Olympus 14-54mm v Pana lumix 14-140mm

T

taras4444

Well-known member
Hi all,

Basically i am getting a af 100 in april and want a lens/lenses that i can start off on and be able to shoot good feature films and music videos. One conern is that i currently own the dvx100b, and use it handheld a fair bit. Say i copied those handheld movements with a lens like the viogtlander 25mm that is not ois specific, would the image look worse and more shaky?

I was thinking to begin with of getting the viogtlander 25mm as a good first lens that can double as a macro and be good in low light, as well as the olympus 14-54mm or maybe a lumix like the 14-140mm to cover my bases as an allrounder. Out of those two which do you guys prefer?

If i had the voightlander 25mm
and the olympus 14-54mm, would you say that was a good basic lens kit for shooting feature films? Then perhaps when i get the money ill buy the lumix 7-14mm.

Also it sounds like the oly 35-100 and 14-35mm are regarded among the best before spending crazy money on the cine lenses. So perhaps i should save and buy one of the two- though i would then suffer from the fear of "putting all your eggs in one basket" syndromel. Thanks for any advice you can give me, Taras
 
Well it depends on what you're doing as always. Yes, if you handhold it and are shaky, then the video will be shaky. I decided to invest in Nikon glass, because it seems to be the most platform independent lens system. I got the nikon 24-70 f/2.8 and its an extremely usable range I've found for my af100. I also considered the olympus, but a few things kept me away, 1) only works on 4/3 and m4/3 platform (with adapters, nikon will work on anything), 2) no IS for the money, 3) no smooth aperture changes, 4) no real autofocus, 5) 35-100 is focus by wire, 6) cost...I just figured for the cost of those lenses they really should have more capabilities that would be useful and for me, I didn't find the electronic integration had enough value over just getting Nikon glass and using an aperture control adapter. For me, I made the right decision because 24-70 is a much more useful range than 14-35 for $2200 or 35-100 for $2300, when I got the nikon 24-70 for $1719. Yes the Nikon is about 1-stop slower...

From my lens research the olympus 12-60 is a much better lens than the 14-54 with more useful range...I almost got it, but held out for the nikon instead. I also have the 14-140 from my GH1, this lens will only be used outside. And most pros really only use manual anyway...its only for certain events where I use autofocus and that's usually just when its wide on the HMC150 and just about everything is in focus anyway.
 
hey thanks for the fast reply! Yeah that nikon lens you mention does look pretty sweet. However, if i bought that i couldnt afford another for a while. So personally it would bethe following:

nikon 24-70 v voightlander 25mm AND the lumix 14-140mm/olympus 12-60mm

And yeah auto focus doesnt really bother me. However, I'm just really learning about these lenses (as my dvx100b only had the one fixed lens obviously), but woudl the dvx be considered parfocal? As i could zoom right in, focus, zoom out and it would still be in focus. However, from what some say it sounds like you cant do this on most other lenses you buy!? Excuse my ignorance as all these interchangable lenses are new to me. One finaly note, what f stop would the dvx100b go down to, lowest i've really seen on the lcd screen is four, so by that could i assume the lumix 14-140mm would perform the same in low light as the dvx100b?

Thanks for the help, appreciate it Taras.
 
I chose the 14-54. Why? Because it's the cheapest, and I have to believe that in the very near future, NAB hopefully, there are going to be more/better/decent lens choices.

The 14-54 is very small and light and optically equal to almost anything out there.. and it's f2.8 wide, which makes it a decent wide angle lens (and it only stops down to f3.5 at 54mm). I don't care about auto focus but I do like to be able to read the footage scale in the finder while shooting handheld because it's not parfocal, but if you zoom in, focus, glance at the reading in the finder, zoom out and refocus to that number, it works pretty well.

Downside of these still lenses? As for iris, the most annoying thing is that it is very difficult to do a smooth aperture change while going from one lighting condition to another (something I do regularly). And, as everyone has pointed out, the rotation on the focus ring is minimal, making exact changes difficult. What I've done is use a large diameter clamp-on gear from RedRock (biggest one I could find) along with a light FF with a small gear. The combination spreads the range enough to make focusing easier.
 
for whats it worth the 14-140 AF kicks ass in 60i mode.
AF decent in 24p
yes it sucks in low light
not bad for variable prime.
 
Only the 14-140 is parfocal...most others are varifocal since they are stills lenses, not video lenses at heart! The 14-140 is as run and gun as you can get, except in low light. Well if your camera is anything like my hmc150, it should go down to around f/1.7 or so...easy enough to go to panasonic.com and check the camera lens specs though...
 
Hey thanks, yeah i checked the dvx went down to around f.1.6 ish, so does that mean it actually performs better in low light than the lumix 14-140mm!? Also excuse my ignorance again but doesnt a smaller f number mean you can get a shallower depth of field? If so does that mean my dvx100b will get a better depth of field than the af100 with the lumix 14-140!? Thanks for your feedback as always, Taras
 
I have both.
Just finished a corporate with a lot of outdoors. used outdoors mainly the 14-140.
but i love the 14-54 very much. you can't use the 14-140 indoors.
the 14-54 is fast enough, optics is good, its lightweight, and very easy to operate.
 
taras4444 said:
Hey thanks, yeah i checked the dvx went down to around f.1.6 ish, so does that mean it actually performs better in low light than the lumix 14-140mm!? Also excuse my ignorance again but doesnt a smaller f number mean you can get a shallower depth of field? If so does that mean my dvx100b will get a better depth of field than the af100 with the lumix 14-140!? Thanks for your feedback as always, Taras
Click to expand...

Shallow DOF is a combination of aperture and lens focal length.
The DVX lens is equivalent to a 35mm—with ZOOM. You achieve shallower DOF with the AF100 with greater focal length options.

Per Barry Green's DVX Book:
Achieve shallow depth of field on the DVX: open up the iris, zoom all the way in, and use the ND filters if needed. Keep the background as far away from the subject as possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top