Lens?

What kind of projects are you undertaking?

I think the only lens I could recommend without knowing what you're going to be doing is the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 because it's a great lens, very fast and can be used for a number of different things, but if you are doing narrative filmmaking you might be better served with a set of fast manual focus primes plus an adapter which could be had for about the same money ($400)
 
My favorite is the CanonFD 35mm f/2.0 - very versatile for both good close-ups and wide shots. Think it's on about 60% of the time, at 2.8 mostly.
 
Oh sorry, filmmaking... Christmas is coming and I want to know what to ask Santa for, lol... These lens' you suggested, do they fit on the GH1 or is there a modification? I really want something made for the GH1... Thanks.
 
From everything I have read, the panasonic 20mm 1.7 is an excellent lens and one of the few made specifically for the panasonic camera. After considering all the options with canon/nikon lenses and adapters, I am going to invest in the panasonic 20mm, only you can't find them anywhere right now. It seems all the best dealers are out of stock.
 
I use a FD to m4/3 adapter from ciecio7 on eBay. Gotten a whole set of primes together for less than $1500 - 24mm f/2.0, 35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/2.0 & 100mm f/2.8, all second hand FDs. For me one advantage of having full manual lenses is that the camera cannot dick around with them during takes. I just don't trust electronics and their pre-cog programmers, they have a tendency to 'help you' when you absolutely don't want it. Bit like Clippy.
 

Attachments

  • clippytheCA.jpg
    clippytheCA.jpg
    44.2 KB · Views: 0
Everyone has different reasons for preferring one lens over another, regardless of the camera or format.

For example, yesterday DP Eric Steelberg posted this fairly detailed description of how he shot almost all of the movie "Up In The Air" (now in theaters) using a 19-90mm T-2.8 zoom lens on a 35mm motion picture film camera. I believe on a GH1 you'd need a ~15-70mm zoom lens (or a collection of various fixed focal length lenses) to get approx. the same field of view:
http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=41154&view=findpost&p=308616

I just thought it was interesting that one (albeit very good & very expensive!) zoom lens can be all you need to shoot a Hollywood movie, at least in this case.
 
Last edited:
Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
I believe on a GH1 you'd need a ~15-70mm zoom lens (or a collection of various fixed focal length lenses) to get approx. the same field of view
Click to expand...
Sounds about right. As a long time editor I can say that getting 35mm footage shot wider than 18mm (roughly 14mm on GH1) always makes me wince as

1. Takes with such wides are a female dog to get a good flow with and hard to match to takes on other focal lengths. And that's just when nothing is really moving. As soon as somebody walks across the frame or, god forbid, the camera is panning a bendy hell breaks loose. And everybody looks at me as I'm the one doing something weird to the masterpiece.

2. Some actor is bound to pop up and demand a better looking medium/close-up take as actors are prone to hate looking like a penguin or having the world's largest snout.

BTW the lens Eric Steelberg is talking about is this pretty puppy: http://www.panavision.co.uk/pdf/news/panavision-compact-zoom-lens.pdf

Note that in the cinema world a 8" long, 7.3 pounds heavy lens is "Smaller and lighter than comparable zooms" :Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Last edited:
Lake Films said:
I have a few lens from my Nikon D40, can they be used also, and if so how?
Click to expand...

In all likelihood they are of the newer 'digital' type and don't have manual aperture rings. If so you'll need an adapter that have a mechanism for adjusting the aperture. The aforementioned ciecio7 makes one and so does the german Novoflex company. You'd save yourself time and troubles if you'd do some searches in the hardware section as there are a number of discussions about lenses and adapters there.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/forumdisplay.php?f=181
 
Martti Ekstrand said:
That sounded a bit extreme so I checked the post you linked to: N-n-n-n-n-n-n-Nineteen. Which is a tad more reasonable. As a long time editor I can say that getting 35mm footage shot wider than 18mm always makes me wince as ...
Click to expand...

Thanks for catching my typo, Martti! I've edited my post accordingly.

P.S.: I love the Clippy the CA cartoon! :-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top