GH3 Glass recommendation for GH3... Budget -> 1000 in total

Adamsenoj said:
Nice reply with firmly made points using the ALL CAPITALS IN GIANT BOLD LETTERS shouting style. But oh boy, did you miss the point? After reading all the explanations about focus by wire and how the focus work on the lens and how to use single autofocus + manual assist and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, I was sure you totally missed the point. I didn't say it's a nightmare to focus because it's not real manual focus or because how the focus works. I said that because the lens is just too small. It's an ergonomic problem. The lens is so thin that it's hard to access the focus ring, specially without getting your hand in front of the lens and in the shot. Now, my wife has much less of a problem with that, because well, she's a girl and has tiny hands. But I have a very hard time. Try to pull your own focus during a shot while you pan and tilt and tell me how that goes. Now, if you are one of those shooters who rely on auto focus then this is a moot point. I don't.
Of course it's my opinion. What else? But I have seen several people complain about this very same thing here.
Click to expand...


I thought the only thing that mattered to you was "Image Quality"....... Now think about your post regarding the 20mm by Panasonic to then understand what we have been telling you about the GH2 to GH3..... Think about it......
Just like I told you, "Image Quality" is not the only thing that warrants an upgrade/change.
 
Stab said:
Do the Panny 14mm pancake and the 20mm pancake take a variable ND filter? I have one that is 67 mm, could I use that with a 'step up' ring on these lenses?
Click to expand...

Yes, they do. The route I took (since I have all "native" m4/3rds lenses with no filter threads larger than 52mm) was 46-52mm step up rings and all my ND filters including the variable are 52mm it solved my needs. You could definitely use a 46-67mm step up ring but the 52mm would be perhaps a more ergonimic fit.

Really your choice, though. But one thing to beware of with variable ND filters, many of the "native" m4\3rds optics seem to be sensitive to internal reflections and with a variable ND filter you are adding two more potentially highly reflective surfaces. I'm having pretty good luck if I can get a deep enough rubber lens hood on the end without vignetting. Otherwise I use single strength "black glass".
 
Last edited:
Adamsenoj said:
Nice reply with firmly made points using the ALL CAPITALS IN GIANT BOLD LETTERS shouting style. But oh boy, did you miss the point? After reading all the explanations about focus by wire and how the focus work on the lens and how to use single autofocus + manual assist and yadda, yadda, yadda, yadda, I was sure you totally missed the point. I didn't say it's a nightmare to focus because it's not real manual focus or because how the focus works. I said that because the lens is just too small. It's an ergonomic problem. The lens is so thin that it's hard to access the focus ring, specially without getting your hand in front of the lens and in the shot. Now, my wife has much less of a problem with that, because well, she's a girl and has tiny hands. But I have a very hard time. Try to pull your own focus during a shot while you pan and tilt and tell me how that goes. Now, if you are one of those shooters who rely on auto focus then this is a moot point. I don't.
Of course it's my opinion. What else? But I have seen several people complain about this very same thing here.
Click to expand...

The main thing I differed with was the "nightmare to focus" statement. Yes, ergonomics and hand size can have a lot to do with it. I have medium sized hands but I've never let my hand size get in the way.

In the 23 years I worked as a professional (still) photographer I had to be flexible enough to pick up anything in the shop and come back with pictures the client specified. In the close to 10 years I taught Defensive Handgun I had to be able to demonstrate (and get good hits) with whatever handgun my client brought to the class whatever the ergonomics of the "piece" were.

I didn't mean to start an argument with you, your opinions are just as valid to you as mine are to me. But when offering advice we have to be careful that what we offer does not get in the way of the OP seeking the item (find a friend who has one) and trying it out for himself. Then making his own decision.

You could have qualified your advice by stating outright that the size is too small but you have large hands. That way you remain objective.

Again, just my opinion. But opinions are like noses...We all have one.
 
J.F.R. said:
I thought the only thing that mattered to you was "Image Quality"....... Now think about your post regarding the 20mm by Panasonic to then understand what we have been telling you about the GH2 to GH3..... Think about it......
Just like I told you, "Image Quality" is not the only thing that warrants an upgrade/change.
Click to expand...

You are right. Image quality! But did I say it was the only thing or that it was the most important? There's a big difference.
But regardless, in this case, why would I have to put up with a pancake lens when there are other options with great quality and better ergonomics for basically the same price? Or why would I need to worry about the image quality of the 20mm F1.7 when I have CP.2s? Besides there's nothing ergonomically superior to the GH3 over the GH2 when it comes to video. You need a rig for serious work and handheld no matter what. So I don't know what you on about. Apples and oranges really.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Foreman said:
The main thing I differed with was the "nightmare to focus" statement. Yes, ergonomics and hand size can have a lot to do with it. I have medium sized hands but I've never let my hand size get in the way.

In the 23 years I worked as a professional (still) photographer I had to be flexible enough to pick up anything in the shop and come back with pictures the client specified. In the close to 10 years I taught Defensive Handgun I had to be able to demonstrate (and get good hits) with whatever handgun my client brought to the class whatever the ergonomics of the "piece" were.

I didn't mean to start an argument with you, your opinions are just as valid to you as mine are to me. But when offering advice we have to be careful that what we offer does not get in the way of the OP seeking the item (find a friend who has one) and trying it out for himself. Then making his own decision.

You could have qualified your advice by stating outright that the size is too small but you have large hands. That way you remain objective.

Again, just my opinion. But opinions are like noses...We all have one.
Click to expand...

I did say the problem I had with it was that it was too small.

By the way, still photography is a totally different situation. You don't need to pull focus in the middle of a photograph because it's just one frame.
 
stoneinapond said:
You're kidding, right? Now I know why my photos all come out blurry. I guess I've been doing it wrong all along. :Drogar-Thinking(DBG
Click to expand...

Dude, are you really that...
You focus before you take the photograph, not while you are taking it, because that would be impossible since it's just one frame. Unless you are like Superman with super speed. With video you need to constantly change focus during the recording. How's that possible with a still?
Sorry to have to break it down in childish terms for you to understand. Or maybe your will to flame was so intense that made you overlook what was actually written?
 
Adamsenoj said:
Besides there's nothing ergonomically superior to the GH3 over the GH2 when it comes to video. You need a rig for serious work and handheld no matter what.
Click to expand...
The GH3 is larger so it's no longer a fiddly little plastic toy. That's ergonomically superior. The GH3 has separate controls for shutter & aperture versus that stupid little push wheel thing. That's ergonomically superior. Need I go on?
 
nigelbb said:
The GH3 is larger so it's no longer a fiddly little plastic toy. That's ergonomically superior. The GH3 has separate controls for shutter & aperture versus that stupid little push wheel thing. That's ergonomically superior. Need I go on?
Click to expand...

But you still need a rig to shoot handheld in any serious way, so for video it doesn't matter, like I said. If you have it on sticks, crane, dolly or steadycam then it doesn't matter.
The shutter and aperture is nice, except that all my lens are fully manual, but one, and I never touch the shutter really. It's always at 1/50. I never use it for exposure and as I shoot exclusively 24p with the GH2 I never really touch it. To each his own. Everybody has his own needs.
 
Adamsenoj said:
Dude, are you really that...
You focus before you take the photograph, not while you are taking it, because that would be impossible since it's just one frame. Unless you are like Superman with super speed. With video you need to constantly change focus during the recording. How's that possible with a still?
Sorry to have to break it down in childish terms for you to understand. Or maybe your will to flame was so intense that made you overlook what was actually written?
Click to expand...

Thanks for the explanation. It wasn't really necessary, I was just foolin' with you. Guess you missed that. :happy:
 
I think someone needs to calm down.

@Stab, have you looked at the Olympus 12-60mm f/2.8-4? I had the SLR Magic 12mm, have the voigtlander 25mm, 50mm/1.2L, 85mm/1.2L and 35-100/2.8 as my most valuable lenses, as well as the Olympus 14-54mm. If I had to downsize my lens list, I'd definitely take a look at the Olympus 12-60. When I hear "Corporate work" I think decent lighting, and predictable subject movement.

I can't think of a better all arounder than this lens other than the 14-140, which is slower, but has image stablization and larger zoom range, which I don't think you'd need that extra reach for what you may be shooting. Plus, there's always the ETC mode on the GH2/3 if you're in a pinch.

This lens, plus the adapter will put you at around $800-900. To strictly keep it under $1000 total, I'd add a vintage 50mm f/1.4, depending on how important a low light lens is to you, otherwise, stretching yourself to the Olympus 45mm makes sense in terms of matching lens profiles.
 
Also a big 4/3 normal zoom fan. The 12-60, 14-54, and Leica 14-50 all have their advantages and are in the sweet spot of range.

Another more flexible option:
Nikon mount adapter
Tokina 11-16/2.8
Tamron 28-105/2.8

A bit over $1K new, but if you find either lens or adapter used, obviously that brings it into budget. Add in a fast 24 (Samyang/Rokinon, for example) as needs dictate.
 
Hmm that Tokina 11-16 looks interesting, might 'replace' the 14mm an 20mm pancakes... Will research :)

Question: Can M4/3 lenses also be mounted on a APS-C sensor camera? So if I buy M4/3 lenses now like the Olympus 45mm 1.8, can that later be used with another camera with a slightly larger sensor?
 
I haven't read through the whole thread, but here's what I would get:

1 - Tokina 11-16mm Nikon mount f/2.8 ~$500
2 - Canon FD 28mm f/2 ~$100
3 - Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 ~$75
4 - Canon FD 35-105mm f/3.5 ~$75
5 - Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm kit lens (for IS and AF when you need it, I find it good to have for run and gun) ~$50
6 - Canon FD 100mm f/2 ~$200

2x Fotodiox adapter ~$50

Total: ~$1050. All used, eBay or marketplace here.

I pretty much have this kit and it's great. I also have a Voigtlander 25mm though, so my FD 28mm doesn't come out too often.
 
Last edited:
Thanks guys.

1 question about the Tokina 11-16 mm. It has no manual aperture control, so it needs communication with the camera... Is that going to be an expensive adapter? Cause then it's not worth in anymore. And does that work correctly?
 
Stab said:
Thanks guys.

1 question about the Tokina 11-16 mm. It has no manual aperture control, so it needs communication with the camera... Is that going to be an expensive adapter? Cause then it's not worth in anymore. And does that work correctly?
Click to expand...

Nikon lenses adjust aperture with a lever on the lens that can be controlled by the Nikon G adapter. Canon adapters are expensive because they require electronic aperture control.
 
nigelbb said:
The GH3 is larger so it's no longer a fiddly little plastic toy. That's ergonomically superior. The GH3 has separate controls for shutter & aperture versus that stupid little push wheel thing. That's ergonomically superior. Need I go on?
Click to expand...

+10000

I promise on everything to never reply to someone who just doesn't get it, but thank you for replying Exactly what I was going too
peace


Finally look at his original post when he received the GH2
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...era-is-just-R-I-D-I-C-U-L-O-U-S-!!&highlight=

Clearly mentions the small camera and buttons being a problem for him. Now with the GH3 those problems are no more
Case closed people..........
 
Last edited:
The wider body also allows me to open the battery compartment with the QR plate attached on tripod or Rig. That is huge. No more sawing notches into my QR plates.
 
RatLabProductions said:
Nikon lenses adjust aperture with a lever on the lens that can be controlled by the Nikon G adapter. Canon adapters are expensive because they require electronic aperture control.
Click to expand...

Or keep a Canon body in your bag. Set the aperture digitally, remove the lens locked at the precise F-stop you want.
If you don't have a Canon body, a cheap film EOS can be purchased for the price of shipping these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top