GH3 Olympus 14-35mm = anyone use this lens?
- Thread starter J.F.R.
- Start date
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Can't give you a sufficent answer right now - just bought a used one a week or so ago. Will do some more thorough testing only in two weeks .
First impression: Optical quality is very good to excellent. Autofocus (push) not really usable for video - but I am no friend of that anyhow. Same applies while zooming with aperture - it wobbles a bit. But I use a zoom only like a variable prime, so no problem for me here. Closest distance of focus very good.
Better you don't shoot too much handheld with it - this thingie is mighty and heavy! I use it with my AG-AF primarily where it is rigged with follow focus and matte box and on legs or on shoulder. Build quality seems to be very good.
Would I have bought it for my GH3? Probably not really or only if I would shoot mostly narrative with it and definitely not a new one. But this one was price-wise "okayish" and I am a bit of a freak lens-wise. If this helps.....
First impression: Optical quality is very good to excellent. Autofocus (push) not really usable for video - but I am no friend of that anyhow. Same applies while zooming with aperture - it wobbles a bit. But I use a zoom only like a variable prime, so no problem for me here. Closest distance of focus very good.
Better you don't shoot too much handheld with it - this thingie is mighty and heavy! I use it with my AG-AF primarily where it is rigged with follow focus and matte box and on legs or on shoulder. Build quality seems to be very good.
Would I have bought it for my GH3? Probably not really or only if I would shoot mostly narrative with it and definitely not a new one. But this one was price-wise "okayish" and I am a bit of a freak lens-wise. If this helps.....
Bern Caughey
Veteran
The 14-35/2 was one of the first lenses I bought for the AF100, & I agree with everything Rolf wrote about it.
For documentary work the 12-35/2.8 is my preferred choice, but for narrative the 14-35/2 is very nice.
For documentary work the 12-35/2.8 is my preferred choice, but for narrative the 14-35/2 is very nice.
I seen the mention that they are good as variable primes, can someone please tell me why the 14-35mm does not work as a zoom?
Thanks
SMH
Same problem the 12-35mm has......
I need a parfocal zoom lens where I can do some vertigo shots and at least be f/2.8
Any cine zoom and some broadcast zooms. Still camera lenses are not suitable because they aren't parfocal, they don't have constant aperture and many have mechanics not suitable for a smooth zoom.
Look to Cooke 18-100 T3($10,000), Cooke 20-100 T3.1 ($6500), Red 18-85 T2.9 ($10,000), Angenieux, Arri, Panavision. For a cheaper solution look at Canon and Fujinon 2/3" ENG lenses. ($100-$5,000).
[edit] be prepared to strengthen your muscles. These are big lenses. Also, they will all vignette on full frame.
Look to Cooke 18-100 T3($10,000), Cooke 20-100 T3.1 ($6500), Red 18-85 T2.9 ($10,000), Angenieux, Arri, Panavision. For a cheaper solution look at Canon and Fujinon 2/3" ENG lenses. ($100-$5,000).
[edit] be prepared to strengthen your muscles. These are big lenses. Also, they will all vignette on full frame.
Last edited:
The Olympus 14-35mm f2 may not be perfectly parfocal, but it's close enough for my purposes. At f2.0, I can set focus at 35mm and it holds focus out to 14mm. With the AF100's red focus-peaking, I can confirm that the edge I want to keep in focus stays sharp.
Yes, but as you zoom, isn't there any exposure flicker as identified by Erik Naso in the lumix 12-35 f/2.8? If there is no such exposure flicker in the Olympus 14-35, then I'm putting it high on my "must have lens list".
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Hmmm ... "that vertigo shot without problems" is an oxymoron of sorts. For the Oly 14-35/f2.0: Aperture "pumps" a tiny bit under certain conditions when zooming but much less than other lenses. (No experience on my side with the 12-35 Pany though). Focus stays, as has been mentioned, rather stable. And the usual problems with all cheapo modern zooms because focus ring does not stop at infinity (which bugs me more than all other problems).
For a shot like this - as mentioned by PaulF - you better adapt a completely manual cine-zoom (rent it), get a good focus puller and a really fine tuned dolly-guy who can move the train with the sensibility of a ballet dancer... and buy yourself some time shooting it.
Alternative: Rent a motion control. This will give you a vertigo-shot without problems apart from the obvious financial ones.
So the math goes: vertigo-shot = problem.
Last edited:
I just bought the 14-35 to see how it is. I've been debating getting the two Olympus zooms or a set of Rokinon primes. I don't plan to use it as a zoom, but I'm curious; if you reversed the zoom move; that is, zoom in (14-35) rather than zoom out (35 to 14) does it hold focus as well as when you zoom out? I'm thinking its easier to hold focus on a zoom out.
The iris flicker that occurs when you zoom an electronic Panasonic or Olympus lens is due to the camera making a step adjustment to the iris to keep the aperture setting relatively constant as you zoom. The points in the zoom range where these clicks occur vary with each lens, its f-stop setting, and the M/43 camera model you use it with.
With the Olympus 14-35mm f2.0, there is no iris flicker when used on an AF100 at f2.0. At any f-stop above f2.0, there is a single iris click very near the wide end of the zoom range. On the GH2, this single iris click occurs at all aperture settings, near the wide end of the zoom range. The closest the click gets to 14mm is when the aperture is set to f2.0. I don't know whether the GH3 will behave like the GH2.
Just as you did with vintage mechanical zooms, it's best to set focus at the narrow end of the zoom range. As you zoom out to wider focal lengths, the DOF will naturally expand and help keep your subject in focus. Once you set focus at the narrow end, you can freely zoom in and out from either end of the range.