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

djkarn105 said:
has anyone mentioned the sigma 18-50 f/2.8?

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/18-50mm-f28-ex-dc-macro-sigma

It's a lot cheaper than the olympus and a little bit more in the middle of the zoom range.
Click to expand...
For those looking to shoot with GH1 as well as AF100, the Olympus 14-56mm f2.8-3.5 Mark II autofocuses in AFS mode on the GH1 (and presumably AF100 too). The Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 works only in manual focus on the GH1, but is listed to work in AFS mode on the GH2 (and hopefully AF100 as well):

http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/gh2.html
 
The Olympus 35-100 seams great but I'm not convinced since this is 100mm at 1.4m near limit which does limit it's use. Compare that to 85mm lenses that has a near limit at about 90cm and 70-200 that are about 95cm to 1.2m but at 200mm.
 
editman said:
The Olympus 35-100 seams great but I'm not convinced since this is 100mm at 1.4m near limit which does limit it's use. Compare that to 85mm lenses that has a near limit at about 90cm and 70-200 that are about 95cm to 1.2m but at 200mm.
Click to expand...

You're right about the 35-100 and the near limit, but it's such a great lens - I use a Zeiss 100mm 2.0 Makro Planar when I need to get close. Am finding myself packing the 14-35 and the 35-100 almost exclusively lately simply because they cover such a wide range at 2.0. In fact, my 3 favorite lenses are now the Lumix 7-14, Oly 14-35, and 35-100. I used to use the Lumix 14-140 quite a bit, but am finding I only reach for it now if I need OIS. And the Lumix 20mm 1.7 is a really sweet little lens, but I rarely choose that over the 14-35. It's just so damn convenient being able to cover 14-100 at 2.0 with just two lenses; both of which have superb image quality throughout the range. I've never regretted having spent the money for any of these lenses. And that Zeiss is an Arri/Zeis Master (so I've read) which gets a lot of attention in the still photo community, but is hardly ever mentioned for video.
 
That's just what I'm thinking. Having both 14-35 and 35-100 to cover most of the useful focal lengths and using Zeiss 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 when I need the extra speed or shallow DOF.
 
I find the focal length range of the 14-35 a little weird, only with a lens like the 14-54 you wouldn't have to change even for CUs, only very tight CUs would need a 100mm+ lens or the likes.

That's why my current plan is to buy the 14-54 and get a 105mm 2.8 macro for tight CUs.

Regarding the mechanical construction of the 14-35 and 35-100... How are the focus rings on those lenses? Fully manual connected to the elements or fly by wire?

Oh, and BTW... $4800 in lenses?! Damn...
 
At least the 14-35 is manually connected and I guess it's the same on the 35-100.

I find 50-85mm on my 7D or 5D to be the most used focals. But I agree that a 14-50 would avoid much of the lens changing.
 
I find the focal length range of the 14-35 a little weird, only with a lens like the 14-54 you wouldn't have to change even for CUs, only very tight CUs would need a 100mm+ lens or the likes.
Click to expand...
The Olympus 12-60mm looks to be a good focal range and a good price, which can be used to cover a lot of shots without changing. I want to try this side by side with 14-35 and see how they both feel. The 12-60 is 2.8-4 so no constant f2 like the 14-35.
 
bhdfield said:
Well, no I don't think I will be able to do the same thing with my 50 on the Af100, because backing up and essentially having a 100mm effective focal length changes the character of the shot. I've attached the example below as illustration of a look that I like quite a bit (shot with Nikon 50 f2, Letus/HVX, full 35mm frame). I often prefer getting close to the subject with shallow DOF because it puts you "there" in dramatic moments, in a way looking through a long tube at your subject doesn't. And in the case below, I quite literally was in a "broom closet", well a saddle tack room. There was a wall at my back. SO I still really need a 25mm or so, that will give a nice bokeh after the crop factor eliminates the outer area of the lens's 35mm coverage.

So I still really want a lens at 25 that will give me this look on the AF100. Not sure about the Panny 20 1.7. The Voigtlander 25 f.95 might be close, but at more like f2, not .95.

View attachment 26306View attachment 26307
Click to expand...

We had a screening of student films today and several were shot on the Red and one on the Alexa. Not sure which lenses were used, but many of them had the shallow depth of field on CUs like bhdfield is shooting for.

So would the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 distort the face up close? What about the Panny 20mm f1.7? Wouldn't the Panny do a better job if it can correct the distortion in camera?
 
monkeyking said:
Finally got to put the 14-35 on the AF100 at GVExpo in Wash DC. I can confirm that it will autofocus when the focus button is pressed on the camera and F stop shows in the EVF/LCD. It balances well on the camera and F2 all the way. Jan said no extra lens support is necessary.
View attachment 26472


chris li / DC DP
Click to expand...

That looks very nice.

I have both the Zuiko 14-35 and the 35-100. Looks like they'll balance out the AF100 nicely.
 
At 4lbs or so, how do you intend to intend to support the 35-100? It comes with the photo tripod collar that could conceivably be rigged onto support rods? I suppose collar is removable if you choose a different support. I hear this lens extends minimally so perhaps a mattebox would work? Min. focus at 4.5' is disappointing but not a deal breaker;
Maybe close up diopters could be employed if necessary.
At GVepo in DC, Jan thought my 14-35 was light enough to not require extra support. I've got rods&mattebox - lens extends maybe 3/4" max.

Abelcine on the other line - is my camera calling ?

chris/ DC DP
 
editman said:
At least the 14-35 is manually connected and I guess it's the same on the 35-100.
Click to expand...

The Olympus lenses with the SWD AF are manually connected. The 35-100 doesn't have SWD so it's fly-by-wire. The 14-35 does have SWD.
 
Late said:
The Olympus lenses with the SWD AF are manually connected. The 35-100 doesn't have SWD so it's fly-by-wire. The 14-35 does have SWD.
Click to expand...

So does this mean that the 14-35 will hit repeatable focus marks drawn on a follow focus and the 35-100 won't?
What is the disadvantage of the fly-by-wire?
 
goodgoings said:
We had a screening of student films today and several were shot on the Red and one on the Alexa. Not sure which lenses were used, but many of them had the shallow depth of field on CUs like bhdfield is shooting for.

So would the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 distort the face up close? What about the Panny 20mm f1.7? Wouldn't the Panny do a better job if it can correct the distortion in camera?
Click to expand...

Are you seriously considering a 20mm lens for a CU? Most of my CUs are past 70mm on the GH1.

Unless you want an unconventional look.

Well, usually RED packages are used with primes and most of them are at least T2. 35mm FLs at T2 are quite shallow indeed.
 
Pietro Impagliazzo said:
Are you seriously considering a 20mm lens for a CU? Most of my CUs are past 70mm on the GH1.

Unless you want an unconventional look.

Well, usually RED packages are used with primes and most of them are at least T2. 35mm FLs at T2 are quite shallow indeed.
Click to expand...

When you say "unconventional" your saying the 20mm Panny or the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 will both distort? Then maybe a fast 35mm lens would be best? I haven't gotten my GH1 yet to see what works and what doesn't, but I'll take note of your advice.
 
Using a normal lens wouldn't be so bad on a CU, or would it? So Pietro, you'd wouldn't use the Voigtlander 25mm f.95 for CU work?
 
Getting the camera as close as you'd need to to make a CU shot with a 25mm lens could make the actors (or any other subject) uncomfortable or be a distraction and affect performance.
 
If you want to go with one of the OLY SWD 4/3 lenses on the telephoto end but don't want to break the bank, then check out the OLY Zuiko SWD 50-200mm f2.8-3.5... It's is a favorite to many. It's quiet, fast and half the price of the F2's listed above (granted different zoom ranges) at Amazon ($999). http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-50-20...1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1292823917&sr=8-1

Here's two videos of the lens on GH1 & EP1...



 
Last edited:
So the 35-100 only has focus-by-wire? I hated it on the Lumix 20/1.7, is it as bad on the 35-100? I already have a 14-35 but can get a 35-100 for a decent price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top