GH2 Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 (4/3 mount) or sigma 17-50 (nikon mount with adaptor)

N

neko30

Well-known member
hi all,

curious to know which zoom lens you guys would prefer on GH2 (for doc./handheld shooting).

Panasonic 12-35 f2.8 (4/3 mount) or sigma 17-50 2.8 (nikon mount with novoflex adapter).

mostly, i'm interested in the aperture functionality--with sigma, you would control aperture via
the adapter--which i like. but i've had vignetting issues with various adapters once you close
down to 4.0 and more)...with panasonic, would you control aperture via dial on camera? since
it's a panasonic lens with 4/3 mount?

any other pros/cons appreciated.

thanks.
goro
 
neko30 said:
with panasonic, would you control aperture via dial on camera? since
it's a panasonic lens with 4/3 mount?
Click to expand...
Yeah, the GH2 would electronically control the Panasonic lens—it's actually a micro four thirds (m4/3) mount, which is different from 4/3 (used by Olympus).

(That's all the info I can provide, as I haven't used either lens.)
 
12-35mm pros -
I.S. - this can not be underestimated for handheld
lightweight - this can not be underestimated for handheld
razor sharp from wide open
much wider lens
talks to the camera, no need for adaptor
auto focus if you need it

12-35mm cons
annoying flicker when zooming, can only really be used as variable prime

Sigma pros
smooth aperture change with Novoflex adaptor though you wont know what actual f stop you're at
can zoom through with no flicker if you like to use zoom in a shot
longer reach at telephoto end

Sigma cons
heavy
no IS
not so wide at 17mm
no auto focus

these are just off the top of my head, I'm sure other folks can add to this....

I would get the 12-35mm, its an almost perfect handheld lens - the lack of reach can be compensated for to some degree using the ETC function
 
Last edited:
thanks ade4all...this is extremely helpful information and helps me make a more informed consideration.
 
hey no worries happy to help - for what its worth I have the 12-35mm and a Nikon 17-55mm 2.8 with Novoflex adaptor and for handheld i use the 12-35mm every time....on a tripod it really depends on if I need a wider or a longer zoom
 
Re: the Novoflex adapter... it functions by mimicking the auto-aperture mechanism on Nikon bodies that changes the lens' actual aperture, and as such won't cause the vignetting problems inherent in the adapters with built-in apertures.


Left-field option (and one I use most frequently) is the 4/3 Leica 14-50/2.8-3.5. It's effectively constant aperture at 3.5 and has working OIS and an on-lens aperture wheel (still electronic, but via wheel), but breathes and still has the odd aperture changes while zooming (even at 3.5-4)
 
These new Lumix lenses are really dare I say it "game changers" They fit the camera perfectly and are top of the line pro level lenses. Don't be fooled by the size and weight. I bought both the 12-35 and the 35-100. I already had the 7-14. I'm pretty much covered with three lenses!
 
Erik Naso said:
These new Lumix lenses are really dare I say it "game changers" They fit the camera perfectly and are top of the line pro level lenses. Don't be fooled by the size and weight. I bought both the 12-35 and the 35-100. I already had the 7-14. I'm pretty much covered with three lenses!
Click to expand...

Imagine a few years ago being told you could fit FF equivalent coverage of 14-200 (24-200 @2.8 with IS) into a small sling bag with your camera. Huge for anyone who travels and shoots.
 
The GH3 is going to shake up the stills market. It's really that good. Add the video mode and now these light weight pro level lenses just makes me smile!
 
mcbob said:
Re: the Novoflex adapter... it functions by mimicking the auto-aperture mechanism on Nikon bodies that changes the lens' actual aperture, and as such won't cause the vignetting problems inherent in the adapters with built-in apertures.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was wondering why the OP mentioned vignetting with adapters, as that should only really become a problem with "fake" iris blades (which I don't recommend). necko30, were you trying to use EOS glass previously? Those usually have in-adapter iris blades, which can be a problem like that. Since they are electronically controlled (just like m4/3), they therefore can't be mechanically adjusted the way Nikon can.
Did you have vignetting with Nikon lenses before? I'm curious what are experiencing there, because something doesn't sound right.

As far as your question, here is something to consider: The Nikon adapters will allow you to adjust the aperture in-the-lens (so there should be no vignetting from the adapter), however it is an imperfect science. You can adjust the size of the iris, but you don't have any real way to tell what F-stop you are at. You are basically left eye-balling your exposure. Some of the cheaper adapters even have trouble keeping the iris at a paticular position (they offer a loosely sliding ring that can nudge with the slightest accidental touch). The more expensive ones at least let you lock the ring at a position.

While this is nice for easy and smooth iris changes during a shoot, I actually find myself preferring to use EOS glass on a simple (no aperture adjustment) adapter. Since I also have a Canon body that I carry around in my bag, I can simply throw the lens on the body, set the desired aperture, and remove it while holding the DOF preview button. I now have the lens locked at precisely the F-stop I want, no guessing or accidental changes, and I usually don't need to adjust it during a session.

Something to think about.

Anyway, all of this is moot in my opinion, because these new lumix lenses finally offer constant aperture as well as something I've always wanted: OIS. I can't tell you how many times I still had to go back to the kit lens because I needed some stabilization. If you are planning on going handheld at all, there is really nothing to talk about. Only reason to consider the Sigma is if you are on a tight budget, IMO.
 
The 12-25 f/2.8 would be a perfect lens, were it not saddled with a fatal bug - you can't zoom it while shooting, because it flickers unacceptably on both the GH2 and GH3 while zooming (the latter confirmed by Eric who posted the footage in one of the threads here). So if you want it for stills, or you want to use it as a variable prime from 12 to 35, then you're fine, but otherwise...

I have no idea if this can be fixed in firmware, or if a new version needs to come out (and if so, when it might come out), but that's a severe limitation you need to be aware of.
 
that sucks about the flicker...but i think i'm still going for it, over the sigma, mostly because of the IS.

i'm assuming that it's only going to flicker if it's a longer zoom and not small zoom to slightly adjust composition.

thanks for the heads up on this.
 
OldCorpse said:
The 12-25 f/2.8 would be a perfect lens, were it not saddled with a fatal bug - you can't zoom it while shooting, because it flickers unacceptably on both the GH2 and GH3 while zooming (the latter confirmed by Eric who posted the footage in one of the threads here). So if you want it for stills, or you want to use it as a variable prime from 12 to 35, then you're fine, but otherwise...

I have no idea if this can be fixed in firmware, or if a new version needs to come out (and if so, when it might come out), but that's a severe limitation you need to be aware of.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm the only person in the forum who hasn't done a rolling zoom in the last 10 years, I think the last time I saw one on TV was an episode of "I dream of Genie" or possibly something on the news, so I don't think this is anything like a "fatal flaw" considering all the other things the Pan 12-35 does so so well.

Actually I find that the OIS is not the biggest selling point for the Pan 12-35, but here is something that really impressed me: I'm currently in the southern hemisphere and this is the land of max ND between 9 AM and 5 PM, with the Tiffen Pro vari-ND mounted I dialed in an exposure directly overhead (a brilliant cumulous clouded summer sky) and then panned down into the jungle where I was set-up with the GH2 set on S, I got the smoothest auto-iris function I've ever experienced in any HDSLR/lens combination, no objectionable "stepping" or "flickering" that is the hallmark of a lot of current stills lenses. This to me is worth the price of admission.
 
I've shot a lot in the last year with a client's AF101, MTF adapter, and the Sigma 17-50. It's a good lens for video, very workable and I like the reach for general run&gun work. However, I film a lot of practical action (science demonstrations), and in many situations the Sigma just isn't wide enough. The client has recently bought the 12-35 Panasonic and while I haven't seen it yet, they're raving over it. Mostly for the OIS and wide-end range.

Other thoughts about the Sigma: it exhibits significant focus breathing, which can be annoying if you're trying to set up a quick and stable focus pull. The focus travel movement is very short, which personally I find workable but others who've used it have found frustrating. Finally, while I very much enjoy the lens for video on my D7000, for stills use it's disappointing. The wide end shows fairly significant distortion, and it's rarely a pin-sharp lens, particularly at 50mm. On the plus side, I really like the flare effects it produces, as such things go. Not wildly controllable, but occasionally very pretty.

It's served me well on the D7000, but on m43 it's only been a stopgap until the 12-35 arrived.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top