GH3 What long zoom to complement the Sigma 18-35/1.8 w/ Speedbooster?

P

peripatew

Well-known member
Really trying to find a good long zoom option. I was hoping I'd like the 12-35/35-100 combo, but I shoot a lot of low light, and the 2.8 just wanting working well as I usually can't control the lighting.

I have several great FD primes, but always seem to be switching lenses, so I'm trying to switch to some decent zooms.

What are some good options for fast telephoto zooms? I really like the range of my 45-175, but it's terrible in low light. I'm fine with committing to big lenses w/ the speedbooster, but obviously maintaining a smaller profile is why I'm using the GH3, so avoiding ultra massive would be great :)
 
I've been using the pre-OS version of the Sigma 50-150/2.8, with and without SpeedBooster. The 18-35 will almost certainly be sharper, but it's a good video lens
 
Any sample footage? What native lens does it compare to size wise? And sharpness compared to FD primes? Thanks!
 
After the Sigma 18-35mm f1.8, the Sigma 50-150mm f2.8 is the highest rated APS-C zoom lens on DxO. The Tamron 70-200mm f2.8, Nikon 70-200mm f2.8, and Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 also receive high scores. One of those four lenses should suit your requirements.
 
Sadly you will have a hard time finding a zoom lens faster than f2.8. Olympus has their 4/3 zooms at f2.0. Very expensive and very slow to auto focus but honestly may be your best bet. There is a 35-100 that is great from what I heard but it is big. I know you want a longer reach but you just are not going to find it in a faster lens. The 70-200mm f2.8 are about as fast as they get at that FOV. If 35-100mm is enough and you need faster than f2.8 than the Olympus 4/3 f2.0 zoom is your best option. Remember this is a 4/3 lens not a m4/3 lens so it requires an adapter.
 
I've used my canon EF 70-200 L f/4 IS on my G6 wide open. It's actually a pretty nice combo. If you were to get the older 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS version it would be the fastest long lens you could get with incredible image quality at a reasonable price of around $800 - $900. You'll just need a stack of ND's to swap in and out all day.

I'm a huge fan of the vintage Olympus OM Zuiko lenses. If you can ever find one of these for a reasonable price, it is the holy grail of vintage zooms :)
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/3580mm.htm

The other lens to try for free basically is the OM Zuiko 75-150mm F/4. They go for $45 or so and have really nice image quality.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
peripatew said:
Any sample footage? What native lens does it compare to size wise? And sharpness compared to FD primes? Thanks!
Click to expand...

Wow... actually very very few, much of my work this year has been for corp and gov entities that haven't released me to use the footage elsewhere. Only examples off the top of my head is here ("My videos" link midway down), AF100 + 50-150/2.8 w/ SpeedBooster:
http://www.ameripriseadvisors.com/janet.b.benedetti/

No idea on its sharpness vs. FD primes (don't have any), better or equal to my OM primes, softer than my Leica R primes. Slightly improved by the SpeedBooster (makes it non-extending, smooth-focusing, parfocal 35-105/2)

Closest m43 lens in size would be the Lumix 100-300 (AFAIK) - it's about the same physical size but the 50-150 is about 50% heavier
 
The OP wants a fast zoom lens, and he has a Canon FD to MFT speedbooster. The f2.8 APS-C lenses in my list (Sigma 50-150, Tamron 70-200, and Sigma 120-300) can be speedboosted to f2.0 on MFT. After speedboosting, they will behave like a Sigma 25-75 f2.0, Tamron 35-100mm f2.0, and Sigma 60-150mm f2.0 respectively on a MFT camera. Aside from the outstanding Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 FT zoom lens, no native MFT zoom lens is that fast. All three lenses are significantly heavier than the native Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 lens, and none will autofocus. Personally, I would choose the Olympus 35-100mm f2.0 if I really needed the extra stop, and the Panasonic 35-100mm f2.8 if I didn't.
 
MFT speedbooster is still a 0.71 reducer, so those three lenses (boosted) are 35-105/2, 50-150/2, 85-210/2 repectively.

My personal reasons for choosing the Sigma 50-150/2.8 with the booster were that it is small enough to use safely without a lens support, it offers smooth fully manual control, it's parfocal, and non-extending. In Nikon mount, it's also useable with virtually any other S35 camera with the proper adapter. It's not as sharp as the Oly 35-100 and offers no auto functions, but those things weren't as important in the way I use such a lens.
 
mcbob said:
MFT speedbooster is still a 0.71 reducer, so those three lenses (boosted) are 35-105/2, 50-150/2, 85-210/2 repectively.

My personal reasons for choosing the Sigma 50-150/2.8 with the booster were that it is small enough to use safely without a lens support, it offers smooth fully manual control, it's parfocal, and non-extending. In Nikon mount, it's also useable with virtually any other S35 camera with the proper adapter. It's not as sharp as the Oly 35-100 and offers no auto functions, but those things weren't as important in the way I use such a lens.
Click to expand...

Having 210mm at f2.0 is pretty darn impressive however. Especially when you can find a Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 for about $1,500.00.
 
mcbob said:
MFT speedbooster is still a 0.71 reducer, so those three lenses (boosted) are 35-105/2, 50-150/2, 85-210/2 repectively.

My personal reasons for choosing the Sigma 50-150/2.8 with the booster were that it is small enough to use safely without a lens support, it offers smooth fully manual control, it's parfocal, and non-extending. In Nikon mount, it's also useable with virtually any other S35 camera with the proper adapter. It's not as sharp as the Oly 35-100 and offers no auto functions, but those things weren't as important in the way I use such a lens.
Click to expand...

Can you post a pic of it mounted with the speed booster on camera?
 
One option if you are looking to save some money is the older Nikon 80-200 f2.8 push zoom lens, with the metabones it would also be f2. I see them on craigslist here in portland pretty regularly $250-350 depending on the condition. I know you were looking for something starting around 50mm but just thought I would through out another option.
 
seeking alternative to Pany 35-100 f2.8

seeking alternative to Pany 35-100 f2.8

Resurrecting an old thread, I am looking for an alternative to the Panasonic 35-100 f2.8 lens. I generally like the image quality, but the image stabilization sucks. So, I'm looking for alternative lenses that I can use with a Metabones Speedbooster (which I haven't yet purchased).

Q: Does the lack of stabilization cause issues for you with hand held shots? I can't imagine shooting handheld over 50mm, so I'm curious about this. How does the new version of this lens, with stabilization, compare?

mcbob said:
I've been using the pre-OS version of the Sigma 50-150/2.8, with and without SpeedBooster. The 18-35 will almost certainly be sharper, but it's a good video lens
Click to expand...
 
I couldn't tell you... I use the Nikon mounts, which get no benefit from electronic anything. The bigger problem with this lens and moreso the newer OS version is nothing to do with electronics, but simply complete imbalance on a handheld camera (DSLR's with 70-200 lenses have similar issues). Long teles like that necessitate sticks or a rig. IMO the Panny 35-100, with its small size, actually does better than most other options in a fully handheld situation simply because the weight is better distributed. Comparable, but slower, is the Panny 14-140.
 
Question for all Sigma 50-150mm owners.. Is it your lens have "heavy lens breathing", also??

Or, it is just my piece that is damaged that way?

Othervise is a keeper lens - sharp even wide opened
 
Thanks for your reply. I tried, and passed on two Panny 35-100 f2.8 because of the horrid O.I.S. "micro jitters" that ruin it for hand held shooting. I hear what you're saying about its small size and balance, but my shaky hands benefit greatly from stabilization. If I have to forego the Panny 35-100's crappy stabilization and shoot with sticks or a monopod, I may as well buy the Olympus 40-150mm lens (no stabilization, but better build quality, longer reach, same speed and same price). Or, look at the Sigma 35-100 EF version with a Metabones Speedbooster, and hope the stabilization does the trick. I can live with manual focus (my preference for video, anyway).

BTW, I have the first version of the Panny 14-140 lens, and it isn't bad in decent light. Not extremely sharp, and the speed falls off quickly when extended, but the image stabilization is very good. The OIS in the 14-140 and 12-35 gave me expectations that the 35-100 fails miserably at.

mcbob said:
I couldn't tell you... I use the Nikon mounts, which get no benefit from electronic anything. The bigger problem with this lens and moreso the newer OS version is nothing to do with electronics, but simply complete imbalance on a handheld camera (DSLR's with 70-200 lenses have similar issues). Long teles like that necessitate sticks or a rig. IMO the Panny 35-100, with its small size, actually does better than most other options in a fully handheld situation simply because the weight is better distributed. Comparable, but slower, is the Panny 14-140.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top