GH2 Sigma 20mm F1.8
- Thread starter Kholi
- Start date
Wow, talk about reading my mind! Seriously looking into getting this lens myself as well... almost pulled the trigger last night. There's only a few videos on vimeo... and even then, most are mixed in with footage from different lenses. I'm a huge fan of sigma, mostly the 30mm 1.4 which is easily my favorite lens so far on the gh2 (keep coming back to it no matter how many different lenses I try). Still thinking about holding out for the 19mm, even though it's only 2.8... full stop is a pretty big difference. Somebody please tempt me... I'm desperate for a lens in this range.
Hmm. I respect the heck out of you, Kholi, so whatever you say, I take seriously. And this has me all confused, because I've been picking lenses for the GH2 on which I want to shoot my no-budget feature, and I've come to rather different conclusions. I'm going to be doing a lot of shooting in *very* tight spaces and very dark spaces. I already have a couple of Nikon lenses because my wife does a lot of portrait photography, so if I pick up an adapter I'll have some Nikon glass for the GH2. With that said, I've preliminarily settled on this list:
1)Noktor hyperprime 12mm f/1.6 OR Oly 12mm 2.0. This is a decision I'll make when I get to test the lenses. I am considering using a steadicam, in which case the continuous AF of the Oly is very intriguing, and there are reports of the Oly 12mm continuous AF working fantastically on a steadicam. On the other hand, I've seen footage from both, and I much prefer the look of the Noktor. I'll make a decision after I test both.
2)The announced 17.5mm f/0.95 - I'm super excited about this lens - but I must test it first.
3)I'd love the Nokton 25mm f/0.95, but don't have the $. If I am to spend upward of $1200, I'd sooner spend $1500 on the 17.5mm, because I like it wider (assuming I like the IQ of the 17.5mm). So, since I'm not getting the Nokton 25mm, I'm thinking of getting the Panasonic-Leica 25mm f/1.4 for the continuous autofocus again, with a view to use of a steadicam... though I would have to test this to see if the image quality would be compatible with the 12mm and 17.5, and I suspect there may be some problems with that.
4)Already have the Sigma 28mm 1.8 in a Nikon mount
4)Already have the Nikon 50mm G f/1.4, now this is a G, but I'm hoping the Novoflex will let me use it
5)Already have the Samyang/Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 in a Nikon mount
So, my list is: 12mm 0.95-2, 17.5mm 0.95, 25mm 1.4, 28mm 1.8, 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4
Your lens choices - why don't you want anything wider than 20mm, and if you already think a 28mm lens would be good, what's the point of the 35mm? Given my wish list of lenses, do you see any gaps? I don't have any zoom in there, but I'm not 100% sure what I'd need it for if I'm using the GH2 just for feature/narrative work, not for run'n'gun or documentary work...
Thank you for your input!
Aki_Hartikainen
Carbonite Member
I would be comfortable shooting with Kholi's listed lenses, except a zoom lens is handy at times and there are a few good zooms available, like Tokina AT-X 24-40 and 35-70 f2.8. A low cost telephoto is sometimes needed and Minolta 135 mm f2.8 or 3.5 is very sharp and low cost. I have tested a lot of lenses on GH1 and GH2 and noticed that I do not feel the need to go wider than 24 mm, except for rare shots and for those I intend to get a Century Optics 0.65x wide adapter. So for me 24, 28, 35, 40, 45, 50, 58 and tele optics seem most useful. I would not ignore the low cost f2.8 versions as some are very sharp at full aperture, whereas more expensive but faster glass often needs to be stopped down for adequate sharpness.
I am looking for a 24 mm f2 lens that would be sharp wide open. If you want a sharp fast lens that is a bit wider than 50 mm, then there is the Minolta Pancake 45 mm f2. Unfortunately the Konica Hexanon pancake 40 mm f1.8 is not sharp at full aperture but needs to be stopped down to f2.8. Then it is as sharp as anything on the market. I seem to have a soft spot for the low cost legacy lenses.
Speaking of really wide lenses, I have one unused Lumix 14 mm f2.5 available, if anybody is looking a lens like that. It is very compact and sharp at all apertures, just not my style.
I am looking for a 24 mm f2 lens that would be sharp wide open. If you want a sharp fast lens that is a bit wider than 50 mm, then there is the Minolta Pancake 45 mm f2. Unfortunately the Konica Hexanon pancake 40 mm f1.8 is not sharp at full aperture but needs to be stopped down to f2.8. Then it is as sharp as anything on the market. I seem to have a soft spot for the low cost legacy lenses.
Speaking of really wide lenses, I have one unused Lumix 14 mm f2.5 available, if anybody is looking a lens like that. It is very compact and sharp at all apertures, just not my style.
Last edited:
Even though the eventual Voigtlander 17.5mm will likely walk all over the sigma in terms of iq, there's something about sigma glass I can't get over... something inherently cinematic. I truly enjoy looking at anything shot on the voigtlander because it looks phenomenal; don't think anybody can debate that. However, for a narrative style production, sigma has consistently blown me away with how it seems to produce this pitch perfect blend of sharpness and blur that somehow comes out looking just the way "I'd" like a movie look. Funny enough, the sigma 30mm 1.4 is one of the few lenses I can pick out almost instantly in most footage, it just has that mojo; if the 20mm is similar, I'm definitely on board.
Aki_Hartikainen
Carbonite Member
Somehow I have managed to over-look Sigma lenses almost entirely, but I think I will have a look at them now. Some of them felt a bit plasticky upon first touch, so I simply did not touch them very much. From the 3rd party lens makers I went with Tokina who has partnered with optical glass maker Hoya for decades with excellent results. The AT-X 35-70 f2.8 has to be among the best zooms, I am impressed by the sharpness at full aperture. But same can be said for the Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 zoom, it's just a bit slower lens.
Slow - f/4.5 - 5.6 $600
There is the Pana 7-14 at a constant f/4.0, for a bit more ($800) - I'd rather do this, given the choice. There's also the Oly 9mm-18mm f/4.0 - 5.6 for $400. And of course the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 $500. So if the very wide is important to you, I'd go for the Pana that has a 1mm wider compared to the Sigma. If the superwide is not that important, then frankly the Tokina looks better to me. But then again, I have never handled the Sigma and have no clue about how the IQ is on it... maybe it's great. Just my 0.2c.
You and me both. Mines comes Thursday. Canon mount for future applications.
Corpse, gotta get a snack but will respond in a minute here.
Completely valid concerns, I think for just about every one of us. Especially speed.
This all comes down to personal taste for the most part, but anything below 20mm distorts too much for most scenarios, for me anyway. Take that 12mm (which by the way I'd probably have a hard time choosing between the two as well): If you're in a tiny room, it will still be a tiny room. It's more than likely going to resemble something of an "effect" for what I assume would be an establishing shot.
The 17.5's probably borderline, but even the best of the best copies in SLR world have a lot of distortion going on. For photos, it's not so much of a big deal, you're going to post correct anyway. Motion Picture? Not so much. The trade-off between something that looks normal (wide) and ultra-wide will definitely come down to preference.
Also take into consideration that the Oversized M4/3 video being recorded isn't as desperate on the wide end as we all tend to think. It's hard for me to remind myself of this, but last week we were shooting a multi-cam test and my friend and I both agreed that we should put the 11-16/2.8 on the GH2 so that it would match the 24mm on the C300, and the 24mm on the Epic. Turns out, 16mm was TOO wide, and I had forgotten about my earlier calculations and testing (non-scientific). The right choice would've been a 20mm.
Now, looking at your list, here's what I think I'd do... a Sigma 30/1.4 instead of the 28. To close the gap between the 25 and 50 in a more balanced fashion. . OR the olympus 32 F1.7 which I think you should be able to mount to the GH2.
I think you'll find that the 50mm is actually pretty telephoto, but you may like it.
In the end, what I'm doing is stepping one up from what I'm used to. My lens set shooting RED would always have a 16 in it. The most used lens was around a 32~40mm (Standard Speed 40/T2.1 or the 32mm Cooke S4). On the GH2, my go-to focal length is 28mm. It looks like what I'd expect a 32~35 to behave like, and that's damned fine by me.
The 24/2, it's a good focal length to have as well. I still have a 17-35/2.8 junk Tamron that I mess with every so often, pretty much only use it for the 17/2.8 end and it's fine for the pinch, anything more than I'll borrow the 11-16/2.8.
Hope that makes sense!
Thank you Kholi, for the most informative post. I guess I severely underestimated the distortion aspect. And I underestimated just how different the wide lens calculation is on a m43 cam. I'll have to look carefully at your lens recommendations, and test the whole thing with some footage; when the opportunity presents itself, I'm going to rent the lenses before I make a decision on buying. Kholi, you just made me rethink my lens choices 
... better now, than when I'm going into production!
... better now, than when I'm going into production!Aki_Hartikainen
Carbonite Member
Those are good points. For me the limiter for standard look seems to be at 24 mm and 28 and 35 are the most used focal lengths. Anything wider than 24 mm is mostly for static single shots when there is a need to reveal the space as much as possible and the distortion does not play a role in a static shot. For those shots I am thinking of having a wide adapter to attach on the lens rather than entire new lens. I was thinking of getting a 17 mm Tokina RMC at first, but it's distorted view and would mostly just gather dust.
Thank you Kholi, for the most informative post. I guess I severely underestimated the distortion aspect. And I underestimated just how different the wide lens calculation is on a m43 cam. I'll have to look carefully at your lens recommendations, and test the whole thing with some footage; when the opportunity presents itself, I'm going to rent the lenses before I make a decision on buying. Kholi, you just made me rethink my lens choices
Hopefully helped save you a little cash too, but the best thing to do is to check out some videos on Vimeo with each specific focal length you're looking at.
If you're really concerned about the wides, I'd say get one, not two. Either the 14 or the 17, if they both cost as much as an 11-16/2.8 tokina then grab one of those instead. Most of this comes down to preference and tolerance, but I like shooting people more than I like shooting landscapes or establishing shots, and the distortion of faces and bodies is too alien on wider glass in most cases.
That's prolly just me though! Let me know if you have any more thoughts, it's a great topic.
I had this same thought last night, about attaching a wide angle adapter to the Sigma 20/1.8. I think Sigma makes one, actually, which would be pretty neat to have instead of jumping to the 17/2.8.
When I get it I'll start exploring more.
The Sigma 20 1.8 is a wonderful lens for GH2 video and cuts in well with stuff from my Zeiss glass. I think I've used it on every single project so far and recommend it highly. it focuses really close so you can get some cool distortions on faces if you'd like since it starts to get into the extra wide region. The only gripe I have is that it focuses in the opposite way as the Zeiss. I'm not sure who is right or wrong, just saying they are different. I'm thinking of selling mine (Nikon) to get the Voightlander 17 when it comes out just to get that extra stop of light and possibly having it focus in the same direction as the Zeiss ZF. However, for the price of the Sigma and that it works on FF cameras kind of makes it a steal.
The benefit of the FF and moving to another camera later (which I'm sure I will... typical) is what made me go for the Sigma versus the voigt 17 0.95, which seems like it's gonna be a KILLER lens to have.
Thanks for reporting back! A day's not that long to wait, but I'm excited to grab it and pace it.
Aki_Hartikainen
Carbonite Member
About the focus ring turning to opposite direction, this is a Nikon feature. Most Nikon lenses have the focus and aperture rings running to the opposite direction from Zeiss and others. A 3rd party lens with Nikon mount often follows this principle. Same lens with other camera mount may have rings rotating the usual way.
Ok, that is good to know. Thanks for the info.