Good all around first lens
- Thread starter baseball
- Start date
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Which lenses do you have right now?
stoneinapond
Veteran
I think the lens you are referencing is for Four Thirds mount, which would require an adapter for use on a GH camera. Also, the new price for these is way above your budget, not including the adapter.
Sigma makes a very good micro four thirds lens for the GH2/works with all the menu functions and AF:
Sigma 30mm F2.8 EX DN- Micro 4/3
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-30mm-F2...62724&sr=1-1&keywords=sigma+micro+four+thirds
It's sharp and fast.
...and the 19mm version:
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-19mm-F2...&sr=8-2&keywords=Sigma+30mm+F2.8+EX+DN-+Micro
Last edited:
stoneinapond
Veteran
I tested these lenses out some time ago, and while decent, I wouldn't necessarily categorize them as sharp. But if I had to, I would use them.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Hmmmm. Since you want to also shoot weddings that puts you in an interesting situation. You can either go low light which means you may only be able to get one lens or versatile which will give you slower options. Not as good in low light. I just bought a used 14-140 for $450.00. Not very good in low light but covers a lot of uses for a wedding. Doesn't get the most shallow depth of field either but still can beat a traditional video camera.
You could consider getting some old vintage Canon FD lenses. A 50mm is dirt cheap. With your $600.00 budget you could actually buy a pretty decent set to cover almost everything except wide angle (sub 24mm). These are harder to shoot with however and may take awhile to get used to in a wedding environment. They also have no autofocus which I know kind of rules out one of your specifics but honestly it should still be in the running.
Another option is to get a 20mm f1.7 pancake and the 45-200 zoom. You should be able to get your hands on these for under your budget. You may even be able to cram in a 14-42 kit lens and still be close to your budget. Look for second hand if you can. This would give you decent versatility in good lighting like outdoors or well windowed churches/venues. You would then have the 20mm for when it got dark. I have seen an entire reception shot with the 20mm. Since you can use your feet and pretty much go where ever you want without restriction at a reception it makes sense. All these are auto focus and good lenses for the price. Anything thing auto focus beyond these you will be paying that for just one lens and many are double your budget for a single lens.
stoneinapond
Veteran
Easily covered by the budget and good suggestions.
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
You're both probably right. Here's why:
Sigma (like Tamron, Tokina, and other 3rd party lensmakers) does NOT have the production QC that the OEM folks like Canon, Nikon, Olympus, and Panasonic (Lumix and Panasonic/Leica lines) do. In the past when I printed a lot of assignments from folks who used 3rd party optics, I found Sigma was one of those brands where individual samples of the same design literally "bounced all over the place".
One would be quite sharp, another mediocre, and occasional one would be downright awful.
So one of you got a sharp sample, the other evaluated one that maybe fell between mediocre and OK.
You don't find out what you have until you "buy 'n try".
So the suggestion to start with the Lumix 20mm f1.7 is a very good one. The 45-200 is a pretty decent zoom. I have both and am very pleased with the results I get, I do use the 20mm a lot and frequently it is my walkaround lens (I am very used to working "close in").
If the OP could expand his budget a bit, the Olympus 45mm f1.8 is a very much sought after lens that is very sharp even wide open. The 20mm and 45mm would make a great working lowlight/available light pair of primes.
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
In most cases not very well. That's why I mentioned the Olympus 45mm f1.8, some movement would be necessary to position himself where the 45mm (90mm equivalent) would work but the wide aperture and quality of that lens could make up for not having a longer telephoto.
I used to cover whole weddings with the "normal" (80mm f2.8 Planar) lens on a Hasselblad.
The OP's budget is the limiting factor here. That Lumix 45-200mm could be somewhat useful in some fairly well lit church interiors if he was willing to push the ISO some. The "stock" firmware on the GH2 has a high limit of ISO 3200 in motion picture mode. Most of the various "hacks" remove that limitation, but I would try to stick with 3200. If he could get adequate exposure with that adequate exposure can hold the noise down.
The game gets better with the GH3 and it's better high ISO performance. But in the OP's situation I would stick with what "fast" primes could be afforded.
I used to cover whole weddings with the "normal" (80mm f2.8 Planar) lens on a Hasselblad.
The OP's budget is the limiting factor here. That Lumix 45-200mm could be somewhat useful in some fairly well lit church interiors if he was willing to push the ISO some. The "stock" firmware on the GH2 has a high limit of ISO 3200 in motion picture mode. Most of the various "hacks" remove that limitation, but I would try to stick with 3200. If he could get adequate exposure with that adequate exposure can hold the noise down.
The game gets better with the GH3 and it's better high ISO performance. But in the OP's situation I would stick with what "fast" primes could be afforded.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Welcome to the world of DSLR's. basically you have a choice between zooming and slow or primes and fast. There are the two awesome f2.8 zooms but each is over $1000.00. We can beat professional video cameras when we use primes and as Bruce said can usually work out very. When we do need zooms in the dark we have little to no options. Just the way it is. For your budget the lenses I listed will cover you in many situations but of course they are not perfect. Outside of spending a lot of cash on the fast f2.8 zooms the only other suggestion is to buy a video camera decent in low light and use that for your zooming shots. A 1/3" video camera will beat the GH2 with almost any lens outside of the fast primes.
For now however your $600.00 can get you a wide range of glass to be versatile enough to shoot an event. You may have to deal with a bit more grain and noise for now but that is just the way it is until you can afford to buy thousands of dollars worth of glass.
The other option like I mentioned is to use vintage glass. A 50mm Canon FD less f1.8 is $30.00. Sure it is full manual but like I said before you can buy a full army of FD primes for $600.00.
dustylense
Veteran
Look at the lumix pancakes 20 1.7 and the 14 2.5.
d1rockwild
Well-known member
Haven't used the Panasonic 12-50, but do have the Olympus 14-54mm f/2.8-3.5, which is also a four thirds lens. The AF for video is completely unusable. Very specifically unusable for video coverage at weddings. It's way, way, way too slow. From the info I gathered, there really aren't any good four thirds lenses adapted to m43 that have decent AF for video. Most don't support AFC, which is really what you need for filming event work anyway.
I would 2nd the 20mm+45mm. The 20mm can also be slow for event work. Usable, but it would miss a couple here and there when I've used it in the past. I would still opt for this option anyway given the budget, but now I'd know that I'd have to manual focus the 20mm. Which for the most part, would be totally fine. This also does put you over $600 most likely (might make it if used).
The 14-140 is definitely a get-the-job-done lens. It's not going to wow anyone aesthetically, but it is a workhorse for weddings. I like to think I have a good set of highly praised and desired lenses (Voigt 25, Panasonic 25 f/1.4, 50mm FD f/1.2L, 85mm FD f/1.2L, Olympus 45mm and Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8) and yet the modestly received 14-140 is just about indispensable for event work.
If the ceremony is during the day and fairly well lit, or at least, the church isn't particularly dark, then the 14-140 should be able to hang in there. Sometimes, the house lights are dim, but the lights where the bride and groom are, are actually well lit (sometimes).
Finding out the lighting conditions and size of your locations before purchase will probably help you figure it out nearly instantly (although you don't have a lens to go testing!)
My suggestion:
- Panasonic 14-140
- Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 (You can use the GH2's ETC mode to get a 130mm f/1.4, because in all likelyhood, the 50 will be too short). But this lens will get a lot done at the low-lit reception. In ETC mode, I'd recommend not shooting wide open at f/1.4 as the softness is more obvious. Also make sure you've assigned one of the GH2's function (fn) buttons to ETC to get you in and out of ETC as quickly as possible.)
- Canon FD 28mm f.2.8
I would 2nd the 20mm+45mm. The 20mm can also be slow for event work. Usable, but it would miss a couple here and there when I've used it in the past. I would still opt for this option anyway given the budget, but now I'd know that I'd have to manual focus the 20mm. Which for the most part, would be totally fine. This also does put you over $600 most likely (might make it if used).
The 14-140 is definitely a get-the-job-done lens. It's not going to wow anyone aesthetically, but it is a workhorse for weddings. I like to think I have a good set of highly praised and desired lenses (Voigt 25, Panasonic 25 f/1.4, 50mm FD f/1.2L, 85mm FD f/1.2L, Olympus 45mm and Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8) and yet the modestly received 14-140 is just about indispensable for event work.
If the ceremony is during the day and fairly well lit, or at least, the church isn't particularly dark, then the 14-140 should be able to hang in there. Sometimes, the house lights are dim, but the lights where the bride and groom are, are actually well lit (sometimes).
Finding out the lighting conditions and size of your locations before purchase will probably help you figure it out nearly instantly (although you don't have a lens to go testing!)
My suggestion:
- Panasonic 14-140
- Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 (You can use the GH2's ETC mode to get a 130mm f/1.4, because in all likelyhood, the 50 will be too short). But this lens will get a lot done at the low-lit reception. In ETC mode, I'd recommend not shooting wide open at f/1.4 as the softness is more obvious. Also make sure you've assigned one of the GH2's function (fn) buttons to ETC to get you in and out of ETC as quickly as possible.)
- Canon FD 28mm f.2.8
Last edited:
Sorry not trying to thread jack but had a quick question since these are already being discussed. If i were to purchase lets say the 30mm or the 19mm, putting these on the gh2 them being micro four thirds, would i get 30mm out of the 30mm and 19mm out of the 19mm or am i going to get like close to 60mm for the 30mm after crop etc..... Still not as knowledgeable with lenses as i would like to be. I know there are full frame lenses and regulars etc etc.. I have a canon 50mm 1.4 and that's close to like 90mm or 100mm when i put it on my gh2 and same goes with my canon 28mm 2.8 this goes to like around 55mm to 60mm.
Thanks in advance
You'll get as many opinions as you do responses... some people like using lots of primes, some prefer a few zooms, some can do without autofocus ability, etc.
There aren't any convincingly good quality, affordable, fast aperture, fast autofocusing zooms for m43. The older kit zooms are affordable and AF, but are slow aperture. The newer 12-35 and 35-100 are excellent, yet expensive. Many of the 4/3 zooms are affordable, good, and bright enough, but none of them autofocuses well in video mode.
I use the PL14-50/2.8-3.5 regularly, here's the cliff notes:
- Excellent image
- wonderfully easy and smooth to use; rings (focus, zoom, aperture) are close, distinguishable, and easy to manipulate with one finger
- OIS works
- AF effectively doesn't work (much the same for any 4/3 lens)
The recommendation of the 20/1.7 is good, except this lens' autofocus is horrible... barely better than the 4/3 zooms. The 14-140 has dreamy range and AF speed, but I can barely stomach to use it in unlit interiors.
My only real recommendation within your specs: the PanaLeica 25/1.4 (m43 mount). It's under $600, autofocus is excellent, fast enough for any situation with good selective focus and bokeh, an excellent image (even in ETC mode), and comes in any focal length you like so long as it's 25mm.
So yeah... it all comes down to where you choose to compromise on your specs.
There aren't any convincingly good quality, affordable, fast aperture, fast autofocusing zooms for m43. The older kit zooms are affordable and AF, but are slow aperture. The newer 12-35 and 35-100 are excellent, yet expensive. Many of the 4/3 zooms are affordable, good, and bright enough, but none of them autofocuses well in video mode.
I use the PL14-50/2.8-3.5 regularly, here's the cliff notes:
- Excellent image
- wonderfully easy and smooth to use; rings (focus, zoom, aperture) are close, distinguishable, and easy to manipulate with one finger
- OIS works
- AF effectively doesn't work (much the same for any 4/3 lens)
The recommendation of the 20/1.7 is good, except this lens' autofocus is horrible... barely better than the 4/3 zooms. The 14-140 has dreamy range and AF speed, but I can barely stomach to use it in unlit interiors.
My only real recommendation within your specs: the PanaLeica 25/1.4 (m43 mount). It's under $600, autofocus is excellent, fast enough for any situation with good selective focus and bokeh, an excellent image (even in ETC mode), and comes in any focal length you like so long as it's 25mm.
So yeah... it all comes down to where you choose to compromise on your specs.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I know this eliminates auto focus but you may also want to consider some of the Tamron Nikon mount constant f2.8 zooms. There is a very good one that is 18mm-50mm and around $500.00 right now. Not a super long reach but a nice bright zoom lens. You can get fairly cheap adapters now that will have a aperture control on the adapter. Not a perfect situation but a great lens for $500.00. There is also a decent priced 70-200 f2.8. Out of your current price range but together about the same price of the Lumix 35-100. You loose optical stabilization and auto focus and electronic aperture control but if you are on a tripod during a ceremony may be a great option.
18mm should be wide enough as well. Considering the 20mm can be a work horse for weddings a 18mm should be a nice slightly wider than normal FOV.
Correction that is a 17-50 lens not a 18-50 so a tiny bit wider.
There is also a 28-75 for the same price with a bit more reach.
Last edited: