Top 5 must have lens for a GH2?

timmetje87 said:
Witch Olympus lens you bought for the documentary. The 11-22 or a other one.
Click to expand...

I've got the 14-54mm, but actually the 11-22 would make a pretty slick lens for handheld, I bet.

Didn't think too much about the windsurfing part, but yeah, you'll probably want something more tele (although 140x2.6= 364, or the equivalent of 728 on a full-frame, which is pretty far out there.)
 
Anyone tried the Olympus 50mm f2? Its supposedly the sharpest Olympus lens available - I'm wondering if anyone has tried it with the GH1/GH2.
 
It does look quite nice for not terribly too much money -- would probably be better IQ-wise than most adapted lenses. I think I heard that it autofocuses slowly, but oh well.
 
So the buyers list is now like this:

Kit-Lens 14-140 MM
50 Nikon 1.4
20 MM Pana lens
11-22 MM Lens for handheld shooting.
 
Looks reasonable -- I hope someone else backs you up on that, I don't want to lead you the wrong way. Personally, I might be tempted to get the Olympus 12-60mm over the 11-22mm -- it's sharper, covers almost the same range on the wide end, and way more on the long end. Couple hundred dollars more, but I think it'd be worth it to me. Your mileage may vary.
 
well there's a lot of ways to shoot handheld, while for me a shoulder rig is too much, so it is crucial
 
RaviSun3D said:
Well, if you don't bother about Auto-Focus and faster aperture, you can go with Tamron SP AF10-24mm f/3.5-4.5, lighter & cheaper than 11-22mm.
Click to expand...

Not sure what price that one goes for on ebay, but the 11-22 can be had for three hundred something on there.

As far as IS goes, there aren't really particularly better options than the 14-140mm in that regard (the other kit lenses are a bit faster wide open, but oh well.) I would generally recommend shooting with some sort of rig, but wide-open you might get by if you're careful.
 
look for a bargain on panasonic leica 14-50 2.8-3.5 with OIS
pricey ones cost 1000$.
i got one with problematic AF (which i don't use anyhow) for 250$
 
roei z said:
look for a bargain on panasonic leica 14-50 2.8-3.5 with OIS
pricey ones cost 1000$.
i got one with problematic AF (which i don't use anyhow) for 250$
Click to expand...

That lens breathes pretty badly, and based on the reviews on b&h it's not very reliable. Otherwise it'd be great.
 
You don't need much of the OIS when you are as wide as 9mm on any lens. With Auto-Focus, without any adapter.
Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm; this could be the best option for Ultra Wide Lens. It's much lighter than any of the stock lenses for hand-held, just 155 grams.
 
RaviSun3D said:
You don't need much of the OIS when you are as wide as 9mm on any lens. With Auto-Focus, without any adapter.
Olympus M.Zuiko 9-18mm; this could be the best option for Ultra Wide Lens. It's much lighter than any of the stock lenses for hand-held, just 155 grams.
Click to expand...
I'm torn, Ravi, between the 9-18 you linked and the 11-22 f2.8-3.5...almost the same price, and i'd love the speed of the 11-22....i'm just undecided at this point. any other lenses in this range i could consider?

didn't mean to hijack the thread, but it's been a few days with no activity. Thanks guys.

ps...the Tokina 11-16mm was on my list, and i'm well aware of it's usefulness on the GH1, but i'm leaning towards the Olympus' for some reason :-)
 
20mm 1.7
- Good: Compact. Good sharpness at 2.0.
- Bad: Difficult MF control. Slow and noisy AF. Moving filter thread.

50mm 1.4
- Although ETC on the pancake gives 52mm, it can't replace the nifty-fifty. ETC at high ISO magnifies the noise. Ai-s, FD, Rokkor or whatever. All good.

HD O.I.S. zoom
- Fast silent AF and image stabilization. 12-50, 14-42, 14-45, 14-140, 50-200, 100-300. Great for vacation. Why would I use anything else if there is enough lighting?

Voigtlander 25mm 0.95 or Panasonic 25mm 1.4
- Use 2.6x or 3.9x ETC to get 1:1 macro. Great for low lighting.
 
Lumix 20mm f1.7 (great for travel, interviews in small spaces)
Lumix 14-140mm f4-5.6 (perfect for outdoors, daylight and handheld)
Olympus 14-54mm f2.8-3.5 (fast wide zoom for lowlight, broll)
Canon FD 50mm f1.4 (fast and good medium-length lens)
Canon FD 85mm f1.2 or f1.8 (bokeh-city! portrait interviews)

I have everything but the Oly and the Canon 85mm. I shoot a lot of interviews with supplemental broll out 'in the field' where I've got to get the shot quickly and work with whatever the location has to offer. For those quick shoots I use the Lumix 20mm for sit-down interviews (cam on tripod) and the Lumix 14-140mm for all my broll (also mostly on sticks). The 14-140mm is just too slow for indoors and I really need to pick up the Oly 14-54mm. Together, those 2 lenses make a great all-around kit for documentary shooting (remember to grab a FaderND for outdoors!).

I typically reserve my primes for more controlled sets where I've got more time to pay attention to detail and time to do multiple takes if needed.

I've noticed that I've started to think of my lenses in terms of how far I have to be physically from the subject. I've found the 20mm to be a bit of a sweet spot for indoors and close quarters which allows me to be as close as you would naturally be from someone who isn't your significant other. ;) The 50mm and 85mm seem better suited for 'portrait' type interviews and closeups that require me to physically position the camera further away.....unless I want that super closeup, I need much more room to get that same medium shot that I get with the 20mm. I don't do much nature videography shooting birds and stuff from miles away, so I have no need (yet!) for anything longer than the 14-140mm.

Maybe it'll help someone else out there to think about their lenses this way. I know it has helped me plan my shoots. =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top