GH2 Help me choose a lens please!

Well... Steven Spielberg did have his lens kit for Saving Private Ryan modded - all the coatings stripped off for an old-school look. But to me, the look of that movie seems heavily graded - doesn't seem like a "lens" look.

I shot an entire music video with a screw-on "wide angle HD" adapter because it looked like sh*t... but beautiful sh*t, sharp center with fringed, soft edges. Not something I'd pull out every day (but man, i shot a lot of moving lens flares on black with the thing for After Effects and keep those plates handy).

I've been buying up old polaroid cameras and peel-apart film on eBay for an artsy still project... but man, that's seriously old camera, lens, and... FILM. Glorious film.

So there are certainly cases where "vintage" is meaningful. But a "cinematic" look is so much more about your eye and knowing your gear.

Here's a 35-70 2.8 Nikkor AF lens from the early 90's. I use it a lot with my Canon rig, since it has this sort of veiling flare that you can just dial in with a matte box flag. But that's kind of an "effect", though a very organic one. This is a frame grab from a run & gun BTS for a fashion shoot video, not a still. I do like the look. I use a late 90's 50mm 1.8 AF Nikkor often, it doesn't really "look" like this - but the 35-70 is a unique lens in the Nikkor line, many examples have a flare "problem" that takes some dealing with. But any decent & fast lens, vintage or modern, could deliver this look in the 50-80mm range.

MVI_3026.jpg
 
@craigbuckley Yes, it would.

Btw, the screen grab by @Michael Carter does a good job of showing what I consider to be normal bokeh from that Nikon range. It varies greatly from specific lens to specific lens but you can see how the bokeh there is (what I would call) fairly close to neutral. Neither extremely flattering nor extremely distracting, but erring slightly on the side of flattering.

The Rokkor MD lenses discussed earlier err much further on the side of flattering. Here is one of the photos I shot for Gaby Moreno at her concert where I used a Rokkor 58mm f/1.4 wide open (scaled down). Notice (in addition to the bokeh) that the lens is rather soft shooting wide open (especially around highlights and light sources) but that this dramatically decreases by stopping down to f/2.0 (and is all but gone by f/2.8).

1310765-LR4.1-from-RAW-Watermark.jpg
 
craigbuckley said:
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)
Click to expand...

No it's a "native" m4/3rds lens and fits both Panasonic and Olympus m4/3rds cameras directly.

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

I would, well I DID! My second GH2 brand new came with it. At the time it was actually cheaper than body only. It's neither easier nor harder than the Lumix 20mm. But it encompasses a range from "workhorse" wide angle to portrait perspective tele all in one lens. Most useful, of course, in daylight and well lit interiors. The maximum aperture is f3.5 at the "wide" end and f5.6 at the tele end, so you'll depend more on the 20mm f1.7 in lower light.


craigbuckley said:
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.
Click to expand...

A set of single strength ND (Neutral Density) filters. No cheaper grade than Tiffen (these are what I have, cheaper may not give "clean" color) Out in daylight even with the ISO set to 160 (lowest sensitivity value), shutter set to 1/60th sec (recommended in NTSC regions) or 1/50th sec (in PAL regions), you will find the aperture has to be set at near minimum (smallest openings). This is not desirable for two reasons:

One the Depth Of Field (DOF) or zone of acceptable sharpness will likely be deeper than you want for the scene, and second - at minimum or near minimum apertures you often encounter an effect known as "diffraction" where the image forming light rays begin to "scatter" some between the back of the lens and the sensor.

The result is a general softening of image detail, noticeable loss of contrast, and a "diffuse" look you usually don't want in an image. An ND filter can get you down into the f8-f5.6 range and your zone of focus may be neither shallow nor deep and the image will suffer no degradation due to "diffraction" (I got this bad one time!).

I have the following ND filters: 0.6ND (two stop reduction), 0.9ND (three stops), and 1.2ND (four stops); I had them in 52mm size, this is what the "kit" 14-42mm lens takes (I had them on hand for some other brand lenses). The Lumix 20mm f1.7 takes 46mm size (so does the Lumix 14mm f2.5 and the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f1.4) so for each of these I ordered from B&H a Tiffen 46-52mm stepup ring (and a 52mm Lumix lenscap so I could leave the stepup ring on and cap the lens anyway) and this lets me use the same 52mm thread filters for all those lenses.

Why not go for a variable ND filter? These actually have 2 pieces of glass in them so you are introducing 4 reflective surfaces to cause internal reflection problems and I am seeing a disturbing number of reports of internal reflection problems with these. I have a few and they do seem to work but you can't always see these reflection problems until you are back in the editing bay and then it's too late to do anything except grin, swallow, and accept them.

Lens hoods: You get a pretty decent one with the 14-42 "kit" lens but not the Lumix 20mm. I solved that with a 52mm wide angle rubber lens hood. Don't get the cheapest B&H has, the next one up (still less than $10) will extend out properly. This is just enough to offer some shielding.

More info than you asked for, but good luck.

P.S. When you have the camera in hand and a lens or two send me a PM with an email address and I'll send you a copy of an article I wrote on manual exposure in motion picture mode with the GH2.
 
I have that Canon FD lens. Great lens. Size and weight are about right for a GH2 compared to many other FD lenses. Wide open however it gets a bit bloomy which is fine unless you need to match it to crisp footage shot with another lens.

Go on vimeo and do a search for GH2 with Canon FD lenses and you should be able to find some good examples of how the lens will look.
 
craigbuckley said:
Awesome all around. This website rocks...
So gh2 with a 20mm pancake is seeming like a good starter,

Now if I am looking for another lens to have - a more Wes Anderson style shot, Which camera would be better?

http://www.amazon.com/Minolta-Lens-...id=1349099280&sr=8-8&keywords=Minoltas+rokkor

or

http://www.ebay.com/ctg/Canon-50mm-...mCondition=1000&_from=R40&_dmpt=Camera_Lenses

I know he likes to use Wide Angle shots, with quick pans-- that independent film maker feel..
Click to expand...

Neither of those lenses adapted to the GH2 will give wide angle shots, both on the GH2 will function as telephoto with about 4X magnification. The "wide" end of the 14-42mm will come much closer to doing that for you.

On the GH2 "normal" focal length (and the "normal" perspective it gives you) is about 25mm, "legacy" and "vintage" lenses of about 24mm will give somewhat the same perspective but will tend to be quite expensive if thay have "fast" apertures. The 20mm Lumix you will already have will fit that bill fine being just a tad "wider" but not enough to be "wide angle".

To get to the wide enough wide angle to do those "quick" pans with the wide view you have to get down to 14mm and below. There is an Olympus 12mm f2 for the Oly and Panasonics that will do that and is fairly "fast" too, but it's priced at about $800 (I'm trying to save up for this one but it's gonna be awhile.

If you feel like you've just GOTTA do it and go for one of those lenses and appropriate adapter, do it if the price is not too steep. I would prefer the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 (those seem to making a lot of folks happy and I hear good reports on image quality), but it will be like a bit of a long portrait telephoto (4X magnification). It will have you backing off a fair amount, can't use it in very confined spaces, but it will be very useful in closeups of one or two people where you need to isolate them from the background elements.

I would really suggest getting the camera with 14-42 "kit" lens and the Lumix 20mm f1.7. Work with those two for awhlle and "feel out" how that works for you. Do some research on lenses, lens focal length so you acquire some knowledge to base your choice of additional lenses on.

In the beginning I liked telephoto lenses but after awhile learned that what I really needed was wide angle to do most of what I wanted to do. Try to shoot anything on a wide scale without a wide angle lens and you'll see what I mean.

Here, check this page out: http://www.photozone.de/focal-length-and-perspective

The 100mm example shows what you will get with a 50mm lens on a GH2. Because of the GH2 sensor size a 50mm functions as if it were 100mm on full frame film format.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top