Let's talk glass: Lenses for the AF100!

powervideo said:
Have you looked at any of the ebay $400 PL mounts Noel? I know the Hotrod stuff is good (I have loads of Zacuto stuff and you generally get what you pay for). Just curious if a cheaper unit will work as good.
Click to expand...
I've got the $320 ciecio7 PL mount. It works. I imagine the action could be a little smoother, but ... not complaining. I keep meaning to compare it to the HotRod, I know someone who has one, but I haven't gotten over there to do it yet.
 
Barry_Green said:
14-140 has silent video-style autofocus; none of their other lenses are rated for that. So if you need that, the 14-140 is the only one that offers it.
Click to expand...
Ouch,
Good to know!
Now we need a database of all these AF lenses (EF, (µ)4/3, etc.) lenses about which are good also for sound...

EDIT: Anybody tried Olympus 12-60? Good enough with on-camera mic?
 
Last edited:
I took some time checking which lenses I've used during 15 commercial jobs I've done and which lenses I tend to use and translated that to field of view for the AF101.

What I found out was some interesting things. The optimum focal (the ones I've actually ended up using) are these:

[FONT=&quot]8 / 17 / 25 / 43 / 50 / 100[/FONT] (focal length on the AF101)

Looking at these numbers I could get away with three lenses: 7-14/14-35/35-100 and I'm all covered. What I can see as something missing is a true macro lens so add a 50 macro and I'm all set. That's four lenses and luckily all of these are existing lenses!

With regards to the need of speed I sometimes do shoot between F1.4 and F2.0 when the subject is static (doesn't move in the frame) but everything else I'm never below F2.0 more like F2.8 or higher. As for AF I've never missed it so I'm not sure how to make use of the 14-140. I think it's great on the GH1 for shooting outdoors but the result is also more video camera like.

If I continue to look on which of these focal lengths I use the most it's by far 25mm. The rest is divided by a third above and a third below 25mm. So having a 14-35 attached to the camera would probably be used more than 50% of the time I shoot.

This conclusion is just what I felt when I first got the GH1 and used a Nikon 24/2.8 on the GH1. It just felt right.

Going further in my analysis with regards to what I have and what I need to work with the AF101 I do have options. Instead of the Zuiko 14-35 I can go for primes. Voigtländer 25, Canon 24L or Leica 25 are some main primes. One advantage going for a Canon 24L is I already have a nice set of Canon/Zeiss primes 35/50/85/100/135, so a Birger adapter will be cost effective. And I can use all lenses on my 5D mkII or 7D.

Just to share how I look upon lenses for the AF101 from my perspective and how I actually use my lenses.
 
Barry_Green said:
I've got the $320 ciecio7 PL mount. It works. I imagine the action could be a little smoother, but ... not complaining. I keep meaning to compare it to the HotRod, I know someone who has one, but I haven't gotten over there to do it yet.
Click to expand...

Would be great. I'll wait for your finds, thanks
 
I'm trying to put together an AF100 package that fits my budget, which means I can spend--at most--about $1000 on lenses. Would the Lumix 14-140mm and the 20mm/1.7 pancake lens work as a relatively low-cost multi-purpose combination? I'm going to be shooting a mixture of a) live events, b) interviews, c) miscellaneous documentary running-and-gunning, d) city night shots and other low-light situations, and e) comedic and dramatic shorts where I'm aiming for a cinematic look, with shallow DoF shots, smooth dolly moves with manual focusing, etc.,?

I'm used to the EX1, where I always focus manually. Is the main advantage of the 14-140 that it has the smooth autofocus and face tracking, and if so, do I really need that? I'm comfortable with the EX1, but I know the AF100 has much shallower depth of field, so maybe I'll be more comfortable with autofocus. What are your impressions of manually focusing the 14-140 at the wider end of the lens?

Also, if face-tracking autofocus doesn't matter to me (hypothetically), is there a better zoom lens out there similar in features and price to the 14-140?

Finally, I know that Panasonic lenses have an electronic connection to the camera which allows for some automatic correction of barrel distortion, chromatic aberration, etc. Does that mean I'm better off, in my price range, with the Panasonic lenses?

A lot of questions, I know! But I'm eager to hear your thoughts. Obviously, I want to try out the camera and these lenses in person in January, before I spend a single dollar. But right now, I just want to gather all the information that I can.
 
For me the 14-140 at F4!!! is not an option.
f4!!!

but 20mm/1.7 pancake nice one, i would keep this one and wait for a better zoom option.
 
Julien, I know what you mean. F4 is not that good. But I can't just use the 20mm; I really need some kind of zoom. Even though I don't typically zoom during shots, I need a variety of focal lengths. And I can't wait, because I have projects to shoot.

As for re-purposing old still camera lenses, well, I've just recently gotten into video and photography, so I don't have any. Right now, when I go out to shoot, I use an EX1 (borrowed through a one-year film program I finished in the spring). Otherwise, I have two options: borrowing my friend's 7D, or using the only camera I own, which is an old <$1000 SD camcorder (also Panasonic, by chance).

So, given all of that, is the 14-140 my best option?
 
Last edited:
EDIT: Anybody tried Olympus 12-60? Good enough with on-camera mic?[/QUOTE]
I tried one of these on my GF1 with the panasonic 43 to M43 adapter and autofocus did not work... for what that is worth.
 
for now yes ... but I am in the same situation, i just have eng zoom style lens, and project to buy 2 zeiss but im still looking for a gun and run zoom lens that will give me a good aperture and this 14-140 is just not good. I will wait and see what comes out in the next month, but i will never buy this lens.

You have project to shoot, but the camera is not even out ... i think there is a olympus f2 zoom out ( google it ) there now that beat this 14-140 primary because its f2 and not f4 ... remember your ex1 at f4 ? I dont think you want to go there again.

I think autofocus and af100 is not a good mix ... for the lens that panasonic have right now.
 
Julienmassie said:
You have project to shoot, but the camera is not even out ...
Click to expand...

I should explain: I have projects to shoot in March. If a better lens comes out before then, that would be great! But if it doesn't, I'm in a tough spot, I guess. I'll go search for information on the Olympus zoom--thanks for the tip!
 
I'd say start with the 20mm and rent some lenses in Jan or Feb to see what you can live with THEN buy :). For really expensive lenses I rent first to make sure I get what I expect. Saves a lot of headache!
 
Barry_Green said:
I've got the $320 ciecio7 PL mount. It works. I imagine the action could be a little smoother, but ... not complaining. I keep meaning to compare it to the HotRod, I know someone who has one, but I haven't gotten over there to do it yet.
Click to expand...

Well considering the price difference, Im sure I can hold of until Ive done some further research. But that would be useful to a lot of people Barry if we could have some comparison.

On the 14-140, just trying to gauge why so many have an issue with it? Not saying that it should suit you, just asking why being at f4 would be such a big deal? I just got mine in the mail today - now sitting with my zeiss lenses waiting for a run round the block.
 
Noel Evans said:
Well considering the price difference, Im sure I can hold of until Ive done some further research. But that would be useful to a lot of people Barry if we could have some comparison.

On the 14-140, just trying to gauge why so many have an issue with it? Not saying that it should suit you, just asking why being at f4 would be such a big deal? I just got mine in the mail today - now sitting with my zeiss lenses waiting for a run round the block.
Click to expand...


I really like the 14-140 Noel. I use it as my main everyday lens on the GH13. When it get's too dark, I go prime.
 
grimepoch said:
I'd say start with the 20mm and rent some lenses in Jan or Feb to see what you can live with THEN buy :). For really expensive lenses I rent first to make sure I get what I expect. Saves a lot of headache!
Click to expand...

I understand; that makes sense! Also, as someone new to this, can I ask: are used lenses worthwhile? Can I inspect a lens, and if it looks all right, have confidence in buying it used? Or is it like buying a laptop used--it might look fine, but there are possible problems lurking...
 
I'm not sure why the 14-140 seems to be so often under-appreciated. Maybe because it came as the kit lens on the GH1 and people looked at that f/4.0 and immediately started to look around for something else instead of fully appreciating what the 14-140 was capable of.

You'll see lots of references to the Zuiko 14-35 and 35-100 as highly desireable lenses. I'm lucky to have both. And I can tell you, when there's enough light, I'll often opt for the 14-140 simply because of all the things it does and does well.

Barry Green summed up the 14-140 very nicely:
"For lenses, I think the 14-140 is nearly a must-have, for the capabilities and flexibility it gives the camera. I have a complete set of Zeiss ZF manual lenses, and a complete set of Compact Primes for cinema shooting, but that 14-140 gets used all the time. It turns the AF100 into not a digital cinema camera, but a regular video camera. The 14-140 lens is sharp, clear, has a great zoom range, is parfocal (meaning it holds focus throughout the zoom, something that's not all that common on SLR lenses), it communicates electronically with the camera body so that auto-iris and manual iris setting works electronically, it has OIS (mandatory with such a long zoom range), it has chromatic aberration compensation and barrel distortion correction when used on a Panasonic m43 camera, it is the only lens that does silent video-style autofocus, and it's integrated with the camera so that the camera's display of zoom setting and focus distance are accurate and properly displayed. It's a pretty perfect match. Yes it's slow at f4, but all the other benefits make it worth it."
 
Gerson said:
I understand; that makes sense! Also, as someone new to this, can I ask: are used lenses worthwhile? Can I inspect a lens, and if it looks all right, have confidence in buying it used? Or is it like buying a laptop used--it might look fine, but there are possible problems lurking...
Click to expand...

So far I have purchased 3 used lenses from Craigslist. In all three instances I met with the person first to look at the lens and they looked perfect. I know others have had issues, but for me, it has always worked out fine. If I were looking to purchase at the moment, I'd probably look used first to see what the going price difference was.
 
Gerson said:
I understand; that makes sense! Also, as someone new to this, can I ask: are used lenses worthwhile? Can I inspect a lens, and if it looks all right, have confidence in buying it used? Or is it like buying a laptop used--it might look fine, but there are possible problems lurking...
Click to expand...

If you purchase it from a reputable dealer, you should be pretty well protected. When I bought my ~'67 Nikon lens, I found it in a long list of similar used lenses. It was ranked with a graduated scale from "Like New" to "Poor" condition with things like "Small scratches or dust that should not affect picture quality" and "Small scratches or dust that may affect picture quality" and "Noticeable scratches that may affect picture quality". Similar statements were used to describe the mechanics of the lens. So I had a pretty good idea what I was buying, even though it was sight unseen.

The product also came with a 30-day return policy. Even though it was a used lens I could unpackage it, mount it up, and do a few small shoots with it. If I didn't like it, or found that their description was a little generous of the quality, I could send it back no questions asked.
 
Bucknfl said:
If the 14-140 were f4 it would be great but its f4-5.8.
Click to expand...

Yes, and it actually goes something like this: 14mm = 4.0, 28mm = 5.0, 35mm = 5.3, 50mm = 5.6, 55mm+ = 5.8

I don't think anyone is saying it should be one's only lens. But it should probably be part of any serious kit and I'm just saying I'm surprised by how often I end up using it considering the other glass I have access to. And what I have is abysmal compared to the lenses Barry listed in his quote below. And, to me at least, his words speak about as clearly as possible on the value of the 14-140.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top