Lumix 35-100mm f/2.8

I'm scheduled to shoot Wednesday for another image spot and tomorrow to shoot a time lapse for a news open. We are cranking out a lot this year. I see the 35-100 going strong for both of these. GH2 for time lapse and AF-100 for promo. This is why I bought both the 12-35 and the 35-100. Perfect kit!
I love the Voigtlander 25mm for on-cam sound but going to have to try out the 35-100. Fun stuff!
 
Yep, with 2 relatively small lenses you have a 24-200 at 2.8 constant and auto focus or push focus. Nice compact kit.
 
I shot a quick corporate project this week with a pretty slick 2-camera setup. The AF-100 was on my Wooden Camera Universal Baseplate with the Zeiss ZF 85mm on it, while the GH2 was on a Noga Arm attached to one of the rod clamps on the baseplate. The GH2 had the Zeiss ZF 35mm on it. My MixPre-D was attached to the AF-100, taking in a boom mic and sending it to the AF-100 via XLR and the GH2 via the TA3 output. Sent tone to both cameras for easy synching in post.

The only way the setup could have been better would be if I'd have had the 35-100mm in time for the shoot. With those two cameras, the 12-35 and 35-100mm lenses, and the setup I was running, I could easily travel with everything I need in my Think Tank backpack.

I had forgotten how much I love MicroFourThirds.
 
Stephen Mick said:
The AF-100 was on my Wooden Camera Universal Baseplate...
Click to expand...

Most my work is based around moving quickly, often without proper crew, especially when abroad. Building, reconfiguring, & breaking-down, camera needs to be fast.

I chose to build my support system around equipment compatible with Manfrotto's 501 camera plates. I use Manfrotto's 701HDV head on monopods, 502HD on sliders/jibs/etc that need a flat mount "fluid-esque" head, 577 Rapid Connect Adapter on shoulder rigs/rods/etc, & even my Satchler FSB-8 "Side-load" fluid head accepts the same plate.

The one part I was never completely happy with was mounting 577 quick release on rods. I couldn't get the AF100's lens height quite right for using my rail mounted Chrosziel mattebox.

Wooden Camera's Universal Baseplate solved this last issue.
 
For anyone considering Wooden Camera's baseplate it's worth noting it comes with three different sets of riser rods. To get the AF100 to the standard height with the 577 QR below it I had to use the shortest rods.

Stephen's setup is different, & appears he using the medium riser rods.
 
Bern Caughey said:
For anyone considering Wooden Camera's baseplate it's worth noting it comes with three different sets of riser rods. To get the AF100 to the standard height with the 577 QR below it I had to use the shortest rods.

Stephen's setup is different, & appears he using the medium riser rods.
Click to expand...

Looks like a ripoff of the Oconnor Universal Baseplate which I personally think is much nicer. Adjustable rod height makes it compatable with ANY camera and mattebox...
 
I heard that the 35-100 mm lens from Panasonic has a step less iris. Does the auto iris feature of the AF100 support this? Or, does the AF100 auto adjust the iris not smoothly?
 
My 35-100 mm lumix lens gets stuck very often in an infinite focus and does not react when I zoom in to a nearby object. I use it with my AF100. Did anybody have this issue, too?
I have to push the push auto-focus button to have the object in focus. It seems that the AF100 does not truly support this lens. It is also not listed under compatible lenses for the AF100.
 
Last edited:
Gugulino,
You do know that there is an Infinity setting on the focus switch, on the left side of the camera, right? If set to Infinity, the lens will stay at ... infinity. Try setting to A for auto or M for manual.
If that's not the problem, you might check if dirt or something else is blocking the electrical connections between lens and camera.

Hope that helped :),
-- Ken
 
Neither is the case. Perhaps it was simply too difficult for the AF to find the focus. Another thing that bothers me with this lens is that it changes focal length noticeably when you change focus from near to far or vice versa. Do only very expensive cinema zoom lenses not behave like that?
 
From what I read on Matthew Duclos blog (a while ago) is that the auto focus lens mechanics are so light for the AF motors to work that the lens mechanics are hard to stabilise, hence the breathing in even expensive still lenses. Also, they are still lenses, some optimised for video but mostly designed to focus on a target and take a picture, image shift just isnt a cincern if a stills photographer. Still lenses are far from cine lens design and robustness and for good mechanical (AF) reasons and overall cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top