act like a 14-140 AF equivalent. It is certainly not built for that.
Click to expand...
<br />
<br />
It might help the focus hunting, by all sounds of it the AF of the GH2 isn't just faster it is far more accurate due to the increased processing power and better detection algorithms. I guess we'll find out in a few days
 
thank you for all the great lens info for first time buyers! I was wondering if you could suggest some filters too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top