Barry_Green
Moderator
Used the 14-35. It is nice and sharp, lovely zoom action, but the autofocus is pretty nasty for video use. Very nice for manual, but if you're thinking it's going to work out for autofocus, um... not so much.
Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!
- Thread starter Jason Allen
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
Power zoom is a function of the lens, not the camera itself. There is no zoom on the camera because -- what would it zoom? The lens would have to be built with a zoom motor in it. If someone built a power-zoom lens (like an ENG lens) and supplied a way to power it, then you could have a power zoom. But there's nothing the camera can do to drive a zoom in a lens that doesn't have power zoom built into it.
BerkeleyBob
Active member
Barry-
I think what Timbook2 meant is that even if some manufacturer built a servoed lens for this camera there is no tap on the camera itself from which the lens could get power. Thus the camera will always be manual, unless the manufacturer builds in some kind of power work around to the AF100's omission.
I think what Timbook2 meant is that even if some manufacturer built a servoed lens for this camera there is no tap on the camera itself from which the lens could get power. Thus the camera will always be manual, unless the manufacturer builds in some kind of power work around to the AF100's omission.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
I would like a fast wide angle lens and that seems to be the real question as to which one (at a reasonable price).
Any consensus as to the best bang for your buck at a (final, after crop) fast 28mm lens?
Any consensus as to the best bang for your buck at a (final, after crop) fast 28mm lens?
Matt Gottshalk
Resident Preditor
I can't wait to try my manual cinevised Nikon primes on that bad boy.
I'm curious to see how 16mm cine lenses will work. I've seen some interesting experiments with gh1. I know they vignette but a 16mm image circle is a few mm larger than 2/3" video, so you should be able to post crop an acceptable 720p. Please Panasonic if you still have some work to do, include a full res 2/3" or full 16mm extraction mode. This would be fantastic for people that don't need large sensor all the time.
To put the 14-140 into perspective, and why you'll probably want one if you don't already have a gh-1...
Most 35mm cine zooms are rated around T4, maybe T3 wide open, but rarely usable at that stop.
The most affordable is a vintage Angenieux 25-250 at around $3000. They can easily reach $40,000 or more for modern glass.
At 5.6 depth of field will still be noticably shallower than full zoom at 2.8 on a 1/3" sensor.
Assuming increased sensitivity of large chip, should be no worse than small chip camera at 2.8.
Unless you want fish-eye it is as wide as you would ever go in standard cinematography.
Unless you want super-telephoto it is as long as you would ever go in standard cinematography.
F1.4 looks nice as long as absolutely nothing moves. If it is dark enough to need and f1.4 lens you might want to turn a light on to have a chance at holding focus.
It has silent autofocus and exposure from the camera, for those 'run and gun' moments we keep hearing about. You'll never be able to pull focus by yourself in those situations.
Best of all you can take it off, and use adaptors for just about anything. No need to buy a full set of primes right away. Start with what you may already have assuming manual aperature. Certain focal lengths that were very common on stills camera are quite cheap. 28mm, 50mm, 135mm seem to be quite cheap in most brands. f2.8 is still a full stop faster than the zoom and will come in handy. 35mm is a bit more, and a good 85 will cost you. You won't find anything wider than 18mm without getting into fish-eye lenses, which will still distort like fish-eye without the full coverage.
A certain developer that was banned from RED may very well have something in the works for eos lenses allowing for full remote control, but that system will be pricey and will require a focus puller on set.
If panasonic would rehouse as a video zoom with zoom rocker and servos for remote control It would be cool but probably not worth the premium price.
All in it is a decent bang for the buck and should be considered a package purchase for any user if you don't already have one on a gh1.
Most 35mm cine zooms are rated around T4, maybe T3 wide open, but rarely usable at that stop.
The most affordable is a vintage Angenieux 25-250 at around $3000. They can easily reach $40,000 or more for modern glass.
At 5.6 depth of field will still be noticably shallower than full zoom at 2.8 on a 1/3" sensor.
Assuming increased sensitivity of large chip, should be no worse than small chip camera at 2.8.
Unless you want fish-eye it is as wide as you would ever go in standard cinematography.
Unless you want super-telephoto it is as long as you would ever go in standard cinematography.
F1.4 looks nice as long as absolutely nothing moves. If it is dark enough to need and f1.4 lens you might want to turn a light on to have a chance at holding focus.
It has silent autofocus and exposure from the camera, for those 'run and gun' moments we keep hearing about. You'll never be able to pull focus by yourself in those situations.
Best of all you can take it off, and use adaptors for just about anything. No need to buy a full set of primes right away. Start with what you may already have assuming manual aperature. Certain focal lengths that were very common on stills camera are quite cheap. 28mm, 50mm, 135mm seem to be quite cheap in most brands. f2.8 is still a full stop faster than the zoom and will come in handy. 35mm is a bit more, and a good 85 will cost you. You won't find anything wider than 18mm without getting into fish-eye lenses, which will still distort like fish-eye without the full coverage.
A certain developer that was banned from RED may very well have something in the works for eos lenses allowing for full remote control, but that system will be pricey and will require a focus puller on set.
If panasonic would rehouse as a video zoom with zoom rocker and servos for remote control It would be cool but probably not worth the premium price.
All in it is a decent bang for the buck and should be considered a package purchase for any user if you don't already have one on a gh1.
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
I'm currently looking at Zeiss ZF Nikon Primes and Zeiss PL Compact Primes.
Obviously the ZFs are about half as expensive as the CP.2s. Trying to figure out what the tradeoffs would be going with the ZF primes. Maybe I should just get 3 of the CP.2s to start with. Then again that's still about 12k for only 3 lenses. I can get a whole set of cine-modified ZFs for the same price.
Obviously the ZFs are about half as expensive as the CP.2s. Trying to figure out what the tradeoffs would be going with the ZF primes. Maybe I should just get 3 of the CP.2s to start with. Then again that's still about 12k for only 3 lenses. I can get a whole set of cine-modified ZFs for the same price.
Barry_Green
Moderator
True, which is why I said the lens would have to be "self-contained". It's not an AF100 omission, any more than to say it's an HPX3700 "omission" that there's no connector for aa particle beam transmitter -- why would they include a connector for something that doesn't exist?
I was talking with a distributor/manufacturer of batteries here and they make batteries that have power ports on them, not all that unlike the "D Tap" of an Anton Bauer system, but actually on the battery itself, not on the mount. So if you used a battery like that, you could power any such proposed (but currently non-existent) servo lens.
Barry_Green
Moderator
They'll work exactly the same as on the GH1 (regarding FOV and vignetting, etc.)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Agreed 100%, if you want an all-purpose lens it is definitely one to consider strongly. It's inexpensive, has an excellent range, has very good autofocus, etc. Only real drawback to it is the f/4.0-f/5.6 minimum f-stop. And the iris changes are abrupt, it's not a smooth de-clicked iris like on a cinema lens. But then again, a Cooke 18-100 has a smooth iris, a sort of similar zoom range, it's one stop faster, and ... weighs about 14 POUNDS. No exaggeration. 14 POUNDS, and costs about $15,000+ used. So when put in perspective, the 14-140 at $800-ish and weighs, what, maybe a pound (I don't know, I haven't weighed it) -- anyway, point is, sure seems to be a pretty decent all-around lens to have in the kit.
ryancglover
Well-known member
Well, while we're all salivating about the news of the AF100 prototype, I'm curious... what are some lenses that you guys will be using on your AF100?
my Hot Rod PL adapter and my LOMO scope kit! Can't wait!
Jarek Zabczynski
Veteran
my Hot Rod PL adapter and my LOMO scope kit! Can't wait!
Where can I get those! :cheesy:
Stephen Mick
Totally Usable
Your best best would be to break into Ryan's house and take them.
Not that I, as a moderator, would ever encourage that kind of behavior. I might understand it, but never encourage it.
john deaver
Well-known member
i recently picked up the Olympus 9-18 and realy realy like shooting both stills and video with it.
I have a bunch of Minolta lenses i shoot with and the Kit lens from my gh1 of course but had a huge gap in the ultra wide range. I know its not as wide as the 7mm panasonic but i got it for almost half the price so.....
While my Legacy lens have a organic old world look I wil say i am continually amazed at how sharp modern lenses can be. This Olympus and my 20mm pancake is crazy sharp.
while i know folks are looking for some seriously expensive glass for the AF100 i think some of the over the counter lens from Pani and Olympus are pretty good. and the price is right.
I have a bunch of Minolta lenses i shoot with and the Kit lens from my gh1 of course but had a huge gap in the ultra wide range. I know its not as wide as the 7mm panasonic but i got it for almost half the price so.....
While my Legacy lens have a organic old world look I wil say i am continually amazed at how sharp modern lenses can be. This Olympus and my 20mm pancake is crazy sharp.
while i know folks are looking for some seriously expensive glass for the AF100 i think some of the over the counter lens from Pani and Olympus are pretty good. and the price is right.
Multi-Media
Well-known member
So, the Panasonic 14-140 can have exposure and auto focus controlled by the AF100?
That would be something to consider. As far as my old Nikon glass... I had assumed that the zoom would be manual, and the 80-200 is manual iris, focus, and zoom... as is the 55 macro.
The newer AF Nikkor lenses would need at least an aperture control from the camera.
What I was hoping for was a "smart" adapter that would provide as much control as possible from the camera... focus and aperture... I do understand that in no circumstance would there be any zoom control. That wouldn't be a dealbreaker though.
That would be something to consider. As far as my old Nikon glass... I had assumed that the zoom would be manual, and the 80-200 is manual iris, focus, and zoom... as is the 55 macro.
The newer AF Nikkor lenses would need at least an aperture control from the camera.
What I was hoping for was a "smart" adapter that would provide as much control as possible from the camera... focus and aperture... I do understand that in no circumstance would there be any zoom control. That wouldn't be a dealbreaker though.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Multi-Media
Well-known member
That's really exciting... Personally, I would like to hold out for the auto Nikon adapter to save money. I suppose the folks who make the adapters are scrambling, but can't really move 'till the actual final final camera is released... do you know if the techs are coordinating?
Also, like with the original DVX100, they are probably likely to come out with follow-up versions that address issues not yet known to them. I've heard from more than one source that the original DVX picture is the best... before "fixes" and additions were made.
At some point, we have to just jump in... I'm ready.
From the activity on this forum... it begs the question... Don't you sleep? But seriously, I think I speak for others here that your time and effort is much appreciated.
Best Regards
Also, like with the original DVX100, they are probably likely to come out with follow-up versions that address issues not yet known to them. I've heard from more than one source that the original DVX picture is the best... before "fixes" and additions were made.
At some point, we have to just jump in... I'm ready.
From the activity on this forum... it begs the question... Don't you sleep? But seriously, I think I speak for others here that your time and effort is much appreciated.
Best Regards