GH2 Help me choose a lens please!

C

craigbuckley

Active member
My budget is around $1200. I am about to purchase the Gh2 on amazon and I am going to get the kit lens 14-42mm that comes with it, but I still have 300 left in my budget or so and I want to purchase a nicer lens with the camera as well... I am just getting into using DSLR, so I don't need anything too complicated. I am mainly getting this setup to shoot short films. I was thinking about the lumix G 20mm pancake lens, but I was also pointed in the direction of the panasonic 14-140mm micro four thirds lens... Which one would be better if I am going to have the Gh2 with the kit lens already, or do you have another lens in this price range you suggest? Remember, its for video. Thanks for all the help. Seriously.

C
 
go for the kiron 28mm f 2.0, make sure the blades are clean and not sticking. i have the 28, and 24mm both f2.0, their beautiful, sharp as a tack and smooth. plus the bokah is nice to.
 
no, dont get that, i usually go with the canon Fd mount, but yes, you will need an adapter to convert to m4/3rds mount. Check ebay. Vivitar from what I understand did make the lens for kiron, and also a few other brands back in the day. But it's important to make sure they have a working iris. Apparently they used a grease that broke down over the years making for a sticky aperature. They can be cleaned, but just make sure to buy one thats in working order. They usually go for around 200-350. on ebay. I also have a canon 28mm, but the kiron is much much better in every way. You could also buy it in other mounts if you have to, but make sure to know which mount you buy, cause you will need the correct adapter to mount it to your cam.
 
thats a great lens, I have it, but you have to take in to account, the gh2, has a 1.86x crop. So it's equivelant to say around 150mm full frame equivelant, (thats a rough guess) some just say 2x crop. so then just double it. Its a good tripod lens, but lousy to hand hold. Thats why I say 24mm or 28mm. This way your around 50mm, which is better for hand held work. If you can find a 19mm or 20mm in your price range, I might consider that. I just hate automatic lenses, im all about manuel glass. but thats just me, you may like the auto.
 
My opinion is that you may be best off with the Lumix 20mm f1.7, it will work with all features of the camera except Continuous autofocus which I rarely try to use anyway. This lens has a comfortable working perspective, what I call "wide normal", and is a sharp performer. When softening is needed you can use either Cokin diffusion filters or the Tiffen black diffusion #3.

It's a very flexible lens with excellent low light functionality.
 
@craigbuckley The two lenses have very different looks. The Lumix 20mm is native electronic M43 lens, just like the kit 14-42, so you do not need an adapter. It is sharp, easy to use and a fast, high contrast lens.

When you say you want a "cinematic" look, it is a somewhat vague description.

The aforementioned FD (or my preference, an MD) adapted lenses will tend to yield a somewhat softer look. Such lenses may also yield a very pleasing bokeh. You can pick them up for somewhere around the $100 range used (or sometimes less).

You do not mention exactly what focal length you are looking for, but if you went that route instead of the Lumix pancake, you could get several of them for the same price. Manual focus is also often more helpful for narrative film-making than the focus-by-wire manual approach on the Lumix lens.

That said, the 20mm f/1.7 is easy to focus, has tons of detail, very light, very compact and is a lens I often use. All of these were shot with it.
http://perlichtman.com/pasdenapulse/wordpress/2012/03/09/emma-and-molly/

And so was this entire interview (excuse the sound) with Teddy Riley, including the intro.


As to the Nikon, depending on the exact 50mm, the image characteristics will lie somewhere between the other vintage glass mentioned and the Lumix in regards to the relative softness/sharpness and contrast. They make some great lenses but I usually buy fast glass for the bokeh, and the Rokkor MD glass is some of the finest I've seen under $600.
 
Last edited:
ok thanks for the help.Sorry for the vagueness, i am new to this whole DSLR world.. But the reason I say cinematic is because I have read if you use older prime lenses, it makes it look more like a film. I was wondering if that nikon 28mm was vintage or if you could point me towards a nice prime vintage lens. Also, is it worth it to spend 200 dollars on an adapter like the novoflex? Or should I just get something like the fotodiox?
 
Well I guess people all over the internet are silly because I have read that plenty of times, on multiple forums. Old canon FD lenses and Nikon lenses give the feel that your watching a film, a cinematic look, rather than the sharpness of a 20mm pancake lens or something similar.. I haven't tested it out so I dont know, I am just going by what I have read and have been told by others.

Obviously its more about the shooter than the gear, as it is in anything, but why would I be on the website on Gh2 section, not asking about gear? I am trying to attain some knowledge before I make this investment, so bare with me.

I am just looking for a recommendation of an older prime lens that would be good for my Gh2. I will already have the 14-42mm, so something to accompany that. Thanks Y'all.
 
Michael Carter said:
That's the silliest thing I've heard in a while. If you want something to "look like a film" or have a "cinema look", the gear is secondary to the shooter.
Click to expand...

I think the line of thinking comes from the lack of in-camera sharpening on older primes, versus the M4/3 lenses. I'd say that can have an effect on the final image... but it's a fairly small piece of the puzzle when it comes to looking "cinematic."
 
can you recommend one awelgraven? I will have the gh2, and either the pancake 14mm or the kit lens 14-40mm. Could you recommend either the pancake or the kit lens?

And then also an older prime lens, like the canon FD 28mm
 
I have a GH2, 14-42 kit lens, and 20mm pancake. As well as 28, 50, and 105mm older nikon primes (which i use 80% of the time)

I don't really recommend the 14-42... I'd much rather have the 14-140 (I used to have that lens and I miss it... I'd use it outside constantly).

I do recommend the 20mm... it's a great, fast, cost effective lens. I've never used the 14mm lens... so I couldn't say how good it is.

I very rarely use my 28mm Nikon because I have the 20mm Pancake. I use my 50mm 1.8 Nikon all the time. So that's probably what I'd recommend.
 
Film look is such a generic term because it depends on different film stocks as many as many other factors. It is also very difficult to answer your question of what is the best lens to get. Lenses and looks are like boxes of cereal. If somebody came on here asking which cereal was the best you would never get an accurate answer because there is no such thing.

It all comes down to the look you want for a particular movie. All lenses are good lenses. Some handle certain looks better then others but in the end it is all about how you want your project to look. Those that say vintage glass gives a more "film" look prefer the softer more organic look that some movies have. Some on the other hand prefer more contrast and rich detail. The m4/3 lenses are amazing lenses and give an insane amount of detail and clarity for a DSLR. That is not a bad thing unless you want it to be bad thing. It really all comes down to you in the end.

What I can tell you is that it is virtually impossible to find very wide fast vintage lenses. The widest fast lens you will find is 24mm. There are a few 20mm and 17mm lenses but they are very slow typically. You will never be able to get vintage lenses in the 12mm or 14mm range unless they are fisheye. This may or may not matter to you. So if you want to go vintage you want want to make sure every lens you use on a project is vintage. If not you will end up with very different looks. This is one of the reasons why I tend to use my Lumix lenses more these days. I have a wider focal range to work with and keep the detail level consistent.

All I can suggest if you must use vintage glass is try to get as wide as you can and as fast as you can. One lens will not be enough either. You may have to buy three or four and be prepared to pay a lot for fast glass. I might suggest a 24mm, 35mm, 50mm to get you started. 24mm is pretty decent for wide angle stuff but keep in mind I find my 20mm to not be wide enough so you may really struggle in those type of situations.
 
craigbuckley said:
Well I guess people all over the internet are silly because I have read that plenty of times, on multiple forums.
Click to expand...

They are (silly, that is).

What is happening is we have "hordes" of people on the internet with NO GROUNDING, NO REAL EXPERIENCE in the principles and facets of basic photography. And video (or electronic motion picture) still is photography.

They seize and "fixate" on "tricks" that give them a look they like and if it looks similar to a movie suddenly it's "cinematic".

The look of motion picture has been evolving and changing ever since we started going to movie theatres, each era has had it's own "cinematic" look. Some seize on the frame rate of 24fps and "making something cinematic", well we've been seeing each frame projected twice in most theatres to smooth out flicker so that just went out the window. And now with theatres switching over to digital projectors slower frame rates are going away. The "Hobbit" is being shot at 48fps and other producers are looking at 60fps. The goal is sharper and smoother motion picture production.

Vintage lenses are a cheaper option sometimes but the softness and flare you can get with them is "locked in". Digital sharpening can look awful.

I've gone for Lumix and Olympus Zuiko lenses for the excellent sharpness they have, especially with the GH2. I can shoot "soft" any time I want with Cokin diffusion filters and with the Tiffen Black Diffusion #3, using the same techniques I did in my portrait studio with medium format film cameras, sharp optics, and on camera diffusion.

Learn your craft but not from internet "warriors" all echoing what others are saying. Study lighting, composition, and all that goes into getting the "look" you envision. But get your information from articles (internet articles will do if the author has experience and credentials), from books, and from MOVIES!!! (but study the looks and don't look for "gimmicks" that some say get those looks. Lenses form images, they render things in a perspective, you take it from there.

craigbuckley said:
Old canon FD lenses and Nikon lenses give the feel that your watching a film, a cinematic look, rather than the sharpness of a 20mm pancake lens or something similar..
Click to expand...

Each older lens can have it's own "color personality", you may get a look that resembles part of a given film, but you may be "stuck" with that look most of the time that lens is used.

craigbuckley said:
I haven't tested it out so I dont know, I am just going by what I have read and have been told by others.
Click to expand...

You can use that as a starting guide but put credence in things written by folks with established reputations. Research Shane Hurlbut and look at all his videos you can find. He was the DP on "Act Of Valor" and has been using DSLR's for professional production since the Canon 5D MkII came out. A series of his short informational videos was on B&H's website.

craigbuckley said:
I am just looking for a recommendation of an older prime lens that would be good for my Gh2. I will already have the 14-42mm, so something to accompany that. Thanks Y'all.
Click to expand...

I would go for the Lumix 20mm f1.7, a tremendously flexible and useful general purpose "wide normal" prime. Wring it out and learn it. Then consider the Olympus Zuiko 45mm f1.8, portrait perspective short telephote, crisp but with excellent "selective focus" at wider apertures. Both lenses will work super in lower lighting levels and deliver good images. Neither is cheap, but neither is prohibitively expensive.

For rare occasions where you need longer "reach" for video the Lumix 45-200 is an affordable but excellent performer.
 
Sweet, thanks man. I read that with heart. And will listen...


I think my final decision has finally evolved into the GH2 with the lumix 20mm pancake lens.. I just have 3 final questions,

1. Do I need an adapter? (I'm pretty sure I don't)

2. Is it worth it to get the kit 14-42mm lens as well, is it easier to learn than with the lumix 20mm?

3. Which filter do you recommend? I have no experience with filters, so is there a specific one with the lumix 20mm?

Thanks again everybody.
 
Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 on eBay (approx. $80 for the lens + $20 for the FD to m4/3 adapter). Very cinematic look, great manual focus, cheap as heck.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top