GH2 What are the best GH2 lenses?

@mustangranch99 Depends on your priorities (price range, sharpness, bokeh, MF vs AF, prime vs zoom, etc.) and subject matter (landscapes vs people, etc.) and whether you want a hyper detailed look or something softer.

With that information it becomes much easier to suggest a lens.

The Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 is one of my favorite lenses that I have ever used with the camera - it has it's own look that makes me feel like I would probably still find times to use it, even if I owned every other equally fast lens out there. There are some newer competing lenses, among them ones from SLRMagic that appear to have different pros and cons while offering rather similar field of view and very fast aperture that also look very good.

Anyway, I haven't used SLRMagic lenses yet but I have seen beautiful footage shot with them. I would start by looking at the M43 lenses by Voigtlander and SLRMagic lenses before the others, but I am blanking on the name of a third company that also makes good MF M43 lenses.

In general, the MF lenses and the PanaLeica 25mm will all let you get often get you a more flattering look than the other Panasonic Lumix lenses if you are shooting human subjects. The MF lenses tend to be easier to do manual focus with, of course.
 
Also, if you want shallow DOF or to shoot indoors or without a lot of light, make sure to get wide aperture (low f/stop) lenses, whatever ones you buy. f/2.8 is normally my cutoff, except for especially wide or tele-photo lenses for those applications. The Panasonic 14-140mm needs a lot more light to work well and is typically used more for convenience than for bokeh, etc.

EDIT: Also, I have use the 20mm pancake a lot for both photos and videos. The bokeh is not in the same league as the Nokton, but it has AF, is tiny and lets me use an aperture of f/1.7 while being very light and rather sharp. This makes it very useful, even if it is a pain to focus MF by comparison and the AF is a little slow compared to their new lenses.
 
By gorgeous, I mean I want rich and vibrant colors. I want my videos to look like this.

ZoFL60L.jpg


Sqi8mFO.jpg
 
Yeah, the Voigtlanders are great for that general look. But it is also possible they may have been graded to look warmer (or had the color temp. made warmer when shooting in the WB).

My earlier suggestions about MF lenses are very much what you are going for: look at Voigtlander and SLRMagic more than Panasonic.
 
And Mitakon was the other brand I was trying to remember earlier. I haven't tried them yet, but they are one of the only other companies offering super-fast lenses like SLRMagic and Voigtlander for native M43.
 
mustangranch99 said:
By gorgeous, I mean I want rich and vibrant colors. I want my videos to look like this.

ZoFL60L.jpg


Sqi8mFO.jpg
Click to expand...



I'm not trying to be critical here --I'm trying to be helpful with a degree of honesty.

First and foremost -- asking which lenses are "best" is like asking which automobile is best. The issue is -- what do you want to do? A Hummer does different things than a Mercedes E Class, and a Toyota Corolla does many of the same things cheaper. And, the Mustang guys think the Porsche guys are girly, and the BMW guys hate the Mercedes guys, etc., etc., etc.. All of those kinds of differences and prejudices apply to camera lenses and the crowds that offer recommendations. Finally is the budget issue. Can you afford a new Ferrari?

You stated color rendition as a primary objective --but color rendition is a more minor aspect of lenses -- and a very, very large percentage of color issues can be handled in post by software -- thus negating on a large scale a reliance on glass for color rendition.

Finally, (being honest, not critical), those images you posted are neither "rich" nor "vibrant."They appear to be softish -- meaning they may have been produced by classic lenses such as Nikkor AI or Canon FD (or perhaps that Voightlander at a wide aperture). They're also heavy on contrast with a yellow ("warm") cast -- and you can do that in any editor.

So -- my real answer to your question is -- your question is flawed. And, before you march off and spend money on stuff -- I respectfully suggest you think about what you want to do, what you need, and what you can afford.

Some starting questions may be -- do you need autofocus and other electronic controls? Are you going to be in situations in which you can't add light? ("low light") Have you researched the costs and benefits of prime lenses compared to variable focal length lenses? And, as already mentioned -- what do you want to do?

Enjoy the journey!
 
Last edited:
Andrew Gupta said:
I'm not trying to be critical here --I'm trying to be helpful with a degree of honesty.

First and foremost -- asking which lenses are "best" is like asking which automobile is best. The issue is -- what do you want to do? A Hummer does different things than a Mercedes E Class, and a Toyota Corolla does many of the same things cheaper. And, the Mustang guys think the Porsche guys are girly, and the BMW guys hate the Mercedes guys, etc., etc., etc.. All of those kinds of differences and prejudices apply to camera lenses and the crowds that offer recommendations. Finally is the budget issue. Can you afford a new Ferrari?

You stated color rendition as a primary objective --but color rendition is a more minor aspect of lenses -- and a very, very large percentage of color issues can be handled in post by software -- thus negating on a large scale a reliance on glass for color rendition.

Finally, (being honest, not critical), those images you posted are neither "rich" nor "vibrant."They appear to be softish -- meaning they may have been produced by classic lenses such as Nikkor AI or Canon FD (or perhaps that Voightlander at a wide aperture). They're also heavy on contrast with a yellow ("warm") cast -- and you can do that in any editor.

So -- my real answer to your question is -- your question is flawed. And, before you march off and spend money on stuff -- I respectfully suggest you think about what you want to do, what you need, and what you can afford.

Some starting questions may be -- do you need autofocus and other electronic controls? Are you going to be in situations in which you can't add light? ("low light") Have you researched the costs and benefits of prime lenses compared to variable focal length lenses? And, as already mentioned -- what do you want to do?

Enjoy the journey!
Click to expand...


+1, those shots look out of focus and soft anyways..... Look like video frame grabs from Canon dslr. IMO Panasonic GH2/3 can provide a lot better sharper video images.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2012/06/03/review-voigtlander-17-5mm-f0-95-lens-micro-four-thirds/
 
Poke around some more and try a search. So much info here on lenses that will probably get you answers your looking for.
 
Andrew Gupta said:
You stated color rendition as a primary objective --but color rendition is a more minor aspect of lenses -- and a very, very large percentage of color issues can be handled in post by software -- thus negating on a large scale a reliance on glass for color rendition.

Some starting questions may be -- do you need autofocus and other electronic controls? Are you going to be in situations in which you can't add light? ("low light") Have you researched the costs and benefits of prime lenses compared to variable focal length lenses? And, as already mentioned -- what do you want to do?
Click to expand...

Ah, Ok. I appreciate the honesty, so I'll be a bit clearer. :)

I want to shoot cinematic "softish" looking video (as posted above) from a medium/near distance. I won't need a zoom lenses or autofocus and I'll be around a decent amount of light. Both natural and man made.

I'm a bit new to this, but what do you mean the lens doesn't matter much to color? Surely better quality glass will mean better quality images, right?

I also would like to have bokeh! And as such, I stumbled across the SLR Magic 12mm.
Would any of you recommend that?
 
There's so much information you just need to look - sorry but your question is so vague and subjective that you need to read some background stuff, of which there is volumes, rather than look for a one sentence answer. All lenses are good and price usually dictates quality and speed.
There are charts, comparisons, discussions, reviews already out there.
Yes, the 12mm SLR magic is a good lens.
 
malibudutchie said:
There's so much information you just need to look - sorry but your question is so vague and subjective that you need to read some background stuff, of which there is volumes, rather than look for a one sentence answer. All lenses are good and price usually dictates quality and speed.
There are charts, comparisons, discussions, reviews already out there.
Yes, the 12mm SLR magic is a good lens.
Click to expand...

I don't understand, I did go into more detail in the post above yours. All I want is something that recreates the look of the pictures I posted. :p
What's the "background" stuff you're referring to?
 
@mailbudutchie Here's 27 pages of discussion of the SLRMagic 12mm f/1.6. It was started early on when the lens was first announced so you may want to focus more on later comments. You'll get a variety of positive and negative perspectives on it.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/1103/12mm-f1.6-noktor-/p1

But to more directly answer your question: can this lens shoot "softish" footage with pleasing bokeh? Yes, for the money and focal length it is one of the better options for those characteristics. if you want it to look "softish" you'll want to avoid shooting too close to it's optimal aperture, so tend towards the extremes (wide open or fully stopped down).

But one thing to keep in mind is that (assuming equal aperture) the shorter your lens is, the more difficult it is to get shallow DOF with pronounced bokeh. A 25mm would function closer to the focal length of "normal lens" on the GH2 (though slightly wider in video mode) while a 12mm would be pretty wide.

Whatever lens you use, make sure to have ND filters so that you can still open the aperture up when you are shooting with a lot of light.
 
if i was wanting a good, all purpose lens for a GH_ i would choose either the:

1. voigtlander 25mm (for "cinematic" use - as long as you have room to back up from the subject)
2. panasonic 12-35 2.8 (for general walking around shots)

both will set you back +/- a grand or so.
 
Older lenses can definitely do this kind of thing. My $100 Nikon 50mm 1.8 looks kind of similar (at f/1.8). I think the look you're referring to has a lot to do with post processing, but a wide aperture, short telephoto lens will go a long way toward getting the bokeh. Keep in mind if you're shooting video, you'd need either a very high framerate or, preferably, a ND filter to shoot wide open and not overexpose. Maybe a cheap filter will also help get the slightly soft look you want (not that I'd usually recommend cheap filters... :p )
 
General diffusion filters can be helpful but I find one ike a Tiffen Black ProMist gives a better balance between detail and softness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top