Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 & 35-100mm f/2.0 VS. Zeiss ZF Prime lenses

hammerhorror

hammerhorror

Well-known member
Hi,

I'm looking for opinions on what would be the better set of lenses to purchase for my future AF100?

The Olympus 14-35mm f/2.0 and 35-100mm f/2.0 lenses, or a set of Zeiss ZF Nikon mount primes (35mm f/2.0, 50mm f/1.4, and 85mm f/1.4)?

I currently own the Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0, and the 20mm f/1.7.

It seems like the two Olympus lenses would be alot more versatile than the Zeiss primes since I wouldn't have to switch lenses very often.

Please let me know your opinions.
 
I don't really see this being an "either/or" situation, and much of it depends on what you're shooting. If you're primarily shooting narrative films in controlled situations, a set of Zeiss Primes is likely going to serve you very well, and work with other cameras you might use in the future. If you're shooting in less controlled environments, and need work quickly, the Olympus lenses are top-notch.

For me, a combination of both is the best solution. :D
 
Stephen Mick said:
I don't really see this being an "either/or" situation, and much of it depends on what you're shooting. If you're primarily shooting narrative films in controlled situations, a set of Zeiss Primes is likely going to serve you very well, and work with other cameras you might use in the future. If you're shooting in less controlled environments, and need work quickly, the Olympus lenses are top-notch.

For me, a combination of both is the best solution. :D
Click to expand...

For ENG style shooting, the olympus would be a good choice.
 
I am going primarily with the Zeiss ZF set. I'm just trying to decide what to get for my wide end, the 7-14 Panasonic or Olympus. Possibly the 20mm or 14mm Pancake as well.
 
This is a really interesting question, and one I'm also considering. The Olympus zoom would satisfy a lot of the needs I would have for many paying jobs, which tend to require a fast pace of composing shots in dynamic or uncontrolled situations. On the other hand, the Zeiss glass you mentioned provided much more cinematic looking images than the Olympus zoom lens, in Philip Bloom's test footage. (85mm Zeiss was particularly impressive on the artist and his hands) That said, another consideration is the Panasonic/Lumix autofocus, and perhaps more critical, image stabilizing, which would be nearly required for any hand-held work with the Af100.
 
I am absolutely in love with my 28mm f/2 ZF lens. The other day, a friend saw footage and said, "Wow, was that a cinema lens?" (sort of: the design is supposedly taken from a floating point 28mm cinema design!) The magical "pop" of Zeiss glass--or more accurately, Zeiss T* coatings--is completely unique. Switching between primes is quicker than you might think, even with troublesome adapters, especially with an AC...

I have a Tokina 28-80 zoom that's based off an Angenieux design--not a bad lens but not a great one either. If I were you I would buy one zoom lens and carefully select a few primes that match your favorite angle of view. But be wary: you may think "28, that's more than a 50 on m4/3, a nice medium/closeup lens." Not so. Two weeks ago I brought that lens in close to a model--20 years old, absolutely flawless skin, Natalie Portman with a little Adriana Lima in the cheekbones--and it made her face look oddly squished. Why?

It's a wide angle lens portraying a closeup. You're only shooting through the "sweet spot" portion of the image that hits the sensor, and in that perspective, the distortion becomes evident. I use my 50mm Nikon and 60mm Zeiss for portrait shots--just back up a bit.

Jester: the pancake is not the world's kindest lens. You know there are some lenses that just make everything a little extra-special? The 20mm is the opposite. Words like "flat," "video-ish" and "uninteresting" come to mind. The same quality is also present in the 14-140, but not nearly as much. It's possible to get great footage out of it, but I'm not crazy about the results, and the ridiculously small size makes focus rings / manual focus a real pain.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
Jester: the pancake is not the world's kindest lens. You know there are some lenses that just make everything a little extra-special? The 20mm is the opposite. Words like "flat," "video-ish" and "uninteresting" come to mind.
Click to expand...

I figured that. Though that may be a good thing if I were to use it as a locked down wide camera in conjunction with my HVX-200s.
 
I don't think Canon has wide fast lens like the Zuiko. Remember if you are referring to the Canon 16-35, it's an F2.8, and not a F2.0 like the Olympus. The professional Zuiko lenses are some of the best lenses available.

Thomas Church said:
Why is the 14-35 so expensive?

The equivalent FF Canon lens is 1,300 bucks.
Click to expand...
 
bgundu said:
I don't think Canon has wide fast lens like the Zuiko. Remember if you are referring to the Canon 16-35, it's an F2.8, and not a F2.0 like the Olympus. The professional Zuiko lenses are some of the best lenses available.
Click to expand...

Either that or the 24-70.

But yes, Olympus lenses are better built as well as larger aperture. That is how it costs more.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
But be wary: you may think "28, that's more than a 50 on m4/3, a nice medium/closeup lens." Not so. Two weeks ago I brought that lens in close to a model--20 years old, absolutely flawless skin, Natalie Portman with a little Adriana Lima in the cheekbones--and it made her face look oddly squished. Why?

It's a wide angle lens portraying a closeup. You're only shooting through the "sweet spot" portion of the image that hits the sensor, and in that perspective, the distortion becomes evident. I use my 50mm Nikon and 60mm Zeiss for portrait shots--just back up a bit.
Click to expand...

good point...had the same thing happen
 
noise?

noise?

I have the olympus 14-54 2.8-3.5 which i like very much
and i think will be usfull for the AF-100, but it's noisy when focusing,
and the aperture also.
Anyone who used the 14-35, and the 35-100 knows if they make noise also
when focusing?
This could be a problem when shooting a quiet scene

Amos
 
RyanDeFranco said:
I am absolutely in love with my 28mm f/2 ZF lens. The other day, a friend saw footage and said, "Wow, was that a cinema lens?" (sort of: the design is supposedly taken from a floating point 28mm cinema design!) The magical "pop" of Zeiss glass--or more accurately, Zeiss T* coatings--is completely unique. Switching between primes is quicker than you might think, even with troublesome adapters, especially with an AC...

I have a Tokina 28-80 zoom that's based off an Angenieux design--not a bad lens but not a great one either. If I were you I would buy one zoom lens and carefully select a few primes that match your favorite angle of view. But be wary: you may think "28, that's more than a 50 on m4/3, a nice medium/closeup lens." Not so. Two weeks ago I brought that lens in close to a model--20 years old, absolutely flawless skin, Natalie Portman with a little Adriana Lima in the cheekbones--and it made her face look oddly squished. Why?

It's a wide angle lens portraying a closeup. You're only shooting through the "sweet spot" portion of the image that hits the sensor, and in that perspective, the distortion becomes evident. I use my 50mm Nikon and 60mm Zeiss for portrait shots--just back up a bit.

Jester: the pancake is not the world's kindest lens. You know there are some lenses that just make everything a little extra-special? The 20mm is the opposite. Words like "flat," "video-ish" and "uninteresting" come to mind. The same quality is also present in the 14-140, but not nearly as much. It's possible to get great footage out of it, but I'm not crazy about the results, and the ridiculously small size makes focus rings / manual focus a real pain.
Click to expand...

Is the squishing effect present on the Zeiss 28mm f/2 ZF lens with the GH1, or what body where you using?
 
Why are the Zeiss lenses slower on the wide end? I'm hoping I can get away with the 18mm Zeiss for the majority of wide stuff, but the f3.5 kinda sucks.
 
RyanDeFranco said:
But be wary: you may think "28, that's more than a 50 on m4/3, a nice medium/closeup lens." Not so...in that perspective, the distortion becomes evident. I use my 50mm Nikon and 60mm Zeiss for portrait shots--just back up a bit.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I had not really considered that. You see, one of my favorite cinematic techniques with my 50mm f2 on my Letus full frame adapter, is to get fairly close, letting the subject occupy a large part of the frame, and also keeping the background soft with wide aperture. Are you saying that with the Af100 crop factor, that I may not be able to accomplish the same thing, with the shallow DOF and free of distortion with a lens in the 20-28mm range unless I back up and go longer lens? This would not be the same look, and at times may be impossible due to space restrictions.
 
Barry, any chance of shooting some tests with the Olympus 14-35?

It's out of my range but if it's a truly stellar lens who knows?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top