so i got the 14-42 not so good lens that comes with the gh2 and now i bought the 20mm 1.7f which is superb...what else do i need? i feel like now i have to go out and by the 14-140mm from pana for my short films. do you think these 3 will be enough for me to start working on some nice projects? also what do you guys recommend for lighting. i think i might buy a 3 kit softbox 4500w 5 bulbs..what do you guys think?
MUST HAVE lenses
- Thread starter lmeneghim
- Start date
David W. Jones
Veteran
Sorry, no such thing as a must have lens. This is coming from a guy with over 50 lenses. Different strokes for different folks. It really depends on you, what your shooting, and the circumstances surrounding the shoot.
As far as your 4500w softbox light kit, I'm sure that is not it's real wattage. So many of these cheapie manufactures list what they feel is a tungsten equivalent of what their light puts out to make it sound like you are getting a lot of light. What is really more important is the true wattage of the lighting instruments.
Good Luck!
Dave
As far as your 4500w softbox light kit, I'm sure that is not it's real wattage. So many of these cheapie manufactures list what they feel is a tungsten equivalent of what their light puts out to make it sound like you are getting a lot of light. What is really more important is the true wattage of the lighting instruments.
Good Luck!
Dave
Jaime Valles
Veteran
If I were you, on eBay I'd buy a Canon FD 50mm f/1.4 lens (~$85) and an FD to m4/3 adapter (~$20). Great for low light and shallow depth of field. All manual, easy to focus by hand, very cinematic.
drewski310
Active member
Agreed. Having numerous lenses for my GH2s (including the exotic Iscorama and Helios 40-2), my $50 Canon FD 50mm F1.4 probably spends the most time on my camera. It produces a beautiful cinematic image.
Pat_Donnelly
Member
Must have a fast, shallow depth portrait lens, so any f1.4 will do. Any 50mm 3.5 or faster will be sharper, $$ for $$..... Some of the old designs will flare magnificently. 50 mm 1.7, 1.8 even F2 will compromise.
A wide lens, so the kit lens may do? Slow though. Again, it is very well worth it $$.
135mms are cheap, relatively fast and near 300mm equivalent on a 35mm camera.
When buying mf lenses, there is no need for concern over fungus unless really bad, then it increases flare. The cheaper the better as you can keep and learn the lens, seeing what it and you can do with the body you have. Sell it if it is no use to you. Reinvest. For video the requirements are not that high .... Stills require more attention to optics. Video you may be more concerned about focus throw, aperture clicks, ability to follow focus, etc. Older lenses are better made and last longer, taking more abuse.
A wide lens, so the kit lens may do? Slow though. Again, it is very well worth it $$.
135mms are cheap, relatively fast and near 300mm equivalent on a 35mm camera.
When buying mf lenses, there is no need for concern over fungus unless really bad, then it increases flare. The cheaper the better as you can keep and learn the lens, seeing what it and you can do with the body you have. Sell it if it is no use to you. Reinvest. For video the requirements are not that high .... Stills require more attention to optics. Video you may be more concerned about focus throw, aperture clicks, ability to follow focus, etc. Older lenses are better made and last longer, taking more abuse.
thinking about this! http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005NJIWYY/ref=ox_sc_act_title_1?ie=UTF8&smid=A3JD14OD11FZKR
and i just bought the 50mm f/1.4 and the adapter from canon to M 4/3 lets see how that goes...but what about that light kit?
and i just bought the 50mm f/1.4 and the adapter from canon to M 4/3 lets see how that goes...but what about that light kit?
my fav of the 50's range lenses is Canon FD 55mm 1.2 . heavy and tank like. Like Pat_Donnelly said, just worry about those mentioned. I work with Zeiss cinema lenses and they cost more than an average brand new car. But at the end, those post guys mostly likely will soften and unsharpen the image out. I cannot tell a difference between a Zeiss and Canon 50mm unless I have to really peek and poke zoom in like crazy. So there's no use of spending and running for "sharpest" lens. almost all lenses will hit the sweet spot close to the f5.6.
Bruce Foreman
Veteran
That "not so good" lens is a Helluva lot better than most give it credit for. The beauty of it is that in decent light (you have learn the lens and how to work around it's limitations) it covers a range of focal lengths and perspectives from a "workhorse" wide angle (28mm film equiv) through "normal" perspective and out to a fair "portrait" perspective at the 42mm end. The "wide angle" end can function in somewhat low light levels in the hands of one who knows the lens and can "see" light.
For general low light that 20mm f1.7 is SUPERB as you say. If you need lower light capability in a wide angle the Lumix 14mm f2.5 can be very good IF YOU LEARN IT AND WORK WITH IT.
i don't think so. For many of us the focal lengths past 42mm tend to be too much telephoto if we don't need that. If long reach telephoto is needed the Lumix 45-200mm f4 - 5.6 is lower priced and is a decent lens.
The "number" of lenses doesn't matter. The 2 you have are sufficient to start on "nice" projects if you develop and apply a "sense of vision" that will work with what those lenses will accommodate. My first GH2 was a used body only with original firmware. I already had the Lumix 14, 20, and 45-200 I'd been using with Olympus Pen's.
I got the 14-42 "kit" lens with a new GH2 (on sale that way cheaper than body only at B&H). I use it a fair amount when I need to "go out" without a "full bag" to mess with, and while I have some "better" lenses there are times when I can easily "wring out" the image quality I need with that "not so good" "kit" lens. It all depends on skill and photographic knowledge/experience.
That may not be a bad kit. I'd like to see the stands sturdier but those look better than what I've seen come with other kits.
There are lenses that suddenly become invaluable in a high pressure production environment. Surprisingly, for me, it was the kit olympus 14-42 (the panasonic 14-42 would have been more desirable because of the stabilizer) in the last short film shoot. Shot on a cloudy afternoon, there was no need for fast lenses, so my zeiss 50mm 1.7, canon fd 50 1.4 and panny 20 1.7 spent their time sitting in a bag. The olympus kit was sharp enough, and the zoom was much appreciated, going from a wide angle to semi tele in a flash. The scene I covered was a staged "riot" in a public park, and the action was quick and furious... we shot the scene in ten minutes and ran....
Don't underestimate the Panny kit 14-42.... I'd hang onto it.
Don't underestimate the Panny kit 14-42.... I'd hang onto it.
Mike Parker
Active member
I have a pair of GH2's and the following lenses: 14-140mm, 7-14mm, 14-42mm and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 manual AI lens (c. 1980) on a Fotodiox adapter that I use for interviews. I considered the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 but overall the f/1.8 is a smidge sharper below f/2. It had just been CLA'ed by a Nikon service expert and is in near-mint condition. Paid $150 which is a lot better than paying for a new Zeiss 50mm Sonnar. Looking for a Nikon 105 f/2.5 AI in similar condition. The 7-14mm w/a is a hoot to use when shooting video, especially at night.