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

[d1rockwild]

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.

The kit lens is only at f/4 at 14mm. We all know that, but thought i'd just point that out.

And yes, the textbook answer is you should light for f/4. But, so many people are using 50mm f/1.4s or 1.8s it's a cliche. What does that mean? They're using these lenses for the speed, not the quality. It's just what people are doing, so there seems to be more of a need for speed over a 280mm focal length.

Yeah I saw your videos already. Second Night is very good. But that train track rack focus, i mean, cmon, that's a montage/test footage. it's not like u were like "Aww i gotta get this train track shot JUST right. I need a 280mm focal length!" You're more than welcome to do whatever test footage you want with your camera, and montages and what not, but when you need more specific shots with more specific reasons, I seldom see the need for 280mm@5.8.

to put it another way, what did you need more for Second Night, the 50mm f/1.4 or the 280mm focal length?

I love how you found one random instance where you used the 280mm focal length. In Second Night, something that, I'd rather watch than test footage and montages, and something I'm sure you take more pride in completing, you used the 50mm f/1.4. I can't imagine completing that one with the kit lens.

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.

Of course lighting is a must .But what's more of an epidemic is people completing anything. I would say completing projects is more of a must these days.

Back to lighting: We all do the best with what we've got. From what i can tell, people prefer to shoot with faster glass than light for slower glass. It is easier, especially when time is not on your side, and, for example, you're not paying or paying very little.

To your other comment: Well if Barry Green says its excellent....

I think i read the same article/thread which made me really want to like the 14-140mm, but when it comes down to shooting, i'm not gonna use it out of appreciation for it.

And btw, you're forgetting this thread was started on a Panasonic zoom lens. It is Panasonic, it's a zoom and it has OIS. It's also a 4/3 lens so it's conceivable that it can be optimized just as well for m4/3 and the GH1. I don't know why you're arguing against primes, I also want a Panasonic Zoom lens: the 14-50mm for m4/3.

 

[Ben_B]

The kit lens is only at f/4 at 14mm. We all know that, but thought i'd just point that out.

And yes, the textbook answer is you should light for f/4. But, so many people are using 50mm f/1.4s or 1.8s it's a cliche. What does that mean? They're using these lenses for the speed, not the quality. It's just what people are doing, so there seems to be more of a need for speed over a 280mm focal length.

Yeah I saw your videos already. Second Night is very good. But that train track rack focus, i mean, cmon, that's a montage/test footage. it's not like u were like "Aww i gotta get this train track shot JUST right. I need a 280mm focal length!" You're more than welcome to do whatever test footage you want with your camera, and montages and what not, but when you need more specific shots with more specific reasons, I seldom see the need for 280mm@5.8.

to put it another way, what did you need more for Second Night, the 50mm f/1.4 or the 280mm focal length?

I love how you found one random instance where you used the 280mm focal length. In Second Night, something that, I'd rather watch than test footage and montages, and something I'm sure you take more pride in completing, you used the 50mm f/1.4. I can't imagine completing that one with the kit lens.






Of course lighting is a must .But what's more of an epidemic is people completing anything. I would say completing projects is more of a must these days.

Back to lighting: We all do the best with what we've got. From what i can tell, people prefer to shoot with faster glass than light for slower glass. It is easier, especially when time is not on your side, and, for example, you're not paying or paying very little.

To your other comment: Well if Barry Green says its excellent....

I think i read the same article/thread which made me really want to like the 14-140mm, but when it comes down to shooting, i'm not gonna use it out of appreciation for it.

And btw, you're forgetting this thread was started on a Panasonic zoom lens. It is Panasonic, it's a zoom and it has OIS. It's also a 4/3 lens so it's conceivable that it can be optimized just as well for m4/3 and the GH1. I don't know why you're arguing against primes, I also want a Panasonic Zoom lens: the 14-50mm for m4/3.

Glad you liked my film

In Second Night I used the kit lens at the wide end a couple of times (bathroom, evening/day bedroom) with no additional lighting other than practicals. However, your point is well taken: faster at the wide end would be nice.

My point is just that for $700 I expect a little bit more. I understand why the Gh1 kit lens is so pricey...because it has such a huge zoom range (whether you want it or not) and has silent auto focus, and was built specifically for video (and has OIS which the other lens has.) The cost makes sense to me from a technical standpoint if not a creative one. The 14-50 is just seems somewhat overpriced for what you get. But addressing original point, yes it would probably be nice to have for m4/3....but not nearly as nice as the announced 14mm f/2.8 would be at say, half the price. Additionally, I'm glad the kit lens is what we get with the camera and not something like this. The kit lens saves a ton of space in my bag. Sure it's not fast, but have you seen the size of comparable long glass. I do have a need for long lenses from time to time, especially in daylight, and the kit lens is a godsend for shooting outdoor events, and for documentary and ENG work, or for just spur of the moment things.

 

[d1rockwild]

yeah I guess we're definitely getting into personal preferences. I just wouldn't care how much space it took up as long as i got the result i wanted. If the 14-50mm came out for m4/3, being faster than the 14-140mm, but less zoom, and $100 cheaper, I think that's a fair trade off if the 14-50mm has all the features the 14-140 has.

To agree with you, and then some, all these m4/3 lenses are expensive.