I know there are a lot of different lenses that can be used on this camera, but if you only could take 3 lenses to a shoot with this camera, what would they be, and why? These lenses would be used for indoor shooting, outdoor shooting, pretty much everything. I'm interested to see which lenses are picked. I'm also interested to see which lenses that would work best with OIS for handheld shots. Barry also mentioned that the Lumix 14-140 works nicely with the auto focus. Are there any other's that offer this feature that work nicely with the AF100?
Top Lenses
- Thread starter swanny
- Start date
gustavo_viral
Active member
Im considering in get:
panasonic 20mm 1.7
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.8
I think these are good and affordable for me.
panasonic 20mm 1.7
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Nikon 85mm 1.8
I think these are good and affordable for me.
Andrew J. Allsbury
Well-known member
We will be using several lenses, but I am predicting our "go to" lenses to be:
Panasonic 14-140 4-5.8
Panasonic 20mm 1.7
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Other Lenses I'm looking forward to trying out on this cam:
Nikon 24mm 2.8
Samyang 7mm
Voghtlander (sp?) 25mm 0.95
Noktor 50mm ) 0.95
Panasonic 14-140 4-5.8
Panasonic 20mm 1.7
Nikon 50mm 1.4
Other Lenses I'm looking forward to trying out on this cam:
Nikon 24mm 2.8
Samyang 7mm
Voghtlander (sp?) 25mm 0.95
Noktor 50mm ) 0.95
thekreative
Veteran
what about Sigma?
what about Sigma?
Sigma has 4/3 lenses at fast-ish speeds. Will the aperture work with a micro 4/3 adapter? Plus they are cheap compared to some of the other brands at the same speed:
24mm f1.8 $570
30mm f1.4 $650
50mm f1.4 $730
18-50mm f2.8 $660
70-200mm f2.8 $1200
I used to have a Sigm 24-70 and it was great for the price.
what about Sigma?
Sigma has 4/3 lenses at fast-ish speeds. Will the aperture work with a micro 4/3 adapter? Plus they are cheap compared to some of the other brands at the same speed:
24mm f1.8 $570
30mm f1.4 $650
50mm f1.4 $730
18-50mm f2.8 $660
70-200mm f2.8 $1200
I used to have a Sigm 24-70 and it was great for the price.
Last edited:
gustavo_viral
Active member
No, im not. I dont think this is that important. I work with advertising and most of time the camera is on tripod.
powervideo
Well-known member
Add the Panasonic 7-14 Lumix super-wide to that list. It's an amazing lens with CAC for Panasonic cameras.
tflak
Veteran
I own the first two you've listed. Have had the 35-100 for about a year and love it. Just got the 14-35 so don't have a lot of experience with it. But, from what I've seen so far, it's every bit as good as the 35-100.
If they're in your price range, I'd run out and buy both now. Gives you 14-100 at a constant 2.0 -- with top-rated glass -- essentially, a set of very good primes in a zoom (well, 2 zooms). Wouldn't be at all surprised if these become very hard to find once the AF100 is available. At least at a decent price.
Lots of reviews on these lenses available. They are all raves. Just keep in mind that these are still photo lenses not designed for video. But that has nothing to do with their superb image quality across the entire range - that still shines through with video - it's more about the ergonomics and functionality of what you may be used to, if you've been primarily a traditional video shooter.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/546539-REG/Olympus_261011_14_35mm_f_2_0_ED_SWD.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/404517-REG/Olympus_261012_35_100mm_f_2_0_ED_Zuiko.html
Petros Kolyvas
Well-known member
How do you find the breathing on the Olympus lenses? I have no experience with them, just asking.
tflak
Veteran
Pretty negligible on the 14-35. On the 35-100, not so great - big difference even when comparing both lenses at 35mm. So yes, there's a difference, in terms of breathing, than you might find with primes at the same various focal lengths. In that respect my analogy to a good set of primes may not hold water. But in terms of image quality throughout I think it still does.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Do these higher end Olympus lenses have any kind of image stabilization?
I am finding the wide end pretty hard to cover with fast lenses as well as IS. I think IS is very important for video use if you want to go handheld.
I am finding the wide end pretty hard to cover with fast lenses as well as IS. I think IS is very important for video use if you want to go handheld.
lawrenceingram
Active member
Canon Lenses?
Canon Lenses?
Hey Guys,
I've been shooting with an HVX 200 and most recently, a Canon 5D Mark II. I've enjoyed the HDSLR experience in certain situations, but obviously, very lacking for more serious video.
I'm curious to know what I would need to use this with my Canon Lenses, and if they will be any good with it. I have an L-series 24-105mm lens, but I know it will not be as wide-angle with the smaller sensor of the AF100. My other lens is a 70-300mm lens which will clearly be a long lens for this camera. I'd like to keep using my 5D for photography, but maybe keep it down to one additional lens for the AF100 (trying to be a little budget-minded). What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Lawrence
Canon Lenses?
Hey Guys,
I've been shooting with an HVX 200 and most recently, a Canon 5D Mark II. I've enjoyed the HDSLR experience in certain situations, but obviously, very lacking for more serious video.
I'm curious to know what I would need to use this with my Canon Lenses, and if they will be any good with it. I have an L-series 24-105mm lens, but I know it will not be as wide-angle with the smaller sensor of the AF100. My other lens is a 70-300mm lens which will clearly be a long lens for this camera. I'd like to keep using my 5D for photography, but maybe keep it down to one additional lens for the AF100 (trying to be a little budget-minded). What do you guys think?
Thanks,
Lawrence
mountainradio
Active member
35-100 has IS; 14-35 does not.
There have been rumors for a while that Panasonic is working on something like a video-optimized 12-75 f/2.5 with IS which to me would fill a huge hole in the lineup. The 14-140 is a nice lens but it's slow and seems pretty underclass for the AF-100 in particular. So I really hope those rumors will prove true sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, there's little to nothing in terms of a wide/fast/IS lens. The PanaLeica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 has IS but other users on here have reported horrendous focus breathing rendering it unsatisfactory and it's gotten generally pretty middling reviews. The Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 II seems to be the best regarded fastish zoom, but no IS. I'd probably get that over the 14-35 f/2 because it's about $1500 cheaper and covers a more useful range but in the end I'd probably get more use out of the 14-140 since I do a lot of handheld shooting and can really use the IS.
So for the time being I'll probably stick with what I've been using on my GH13 -- the 14-140, 20/1.7, and 50/1.2 and 85/1.8 Canon FDs.
I'm also thinking about a Zeiss 28 f/2 but if the Voigtlander 25 f/.95 looks close in terms of overall quality I'll probably get that.
There have been rumors for a while that Panasonic is working on something like a video-optimized 12-75 f/2.5 with IS which to me would fill a huge hole in the lineup. The 14-140 is a nice lens but it's slow and seems pretty underclass for the AF-100 in particular. So I really hope those rumors will prove true sooner rather than later.
In the meantime, there's little to nothing in terms of a wide/fast/IS lens. The PanaLeica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 has IS but other users on here have reported horrendous focus breathing rendering it unsatisfactory and it's gotten generally pretty middling reviews. The Olympus 14-54 f/2.8-3.5 II seems to be the best regarded fastish zoom, but no IS. I'd probably get that over the 14-35 f/2 because it's about $1500 cheaper and covers a more useful range but in the end I'd probably get more use out of the 14-140 since I do a lot of handheld shooting and can really use the IS.
So for the time being I'll probably stick with what I've been using on my GH13 -- the 14-140, 20/1.7, and 50/1.2 and 85/1.8 Canon FDs.
I'm also thinking about a Zeiss 28 f/2 but if the Voigtlander 25 f/.95 looks close in terms of overall quality I'll probably get that.
tflak
Veteran
I don't know what 35-100 you're talking about, but I have the Olympus Zuiko 35-100mm f/2.0 and I can assure you that lens does not have built-in IS.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Thanks for your replies. As I look around and try to see if this camera is a fit for me the 2x crop is proving to be kind of a deal-breaker until some more video-centric lenses come out. I also have a 24-105 IS and it is plenty wide on the 5D but is 48mm on the AF-100.
The rumored lens (12-75 IS) would be quite useful but I read a post by Jan the Panasonic rep. that said there were no lenses she knew about that were in production. This is one of the drawbacks being first out of the gate. You can bet that when Sony or Canon release their answer the wide end will be covered with IS lenses. Compared to Canon or Nikon, I see the micro 4/3rds line as leaning more towards consumer and I think this is holding back the AF-100 which is being looked at by pro video folks. Sure you can put any lens on the AF-100 but most of them will thown out of their intended range.
I am sure lenses will appear over time though.
The rumored lens (12-75 IS) would be quite useful but I read a post by Jan the Panasonic rep. that said there were no lenses she knew about that were in production. This is one of the drawbacks being first out of the gate. You can bet that when Sony or Canon release their answer the wide end will be covered with IS lenses. Compared to Canon or Nikon, I see the micro 4/3rds line as leaning more towards consumer and I think this is holding back the AF-100 which is being looked at by pro video folks. Sure you can put any lens on the AF-100 but most of them will thown out of their intended range.
I am sure lenses will appear over time though.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Zeiss starts to adapt a line of lenses for MFT currently. And believe me: If they do that then not because they expect the MFT segment to be a flimsy amateur thing. Not with lenses with a 3 to 4 k Euro price tag. Others will fall in.
And .... with the cropping of the MFT sensor you nearer the "sweet spot" of lenses constructed for 35mm film or still. All in all it looks like MFT could become the new sub-RED/ALEXA-standard for independent digital production. And if you need it shorter..... Pana 7 - 14 is a great glass.
tflak
Veteran
I don't have anything wider than 14 and am looking to fill that hole. The only thing stopping me from jumping on the 7-14 is it being 4.0. That's just too slow for my tastes. So have also been considering the Olympus 11-22 at 2.8-3.5. Now, I realize there's a big difference between 7 and 11mm. So maybe it's one or the other; really wide and slow, or moderaetly wide and relatively fast.
Other than the Tokina 11-16, is there anything else out there I should be looking at (under 2K)? Thanks.
Rolf Silber
Veteran
Hi tflak,
nut sure - the 7-14 was for me a (expensive) compromise too. Especially as I am right now shooting time lapse sequences at night which we want to use in scenes we shot with green screen. Have problems with banding with my GH13 when I go only slightly up in ISO or have too long exposure time and airplanes keep whizzing as long streaks and much too fast over the sky because I am on 4.0. Would have bought the 8 mm, but that's 3.5 only.
Yet the optical qualities of the 7-14 thingie seem to be first class. 11 was too long for what I wanted, so I guess you are stuck with the Olympus.
nut sure - the 7-14 was for me a (expensive) compromise too. Especially as I am right now shooting time lapse sequences at night which we want to use in scenes we shot with green screen. Have problems with banding with my GH13 when I go only slightly up in ISO or have too long exposure time and airplanes keep whizzing as long streaks and much too fast over the sky because I am on 4.0. Would have bought the 8 mm, but that's 3.5 only.
Yet the optical qualities of the 7-14 thingie seem to be first class. 11 was too long for what I wanted, so I guess you are stuck with the Olympus.