GH4 Lens Options for the Panasonic GH4

[Bucknfl]

I don't know how you could totally ignore the lumix 12-35 zoom especially when describing the Olympus 12-40. The lumix has the advantage of image stabilization.

 

[snowblindfilm]

I don't know how you could totally ignore the lumix 12-35 zoom especially when describing the Olympus 12-40. The lumix has the advantage of image stabilization.

Both lenses are a trade off. Panasonic 12-35 doesn't have manual repeatable focus. Even in manual focus mode, it's still servo driven electric focus, which makes is a no go for rack focusing. Olympus doesn't have IS, which is a draw back for shooting stills, not video. Still lenses IS is not designed for video, and 12-35 gives a weird wobble effect, which simply looks bad. There was also an issue, if you point your camera in downward angle, where IS was simply destroying the footage. I don't know if the issue was fixed. The best way to approach it is just to rent both lenses for a few days from borrowlenses or lensrentals, and see what works better for your needs. From what I have seen at NAB, Olympus 12-40 is simply better lens for video shooting.

 

[Bern Caughey]

We use OIS regularly with few issues, & when need be there's a switch to turn it off.

Not sure how the manual focus clutch works on Olympus' 12-40mm but it's unusable on the 12mm as it moved the focus in steps instead of smoothly. Supposedly the 17mm is better, & the zoom is newer than both, so may not be an issue.

 

[thorn]

I just checked the article - it's got a nice breakdown.

But there's one part that I believe should be completely reworded/rewritten - the points on the crop factor:


One benefit of MFT’s crop factor is that your lenses have farther reach on a MFT camera like the GH4. A lens will appear more “zoomed in” on MFT than it does on FF.

For example, a 300mm lens on the GH4 will have the same reach as a 600mm lens on a FF camera.


The reason I'm suggesting a change, is because although this is standard dogma on m4/3, it can be completely confusing and misleading to people new to the format. Specifally: a m4/3 with a 300mm does NOT have the same reach of a FF 600mm. Zoom factors do not change with the format whatsoever. If you need the zoom factor of a 600mm lens (of ANY format), you have to use a 600mm lens. This is a crucial point, perhaps even moreso with video - when you can't just walk closer to your subject. The magnification factor of a lens has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.

Yes, the final picture - the Field Of View - is equivalent. But that is a point that has been so overstated by people that it has become confusing. It's not an advantage of m4/3, it's a disadvantage. If I take a 300 DPI image and crop out the outer 50%, I don't magically get more detail (zoom) with the remaining inner 50%. It's not zoom factor detail that is preserved with cropping, it is image data that was thrown away.

Combine this with the fact that you can use a native FF 50 lens on a m4/3 camera. It still zooms just like a 50mm FF lens. The difference is that your subject is cropped in the viewfinder.

All of the dogma is true in terms of viewfinder composition, but again - it's no different (in the end) than taking a FF image and cropping it in photoshop or premiere. The zoom level of the lens remains constant.

Sorry to beat this point into the ground... but when I first came to this format, I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the lens was ACTUALLY doing on the camera, compared to FF - because I'd read all about the "equivalency" over and over and over.

 

[joe1946]

I just checked the article - it's got a nice breakdown.

But there's one part that I believe should be completely reworded/rewritten - the points on the crop factor:


One benefit of MFT’s crop factor is that your lenses have farther reach on a MFT camera like the GH4. A lens will appear more “zoomed in” on MFT than it does on FF.

For example, a 300mm lens on the GH4 will have the same reach as a 600mm lens on a FF camera.


The reason I'm suggesting a change, is because although this is standard dogma on m4/3, it can be completely confusing and misleading to people new to the format. Specifally: a m4/3 with a 300mm does NOT have the same reach of a FF 600mm. Zoom factors do not change with the format whatsoever. If you need the zoom factor of a 600mm lens (of ANY format), you have to use a 600mm lens. This is a crucial point, perhaps even moreso with video - when you can't just walk closer to your subject. The magnification factor of a lens has nothing to do with the size of the sensor.

Yes, the final picture - the Field Of View - is equivalent. But that is a point that has been so overstated by people that it has become confusing. It's not an advantage of m4/3, it's a disadvantage. If I take a 300 DPI image and crop out the outer 50%, I don't magically get more detail (zoom) with the remaining inner 50%. It's not zoom factor detail that is preserved with cropping, it is image data that was thrown away.

Combine this with the fact that you can use a native FF 50 lens on a m4/3 camera. It still zooms just like a 50mm FF lens. The difference is that your subject is cropped in the viewfinder.

All of the dogma is true in terms of viewfinder composition, but again - it's no different (in the end) than taking a FF image and cropping it in photoshop or premiere. The zoom level of the lens remains constant.

Sorry to beat this point into the ground... but when I first came to this format, I couldn't make heads nor tails of what the lens was ACTUALLY doing on the camera, compared to FF - because I'd read all about the "equivalency" over and over and over.

So you are saying the 4.1-82mm zoom in the Sony PXW-Z100 4K Handheld XDCAM Camcorder will have the exact same reach as an 82mm in a full frame camera ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Juj6Llhc-xM

 

[Mark Williams]

Although I can't afford to buy an Olympus 12-40, I think I am going to rent one and see if it lives up to all the hype.

 

[stoneinapond]

There was also an issue, if you point your camera in downward angle, where IS was simply destroying the footage. I don't know if the issue was fixed.

It was fixed.

 

[bboyfasteddie]

The 14-140 (& 12-35) exhibit focus & exposure shifts during actual zooms so perform quite different then ENG lenses.

That said the 12-35/2.8 is my primary workhorse (for m4/3) followed closely by the 35-100/2.8 (likely the best zoom designed specifically for m4/3) & 50% of our work is documentary.

wow so not only is it non-constant aperture, but it's not parfocal either? i wasn't planning on doing any zooms while rolling as it doesn't have servo zoom anyway, just trying to get the most focal range in the most cost effective way possible, but it's sounding more and more like this is not a good lens for video. i think i'm still gonna keep it because i need SOMETHING to start with and will probably rent more lenses for gigs until i can buy more.

on the subject of cropping. i was really interested in the sigma 18-35 with speedbooster. the lens is an APS-C lens rather than FF, with a 35mm equivalent of 28.8-56mm. with the .71x crop factor, would that make it a 20-40, or a 13-25, or something else completely? if i get the oly 12-40 first and get the sigma 18-35 later, will the focal lengths be redundant?

 

[stoneinapond]

It's not an advantage of m4/3, it's a disadvantage. If I take a 300 DPI image and crop out the outer 50%, I don't magically get more detail (zoom) with the remaining inner 50%. It's not zoom factor detail that is preserved with cropping, it is image data that was thrown away.

Combine this with the fact that you can use a native FF 50 lens on a m4/3 camera. It still zooms just like a 50mm FF lens. The difference is that your subject is cropped in the viewfinder.

All of the dogma is true in terms of viewfinder composition, but again - it's no different (in the end) than taking a FF image and cropping it in photoshop or premiere. The zoom level of the lens remains constant.

I think you are confusing two types of cropping. When you crop an image in a software program, yes you are discarding digital data and therefore loosing resolution. But that is not the same as "sensor crop". You are not loosing any resolution at the sensor by using a full frame or other type of lens on a smaller sensor. Optically the image circle is "cropped" from what would otherwise be captured by a larger sensor, but the image that is being recorded uses the entire sensor. There's a big difference there.

As to zooms or in this case telephoto lenses, people need to be careful when talking about equivalency and that is an unfortunate habit that the industry has adopted. When using a lens designed for a larger sensor, the image will appear "bigger" or closer on a small sensor over a bigger sensor. It's a field- or angle-of-view issue as you correctly pointed out. What doesn't translate when using a telephoto is the compression between subject and background. That will not be the same. So the common phrase is "a 50mm is always a 50mm" regardless of sensor size. It's the narrowing of the field of view that creates the apparent perception of a longer lens, but the foreground to background ratio stays the same.

Again, a crop sensor does not throw away information. Resolution is not compromised, it's just an optical illusion......:tongue:

 

[thorn]

@joe1946:

I've no knowledge of that camera, so I can't give an educated answer - especially that some camcorders have digital zoom factors as well. It would be something one would have to test.

@stoneinapond:

I think in my effort to explain crop vs FOV vs zoom ratios, I made a confusing statement of my own. You're quite correct - the crop isn't really compromising the data at all, it's just a matter of what was captured, and what wasn't. Mea culpa.

 

[joe1946]

Ok here are test shots from 2010 with my Canon SX30 IS with 35x optical zoom with 4.3-150.5mm FL :
https://vimeo.com/16040013
https://vimeo.com/15887185

Are you saying a full frame with 150.5mm FL lens would have the same reach ?

Here is what you said :
"The reason I'm suggesting a change, is because although this is standard dogma on m4/3, it can be completely confusing and misleading to people new to the format. Specifally: a m4/3 with a 300mm does NOT have the same reach of a FF 600mm. Zoom factors do not change with the format whatsoever. If you need the zoom factor of a 600mm lens (of ANY format), you have to use a 600mm lens. This is a crucial point, perhaps even moreso with video - when you can't just walk closer to your subject. The magnification factor of a lens has nothing to do with the size of the sensor."

 

[Thomas Smet]

@joe1946:

I've no knowledge of that camera, so I can't give an educated answer - especially that some camcorders have digital zoom factors as well. It would be something one would have to test.

@stoneinapond:

I think in my effort to explain crop vs FOV vs zoom ratios, I made a confusing statement of my own. You're quite correct - the crop isn't really compromising the data at all, it's just a matter of what was captured, and what wasn't. Mea culpa.

It also tends to help out weaker lenses that are not as good in the corners. Since a smaller portion of the lens is used on m43 it never sees the weaker part of the lens design. FF is a pain because you will always see those corner imperfections. You are basically only using the sweet spot of the lens on m43 when you use a FF lens. Not a disadvantage at all.

I also tend to think when people are thinking of telephoto lenses they really are more concerned by the amount of reach the lens has. This is why this method of thinking seems to be the norm. We buy longer lenses because we need the extra reach. The other stuff isn't thought about as much. So from that perspective I think it makes sense for a lot of people to think of FF lenses the way they do on a m43 camera. It isn't 100% accurate of course but if somebody just wants a particular reach or FOV then that is the easy way to figure out what lens they should use.

 

[Sol M.]

Update: Added new guide on adapting lenses for the GH4 to the first post.

 

[Kit]

I love your guides Sol keep up the great work its appreciated !

 

[FatDaddy]

So the Metabones Canon EF to micro 4/3 is not out yet? I have a Canon 7D and Canon C100 with EF lenses shared between both. Thinking about ditching the 7D and going with the GH4, but keeping the lenses for now and using a Metabones adapter. I thought that was suppose to be finished last year?

Great articles by the way! Signed up and appreciate the effort!

 

[Sol M.]

So the Metabones Canon EF to micro 4/3 is not out yet? I have a Canon 7D and Canon C100 with EF lenses shared between both. Thinking about ditching the 7D and going with the GH4, but keeping the lenses for now and using a Metabones adapter. I thought that was suppose to be finished last year?

Nope not out yet and who knows when it will be available. There have been a string of companies that have announced a "smart" EF to M43 adapter over the years, but so far only Redrock Micro (and soon Aputure) have delivered. Interestingly, both of these adapters adapters are self-powered and directly adjust the lens' aperture. Perhaps the issue is creating an adapter that allows you to control aperture via the camera. I do recall one manufacturer noting that powering the adapter using the camera's contacts presented an issue.

 

[FatDaddy]

Thanks for the update. The Metabones sounded like a great option - a little faster lens and less crop factor. I'm sure if it was not talked about at NAB, then it is not coming anytime soon.

 

[focuspulling]

I'm writing a series of guides on lens options for the GH4. This series is particularly suited to those coming over from other platforms (Canon, Nikon, etc.), but it should also give experienced M43 shooters some ideas. The goal of this series is to get you up to speed so that you can hit the ground running by the time you receive your GH4.

• Micro Four Thirds Introduction & Overview - If you're migrating from a different platform, this guide will give you the lay of the land of M43.
• Using Native Lenses - Everything you need to know about using native lenses on the GH4
• Adapting Lenses for the GH4 - Use virtually any lens on the GH4

I'll update this post whenever new guides in the series are published. Feedback is welcome, especially regarding what other topics you would like to learn more about.

You wrote in the third post, "The Speed Booster also makes your lenses 1 stop faster. This means your lenses will be twice as bright on the GH4 compared to the camera they were originally built for." Not twice as bright.

And you left out the most important issue for native lenses: optical image stabilization ("Power O.I.S.").

 

[FatDaddy]

Actually looked at the Aputure video and that is pretty slick - expensive, but might be what I need for some one man band type work.

 

[KMA_WWC]

MTF Services also make high grade electronic EF to MFT adapter with IS support (as long as I know RRM doesn't support IS).