GH3 GH3 video lens

[mcbob]

I've heard many people recommend this lens for doc shooting. Out of curiosity, why do you feel it's a good lens for this purpose? Does it have to do with the OIS and versatility of focal lengths? Or is it more about the overall aesthetics of the lens?

Rough feeling, but with the 14-140 my AF100 feels a lot like my old HVX on full manual - a useful zoom range, easy to control, but with poor low light performance. Usually it's fine for any lit location (exterior day, stadium, lab, stage, studio), but inadequate if there isn't some significant light source. Focus is more selective, of course, even with the 14-140. GH2 + 14-140 just shrinks the visual side of that.

Unlit indoors or near dusk, I'll take one of the 4/3 midrange/midspeed zooms (14-54, 14-50, 12-60) any day over the 14-140.

 

[mcbob]

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the new 4/3 Metabones Speedbooster...

hear you loud and clear.

I'm sure I say this in every Speedbooster reference... Reportedly the m43 SB will be able to convert DX-coverage lenses as well. I'm hopefully (and somewhat giddily) awaiting the repeatable-focusing, mechanically parfocal, $500 Tokina "8-12/f2," $300 Tamron "12-35/f2," and $500 Sigma "35-105/f2."

 

[sky17]

I don't have any first hand experience with the 14-45. I've read that it was more solid built, some claim it may have been a bit better optically, but I hate to pass on advice based on what others say without knowing the validity of the source better. The 14-42 is the least expensive to build that Panasonic could include with all of their m4/3 cameras and give the buyer enough flexibility to start getting decent pictures.

I have the Olympus Zuiko version (about 1/3 the physical size of the Lumix) 14-42 and was impressed by it's image quality when I shot a test of the same subject first with the Lumix 14mm prime then the 14mm end of the Oly "kit" lens. I had to really "pixel peep" to see any difference in edge outlines. Projected on an 80 inch screen I could see no difference in image quality.

These roughly 3:1 "kit" zooms do quite well at a price point that doesn't force those just buying a camera to invest heavily in lenses. There are better lenses but it's amazing how well these "kit" lenses perform as a general purpose limited range zoom.

Why do I prefer primes? It's a combination of fast aperture for low light work and sharper optics overall. This gets a little more apparent in the m4/3 arena than it was in the Canon APS-C system. The Lumix 14mm is a very crisp imaging lens, the Lumix 20mm has earned a rep for being very sharp although some feel it is a bit slow on autofocus (I haven't found this to be a problem). The Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4 and the Oly 45mm f1.8 are amazingly sharp even wide open as well as throughout the aperture range and both lenses are very highly sought after for that reason.

Yet when I head out the door and feel I have to have a camera with me, I may very well pick up a GH2 with that 14-42, very light in weight and that lens is capable of more than many will give it credit for.

FWIW my experience level is: 10 years sideline wedding & portrait work while still on active duty in the air force; 10 years of operating my own portrait, wedding, & commercial studio; and 13 years as a civilian staff photographer on an air force training base, after which I retired and eventually got into independent video mostly at a personal level.

Bruce, thanks again for a detailed explanation. This is quite an interesting experience you have!
I am liking the idea of having one fast aperture prime. Something to consider now.

 

[sky17]

I agree. I usually shy away from large ratio zooms, but the 14-140mm is quite a good lens, especially for doc or event shooting. With a good fast prime lens like the 20mm, you'd have a great complementary two-lens kit to start.

I'd love for someone to make a 25mm image stabilized fast prime. Hint, hint...

Jbklynnyc, thank you! I like this combination. So as the 14-140 covers the focal range of the 14-42, would the different aperture be that much of a problem (in indoor video mainly) if I am using light aid? Given, too, that if I got the 14-140, I most probably I'll try to find a used nice fast prime.

 

[sky17]

Sure.

Asahi Takurmur 50mm 1.4
Canon FD 50mm 1.4
Zeiss Distagaon 25mm 2.8
Pancake 20mm 1.7

All primes.

Fresno, thanks! I see all primes second time around. Interesting. I am reading more and more about the advantage of having at least one fast lens in my kit.

 

[sky17]

Yes, that's exactly why. Doc shooting doesn't always happen in the ideal situations. If you don't have time to change lenses, and you are for example following a subject around and shooting handheld, you want a stabilized lens where you can vary shots and composition readily.

Informative! Thanks.

 

[sky17]

One of the reasons I'm looking forward to the new 4/3 Metabones Speedbooster is our investment in great Canon glass (and Sigma.)

I've really liked what I've gotten in the little work I've been able to do with the 20mm 1.7 and the 45mm Zuiko but because of the nature of so much of our work, I really need the flexibility of great zooms.
The best overall zoom I've ever used for field work is the Canon 24-105L f/4 IS
The Metabones adapter will make it a 35-150mm f2.8 with IS (in FF terms) which is kind of the sweet spot for an all in one zoom range, and I can only imagine how good it will look on the GH3 throughout the range.
It's why I cancelled my order for the 12-35mm and 35-100mm Lumix zooms.

I'm still seeing/using the GH3 as a second and third camera but seriously considering making them the A and B cameras for most of what we do...if I can continue to evolve the look we're getting.

Jimagine, thank you for sharing your experience with the GH3 and adopter/canon glass.

 

[sky17]

Rough feeling, but with the 14-140 my AF100 feels a lot like my old HVX on full manual - a useful zoom range, easy to control, but with poor low light performance. Usually it's fine for any lit location (exterior day, stadium, lab, stage, studio), but inadequate if there isn't some significant light source. Focus is more selective, of course, even with the 14-140. GH2 + 14-140 just shrinks the visual side of that.

Unlit indoors or near dusk, I'll take one of the 4/3 midrange/midspeed zooms (14-54, 14-50, 12-60) any day over the 14-140.

Mcbob, thank you for sharing.

My question (to all), compared to the 14-42, is the low light performance considerably worse? For my work I will always use light equipment, but for my personal usage seems hard to always have well lit indoor atmosphere. Also, I did try the 14-140 only one day on a GH2 as trial opportunity I got. I was trying to shoot a test interview and felt the range between me and the subject is so close; I couldn't feel comfortable but couldn't pin exactly why and thought I probably did something wrong. That is equivalent 28-280mm (right?). Seems so long for (mainly) interviews. My other trial that day was with a canon (with adopter) 18-135/f.3.5-5.6 and it felt easier to handle interview shots. Any feedback on this appreciated. Pardon me for asking so many questions guys!

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Mcbob, thank you for sharing.

My question (to all), compared to the 14-42, is the low light performance considerably worse?

No.

The difference in maximum aperture is about 1/3 stop between the 14-140 f4 and the 14-42 f3.5, so the difference is not "considerable". Tests I ran with my Canon 7D when I first got it, a night street scene at f4 to see if I could live with the max aperture of f4 on the two "L" series lenses I was considering showed I could if I was willing to accept a little noise at ISO 3200-6400.

However those two Lumix lenses are both variable aperture so the f3.5 on one and f4 on the other are contingent on staying at the 14mm wide angle end of them. As the lens is zoomed to use the longer focal lengths the aperture gets smaller.

So having the 20mm f1.7 and the 45mm f1.8 available in the bag for lowlight work opens up the possibilities tremendously. Being able to work with improved ISO 6400 with any lens setup.

 

[jimagine]

And regarding the 20mm and 45mm primes. As a guy who's mostly shot Canon and Nikon primes and occasionally Zeiss SS, these tiny lenses aren't just fast, they're amazingly sharp. The 20mm, for instance, is as sharp or aharper than my Canon and Nikon 50mm 1.2s or the Sigma 1.4 (still my favorite 50mm) and those are really wonderful lenses.

 

[sky17]

No.

The difference in maximum aperture is about 1/3 stop between the 14-140 f4 and the 14-42 f3.5, so the difference is not "considerable". Tests I ran with my Canon 7D when I first got it, a night street scene at f4 to see if I could live with the max aperture of f4 on the two "L" series lenses I was considering showed I could if I was willing to accept a little noise at ISO 3200-6400.

However those two Lumix lenses are both variable aperture so the f3.5 on one and f4 on the other are contingent on staying at the 14mm wide angle end of them. As the lens is zoomed to use the longer focal lengths the aperture gets smaller.

So having the 20mm f1.7 and the 45mm f1.8 available in the bag for lowlight work opens up the possibilities tremendously. Being able to work with improved ISO 6400 with any lens setup.

Bruce, great advice! Thank you so much... I will shop for a prime (or 2 if lucky/used) now online and see if I can get a good deal. Same time I am keeping the 14-140 seriously in mind now for general use and outdoors and well-lit scenes.

 

[sky17]

And regarding the 20mm and 45mm primes. As a guy who's mostly shot Canon and Nikon primes and occasionally Zeiss SS, these tiny lenses aren't just fast, they're amazingly sharp. The 20mm, for instance, is as sharp or aharper than my Canon and Nikon 50mm 1.2s or the Sigma 1.4 (still my favorite 50mm) and those are really wonderful lenses.

Jimagine, big thanks to you too! Re-inforcing what Bruce advised will give me the push I need to shop now for primes with fast aperture.

 

[Bruce Foreman]

Sky17:

Re: 14-42 "kit" lens.

At his price, this is a "NO BRAINER"

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?302260-Lumix-14-42-Like-new

 

[sky17]

Bruce, thank you! This is a no brainer; I'll contact him. But I just wanted to have good zoom for outdoors as well Guess that's greed for now and I have to make tough choices.

Question:

If I had to choose one prime, which? 14mm/f.2.5 or 20mm/f.1.7? (Assuming I am also buying the 14-140 or 14-42) and my work mainly interviews as a starters.

 

[mcbob]

For interviews, definitely at least the 20/1.7, and possibly an inexpensive legacy 50/1.7-1.8 as well (I had good luck with a Vivitar 50/1.7 matching the 20/1.7).

 

[J.F.R.]

Bruce, thank you! This is a no brainer; I'll contact him. But I just wanted to have good zoom for outdoors as well Guess that's greed for now and I have to make tough choices.

Question:

If I had to choose one prime, which? 14mm/f.2.5 or 20mm/f.1.7? (Assuming I am also buying the 14-140 or 14-42) and my work mainly interviews as a starters.

14 and 20mm are too wide for interviews , look into the 25mm-50mm area for this. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.5 or Olympus 45mm would be the lens for low light and bokeh you are looking for. or as suggested above a legacy 50mm if you want to save some money....

 

[sky17]

For interviews, definitely at least the 20/1.7, and possibly an inexpensive legacy 50/1.7-1.8 as well (I had good luck with a Vivitar 50/1.7 matching the 20/1.7).

Mcbob, thank you. I never heard of the legacy 50/1.7 recommended here so I googled some and there are amazing reviews. Zuiko 50mm/1.4 has good results with videos and boukeh and prices at ebay are around 100. There's the konika hexanon 50mm/f1.7. The vivitar is sold at very good prices on ebay. Problem I never used these before. How are they in general regarding user-friendly? Do I need any special knowldge? And, what kind of adopter do I need? I have none.

 

[mcbob]

14 and 20mm are too wide for interviews....

. Nonsense... I used the 20 and now a 17.5 all the time for a medium to wide interview shot to either make the most of a small space or get a sense of environment.

Mcbob, thank you. I never heard of the legacy 50/1.7 recommended here so I googled some and there are amazing reviews. Zuiko 50mm/1.4 has good results with videos and boukeh and prices at ebay are around 100. There's the konika hexanon 50mm/f1.7. The vivitar is sold at very good prices on ebay. Problem I never used these before. How are they in general regarding user-friendly? Do I need any special knowldge? And, what kind of adopter do I need? I have none.

it depends what you consider "user friendly". They only go full manual, which is usually perfect for simple interviews: dial it in and forget it.

 

[sky17]

14 and 20mm are too wide for interviews , look into the 25mm-50mm area for this. The Panasonic 25mm f/1.5 or Olympus 45mm would be the lens for low light and bokeh you are looking for. or as suggested above a legacy 50mm if you want to save some money....

JFR, thank you. I am bouncing ideas here and seems the bounce is working. I don't mind that as long as I astill not buying anything yet.

Your comment seems to ring a bell here. A couple of posts above I mentioned that I tried the 14-140 and felt something was wrong in an interview test. I had to do much effort to reach the adequate focal zoom suitable to the small room. I am not sure exactly how to describe this more technically. THat could be related to your note. I have to try it out to know how it suits my needs, I know. Price-wise, I like the 50mm legacy lenses. They are certainly an option. Yet, for a zoom and outdoors, I would need another lens such 14-42 or 14-140.

 

[sky17]

. Nonsense... I used the 20 and now a 17.5 all the time for a medium to wide interview shot to either make the most of a small space or get a sense of environment.

it depends what you consider "user friendly". They only go full manual, which is usually perfect for simple interviews: dial it in and forget it.

Mcbob, thanks for the explanation about the legacy lenses. I don't mind manual.

Regarding the interview, I am not sure exactly what bothered me in the 14-140; I was probably not at home yet with the m4/3 and Gh in general for one day trial. But I felt very far from my subject. I kind of wanted to zoom in more not go physically close to them. I thought I needed less then 14. (This could be not a good idea anyways.) I know hard to tell on my behalf, but could you comment on what could be the reason of that discomfort? Is that common for new users of m43?