Leica 14-150mm for AF-100

D

DaingerousV

New member
I was wondering if anyone on these forums has had any experience with the LEICA 14-150MM Four Thirds lens on any of the micro four thirds cameras. Seems like an upgrade to the 14-140MM Panasonic. It definitely gets rave reviews on the photography section, but would you be able to use all the image stabilization and autofocus features on something like the AF-100?

I know it costs like twice as much, but the lens quality seems to be highly rated.
 
The Leica does look like an excellent lens. We almost purchased it for the AF100 as a sort of run and gun, stock lens for general videography work (as opposed to the times when this camera will be used as a cinema camera with Zeiss CP.2 lenses and such). However, we went with the Panasonic Lumix 14-140mm, instead.

Here's the AF100 lens compatibility chart for various Lumix and Leica lenses. The Panasonic Lumix 14-140mm lens appears to be the missing "stock" lens for the AF100.

If you don't mind (or would prefer) a little manual control, the Leica 14-150mm is a slightly sharper lens.
 
does this chart mean that you can't use any 4/3 lens the AF100? I figured I'd be able to use any of those olympus zuiko lenses (like the 12-60 or the 50-200) or even that sigma 30mm 1.4 that was designed for 4/3. I don't really care about autofocus but want to be able to control the aperture.
 
You can use all 43 Zuikos with working push AF (no continuous AF like from micro43 glass) and Iris. Not sure about the Sigma.
Apparently Panasonic has no interest advertising Olympus glass. Pity, as at f2 or f2.8 they really make sense on the big sensor, unlike the dark/slow Panny glass.
 
nugat said:
But what is the point of going big sensor to put a 4-5.6 lens on it?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you are not aware, but there are no lenses that cover that range, that are any faster. Look at the Canon and Nikon lens lineup, and any lens longer than about 3x, is pretty much always f/4 (or maybe f/3.5) on the fast end.
 
Leica 14-150mm

Leica 14-150mm

I checked out the compatibility and it looks like the Leica doesn't use the Mega O.I.S.

As a stock lens I would want it to have image stabilization. Could this change with a lens firmware update?
 
nugat said:
You can use all 43 Zuikos with working push AF (no continuous AF like from micro43 glass) and Iris. Not sure about the Sigma.
Apparently Panasonic has no interest advertising Olympus glass. Pity, as at f2 or f2.8 they really make sense on the big sensor, unlike the dark/slow Panny glass.
Click to expand...

Yet they include the Olympus 14-35 and then strangely omit the 35-100 which, according to editman, is compatible. Until I learn otherwise, I'm figuring anything that's listed on the GH2 compatibility chart will also be compatible with the AF100.
 
DaingerousV said:
I checked out the compatibility and it looks like the Leica doesn't use the Mega O.I.S.

As a stock lens I would want it to have image stabilization. Could this change with a lens firmware update?
Click to expand...

No, in-lens IS is a whole lot of additional hardware (accelerometers, servos, associated wiring and switches, etc.).

Edit: seems the Leica 14-150 does have the necessary hardware, so maybe a firmware update would allow its native IS to function. Hell, if Birger can make Canon IS work, why not.
 
Last edited:
Barry_Green said:
Perhaps you are not aware, but there are no lenses that cover that range, that are any faster. Look at the Canon and Nikon lens lineup, and any lens longer than about 3x, is pretty much always f/4 (or maybe f/3.5) on the fast end.
Click to expand...
I am painfully aware of it and hence my slightly rethorical question. A camera was built with the sole purpose of delivering "cinematic" DOF at an affordable price and without loss of light associated with various groundglass adapters. Physics dictates that longer than 3-5x zooms cannot be built in sensible size and speed for that size sensor to deliver the desired selective focus and creamy bokeh. One such feat , Angenieux Optimo 24-290/f2.5, is the size of Patriot missile, weighs 25 pounds and costs a house. The smaller Optimos are 3x and T2.8 and go for a medium car price. Arri/Fujinon Allura are 5x/T2.6 and will set you back at a Mercedes Benz level. By comparison Zuiko SHG f2.0 line of 14-35, 35-100 and 150mm with 1.4x and 2x extenders, costing 2k, with working AF and iris--are a steal.
Which brings me back to the original question: what is the point of putting a 14-140/f4-5.8 zoom on that big sensor/selective focus/cinematic cam? In one move it loses 2-3 stops of light and the purpose it was built for is negated. To work as ENG/docu/corporate cam? With its form factor, ergonomics of a brick, poor VF, no zoom rocker, amateur codec it's definitely an excercise in masochism. Canon 305, hpx371 or even Sony EX all under 10k, with 15-18x glass and easy managable DOF , with pro codecs and humane ergonomics --will do the job much better. By comparison forcing the AF100 to do jobs it's not intended for, reminds saddling a cow.
 
Last edited:
haha- i appreciate this thread. Nugat has some good summaries in this post of some of my thoughts on the camera. I will say that when I had my GH1 with the 14-140 if felt like I was pretty close to the DOF of my old HVX, but when I put my Zeiss glass on it it looked great. But I think this is part of the point, that you have the option to throw something with range on the camera, still get a good picture, and you have the option to throw some fast glass on too to give the picture that sort of edge. For me I typically need the faster glass with shallow DOF, but I do occasional event recordings where I need extreme zoom range so it is nice that the 14-140 with OIS is out there as an option (though I avoid saddling that cow whenever possible). I like your point about using 1.4x and 2x extenders. on the f2 zuikos. I'm hoping it plays nice to go from a 4/3 lens + extender + micro 4/3 adapter to camera. Am I right that would be the situation? What would be the order of pieces (lens, extender, adapter--- or lens, adapter, extender).
The big thing we are lacking is OIS with the Zuikos, which is why it is a pain the camera has no OIS built in. Makes me want to consider the Canon adapter coming in Feb and use my 17-55 with IS. But for $1,000 of that lens + $700 for that adapter, that's close to the cost of the Zuiko 14-34, which is more the width I need, and is f2!
oi- decisions decisions.
 
this just occurred to me... if you use a teleconverter and have to lose 1 or 2 stops of light, that is just light loss, not really f-stop loss, right? I know it is a stupid question. In item descriptions they always say "a f1.4 50mm will be like a f2.8 100mm"- but you maintain the DOF of the wider aperture you have the lens set at, right? You just lose that much light, as when we used a the old vibrating 35mm DOF adapters (Letus, etc.)
 
shortnstout said:
this just occurred to me... if you use a teleconverter and have to lose 1 or 2 stops of light, that is just light loss, not really f-stop loss, right? I know it is a stupid question. In item descriptions they always say "a f1.4 50mm will be like a f2.8 100mm"- but you maintain the DOF of the wider aperture you have the lens set at, right? You just lose that much light, as when we used a the old vibrating 35mm DOF adapters (Letus, etc.)
Click to expand...

Regrettably, there are no free lunches...

http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/multipliers.html
 
shortnstout said:
What would be the order of pieces (lens, extender, adapter--- or lens, adapter, extender).
Click to expand...

Lens extender adapter, but I would use only the 1.4x TC on the 150/f2 and only with additional rigging of the whole setup. In other words, only in emergency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top