amosrafaeli
Active member
You can also consider the Olympus 12-60 which is 2.8-4, or the 14-54 which is 2.8-3.5
not the X10 zoom range as the 14-140, but faster
Vol 25mm or Oly 14-35mm?
- Thread starter John Foundas
- Start date
You can also consider the Olympus 12-60 which is 2.8-4, or the 14-54 which is 2.8-3.5
not the X10 zoom range as the 14-140, but faster
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Umm, ok, cool, and congrats, but nowhere in your profile, or your signature, or anywhere does it mention your level of experience. All I see is Johnf, member since Nov 2010, with 54 posts. You asked about which lens, then added your intended use which as many/most here have already agreed the AF100 is not ideal for. I said that a 14-140 would be a better choice than either of the lenses you asked about, and merely suggested an alternative suitable for most people, though not necessarily award-winning photojournalists with tons of experience. No need to be snooty.
Yes, a simple question, which of two fully manual lenses should be used to shoot ENG with an AF100. Not ideal, not for the faint of heart, and without knowing the experience (and commitment, in your care) level of the shooter, advice worth taking into consideration, not crapping on outright.
Your right, it is hard knowing ones experience on these boards, since all you have to go by is the amount of time a person has been a member of DVXuser. Sorry for the remark!
By the way, I think we probably will see some new glass coming out that will give the af100 more flexibility. So that raises the question of if it would just be better to wait and just get the minimum of what you need now saving those dollars to get a better picture of what's on the horizon.
mkfotos.com
Well-known member
Thank you, I appreciate that. My intended use for the camera will be very similar to yours, and just like you, I'll do my damndest to make it work.
Johnf, from now on I'll make sure to do a whole lot more listening to you than speaking, as you probably have 10X (or more) the experience that I do, so please just share that knowledge here like so many do.
Me, I'll probably be getting the 25mm as early as I can next year, based on the footage, the f/0.95, and its rave reviews.
mountainradio
Active member
Well, I asked myself the same question and ended up buying the Voigtlander. i've been using it on the GH13 and it's great, beautiful and fantastic.
I'm sure the 14-35 is also beautiful glass but to me it's not an ideal zoom lens. I do a lot of ENG work handheld (with a stabilization rig but not on a tripod) and I find the OIS on the 14-140, for example, very useful. So IS is something I really want in a zoom lens, and of course the 14-35 doesn't have it. I also think it's a bit short -- I'd really like something at least to 50mm. And then too, it's expensive which makes it harder to overlook these ways in which it is not ideal for my uses.
Like many people, I hope and think Panasonic will come out with a faster video-optimized zoom before too long. In the meantime, if I feel I can't make due with the 14-140 I'll probably go with a cheaper stop-gap like the Oly 14-54 or 12-60, though again I'd almost prefer the IS of the 14-140 to the stop or two of extra light from the others.
What almost convinced me to buy the 14-35 in spite of my reservations about it as a zoom lens was thinking that I'd essentially get a bonus self-contained kit of primes in addition to the zoom. At f/2 that lens is faster than just about anything else below 20mm, and no slouch across the board. If I was starting with a tabula rasa this would be a heck of a compelling argument. But since I've already got a number of nice and in some cases pretty expensive lenses from 20-35mm (including that very lovely Voigtlander,) I think the 14-35 will get a pass.
I'm sure the 14-35 is also beautiful glass but to me it's not an ideal zoom lens. I do a lot of ENG work handheld (with a stabilization rig but not on a tripod) and I find the OIS on the 14-140, for example, very useful. So IS is something I really want in a zoom lens, and of course the 14-35 doesn't have it. I also think it's a bit short -- I'd really like something at least to 50mm. And then too, it's expensive which makes it harder to overlook these ways in which it is not ideal for my uses.
Like many people, I hope and think Panasonic will come out with a faster video-optimized zoom before too long. In the meantime, if I feel I can't make due with the 14-140 I'll probably go with a cheaper stop-gap like the Oly 14-54 or 12-60, though again I'd almost prefer the IS of the 14-140 to the stop or two of extra light from the others.
What almost convinced me to buy the 14-35 in spite of my reservations about it as a zoom lens was thinking that I'd essentially get a bonus self-contained kit of primes in addition to the zoom. At f/2 that lens is faster than just about anything else below 20mm, and no slouch across the board. If I was starting with a tabula rasa this would be a heck of a compelling argument. But since I've already got a number of nice and in some cases pretty expensive lenses from 20-35mm (including that very lovely Voigtlander,) I think the 14-35 will get a pass.
This is where I'm coming from, not any lenses before my preorder. The only lenses I have are the 14-140 and now the 14-35, but I know the 14-35 will go a long way as like you said " a self contained kit of primes"