Why can't we have this for m4/3?

as opposed to the more "meh" and slower 14-45mm lens they have now. and the 14-50mm, with adapter, won't have any AF features.
 
It autofocus with every four thirds execpt this one, witch is the one we all wanna have.

Sucky.
 
Yes but the 14-140mm is much more versatile despite the slower speed, especially for video...and is what, $150 more?

This lens seems kind of silly. I don't see why you guys are drooling over it. Variable aperture is not excusable on such an expensive lens with such a limited zoom range (at least in my mind..my opinion.) A 15-50mm f/2.8 with the "Leica" name on it (because remember Panasonic designs and builds these lenses) for $700 makes a bit more sense...especially if it was m4/3 native.
 
Really? I'm starting to think the 14-140mm is silly. Anyone who is actually shooting and finalizing shorts is always using other glass with this supposedly "versatile" lens being used rarely, probably cuz, its just too slow.

and you're right, we should have a fixed aperture zoom, but my main point of this thread was that this is an EXISTING lens, which i would think (hell if know, i guess), would be easier to convert to m4/3 than to making a totally new lens with a fixed aperture.

I think since most people who use the gh1 are small time film makers, they just don't have the budget to light scenes at f/4+ and have it look clean.

i mean this is kind of a pointless argument, cuz you're basically saying, slower but larger zoom range is perferrable to faster, less zooming lenses. And i'm saying the opposite.

anyway, just curious, what are u shooting with a 280mm equivalent lens?
 
d1rockwild said:
Really? I'm starting to think the 14-140mm is silly. Anyone who is actually shooting and finalizing shorts is always using other glass with this supposedly "versatile" lens being used rarely, probably cuz, its just too slow.

and you're right, we should have a fixed aperture zoom, but my main point of this thread was that this is an EXISTING lens, which i would think (hell if know, i guess), would be easier to convert to m4/3 than to making a totally new lens with a fixed aperture.

I think since most people who use the gh1 are small time film makers, they just don't have the budget to light scenes at f/4+ and have it look clean.

i mean this is kind of a pointless argument, cuz you're basically saying, slower but larger zoom range is perferrable to faster, less zooming lenses. And i'm saying the opposite.

anyway, just curious, what are u shooting with a 280mm equivalent lens?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the kit lens had no appeal to me at all so I bought a body-only on eBay, I've never liked superzooms and 14-140 is pretty darn super.

I think the appeal of the Leica lens is that it's f/2.8 @14mm - getting fast and wide on the GH1 is sort of the holy grail and there aren't a ton of options right now to do that. For me, I ended up going with the Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake to get wide/fast, definitely would have gone for the Panny 14mm f/2.5 but it's not yet available.

Had the GH1 shipped with the Leica lens as the kit lens, I probably would have bought the kit, f/2.8 throughout the range would definitely be nice but that's not an easy thing to accomplish when the range gets as wide as 14mm and I can forgive it for that. You find constant aperture zooms in the 28-80 and 80-200 ranges, if you go more esoteric than that you start seeing variable apertures most of the time. Canon has a 16-35mm f/2.8 L and that lens is $1500, it starts costing much bigger money than what the Leica goes for to get fast constant aperture superwide zooms.

I'm really just saying that if the range and speed works for you with the Leica lens, I can see why someone would pay for it, that's all, it appears to be excellent optically.
 
d1rockwild said:
Really? I'm starting to think the 14-140mm is silly. Anyone who is actually shooting and finalizing shorts is always using other glass with this supposedly "versatile" lens being used rarely, probably cuz, its just too slow.

and you're right, we should have a fixed aperture zoom, but my main point of this thread was that this is an EXISTING lens, which i would think (hell if know, i guess), would be easier to convert to m4/3 than to making a totally new lens with a fixed aperture.

I think since most people who use the gh1 are small time film makers, they just don't have the budget to light scenes at f/4+ and have it look clean.

i mean this is kind of a pointless argument, cuz you're basically saying, slower but larger zoom range is perferrable to faster, less zooming lenses. And i'm saying the opposite.

anyway, just curious, what are u shooting with a 280mm equivalent lens?
Click to expand...

First it's not that hard to light for f/4 at ISO 400 or even lower. Second not all scenes take place indoors or at night. Even when shooting with fast glass I try to light for at least f/4...otherwise your DOF is just too damn shallow.

As for the fully zoomed end? I use that when I need very shallow DOF or to compress space significantly.

vimeo.com/9819266

Take a look at the first train track rack focus above, that was done using the 140mm length.
 
First it's not that hard to light for f/4 at ISO 400 or even lower. Second not all scenes take place indoors or at night. Even when shooting with fast glass I try to light for at least f/4...otherwise your DOF is just too damn shallow.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Whoever shoots and finalizes shorts should know that lighting a scene is A MUST. Barry Green compared a few different lenses on the GH 1 and came to the conclusion that the kits lens is excellent. It is made exclusively to work with the GH 1 and interface with it perfectly. Its OIS capabilities is essential, something primes can´t do. And the focusing is spot on, something a bit more difficult with non Panasonic lenses.
 
The kit lens is very sharp, for video purposes. Only complaint at all about it is that it's slow, because the maximum wide-open aperture is f/4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top