d1rockwild
Well-known member
Well it is expensive anyway, but it used to be $400. Now it's like closer to $600 on amazon.
Why is the 20mm so expensive now?
- Thread starter d1rockwild
- Start date
I bought mine at samys.com...still 399 there. (Not cheap...but not 600, either). 
-D
P.S. I don't work or have any affiliation with samys.com -- nor do I get anything if you buy or don't buy from them. I just wanted to pass on the price in case you were considering one. [Although they currently show out-of-stock.]
-D
P.S. I don't work or have any affiliation with samys.com -- nor do I get anything if you buy or don't buy from them. I just wanted to pass on the price in case you were considering one.
[Although they currently show out-of-stock.]d1rockwild
Well-known member
yeah its still $400 at BHphotovideo and Adorama, but also out of stock. Maybe it's cuz Panasonic hasn't released more, the places that do have them, are raising the prices. Maybe Panasonic isn't making them anymore?
$399.95, free shipping, at B&H...but out of stock: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/651751-REG/Panasonic_H_H020_Lumix_20mm_f_1_7_Aspheric.html
I wanted mine fast, so I ordered it from "2009MadeInJapan" on eBay for $525 shipped, and it made it to Houston from Tokyo pretty quick. But I'm a wedding videographer, and the GH1 is pretty much useless shooting receptions with the kit lens...so I couldn't wait for backorders and paid a premium for it. http://cgi.ebay.com/Panasonic-LUMIX...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item35a4760ac1
Hopefully they'll be back in stock here in the U.S. soon!
I wanted mine fast, so I ordered it from "2009MadeInJapan" on eBay for $525 shipped, and it made it to Houston from Tokyo pretty quick. But I'm a wedding videographer, and the GH1 is pretty much useless shooting receptions with the kit lens...so I couldn't wait for backorders and paid a premium for it. http://cgi.ebay.com/Panasonic-LUMIX...iewItemQQptZCamera_Lenses?hash=item35a4760ac1
Hopefully they'll be back in stock here in the U.S. soon!
Can you please explain why the "kit lens" in your opinion is useless for wedding videography?
thanks
d1rockwild
Well-known member
it's too slow. f4. not good for low lit receptions. most receptions are pretty low lit.
Ok but that does not mean it's useless, coming from a person who has helped on wedding shoots there are many tricks around this, many.
I understand that it might be "easier" with a faster lens but as a good videographer you can make it happen in most situations. Position yourself as close as possible to your subject, a nice on camera light should help your shot.
Also if you have a lighting kit positioned in place ( we have done this before ) than this should be no problem. Point I am making is if "low light" is your problem, then feed your camera light.
Sure a faster lens can be easier but imo you can still get your great shots with the kit lens ( if low light is the problem)
I am not a wedding videographer, but the logic of a faster lens vs. on-camera lighting or a light kit seems clear if you are starting from the ground up. If you already own the stock lens and lights, then using the resources you have makes sense. But if the issue comes down to buying a fast lens vs. buying a light kit for wedding videography, a fast lens seems a smart choice, for the following reasons:
1) Portability. Placing video lights with their accompanying power cables is cumbersome and time-consuming.
2) Aesthetics. Video lighting (especially an on-camera light) ruins much of the ambience that a wedding reception yields. Granted, there's a threshhold where even a fast lens may need additional lighting, but on-camera lights and/or lights on stands just obliterate the mood.
So, for an upstart with a tight budget, spending the cash on a fast lens vs. a light kit might be a good choice if you are a one-man operation.
Shooting for movies is a completely different story. I will always advocate the use of lighting for narrative projects because of the artistic control it affords you. And that elusive "35mm film look" often has more to do with good lighting than fast lenses.
100% agree.
I based my post more on the fact that users said the "kit lens" is "useless".
The op should have not used such harsh words and based his post more on "low light" and how a faster lens is easier/better for these reasons. With that said "yes" the faster lens mentioned would be better for low light situations where you would have to use "more light" with the kit lens by light kits and such.
With that said, it's always good to show both sides of something
peace
thisisapocalypse
Well-known member
Good points - and while I think it is true that a good photographer (stills) can make a slow lens work (sometimes + luck) - but you don't have as many options as photographers do when you're shooting video (chiefly you don't have access to slow shutter speeds).
If you can't add light, you need a fast lens in the bag so that you can be ready for any given situation, it's like, if you were a painter, not having black paint on the palette...lenses are just tools: different hammers for different reasons, different lenses for different reasons, not all hammers work on all nails equally well, same goes with lenses.
The GH1 helps somewhat because of its great low-light sensitivity, but would I shoot a paying wedding gig with a kit-lens zoom where f/4 is the fastest I can ever hope to go, and only then on the widest setting? No way!
There is no substitute for light.
There is no substitute for light.
There is no substitute for light.
What's that again?
There is no substitute for light.
If you can't add light, you need a fast lens in the bag so that you can be ready for any given situation, it's like, if you were a painter, not having black paint on the palette...lenses are just tools: different hammers for different reasons, different lenses for different reasons, not all hammers work on all nails equally well, same goes with lenses.
The GH1 helps somewhat because of its great low-light sensitivity, but would I shoot a paying wedding gig with a kit-lens zoom where f/4 is the fastest I can ever hope to go, and only then on the widest setting? No way!
There is no substitute for light.
There is no substitute for light.
There is no substitute for light.
What's that again?
There is no substitute for light.
Once again, good post BUT my post was based on the fact that users said the "kit lens" is useless.
I have done a couple of weddings ( sd camera ) where lighting was a problem and we setup lights and made it work. We did not ruin the mood of the reception and placed these in very god locations. No different than a DJ setting up his speakers or audio personal having speakers out to everyone can hear.
This is part of the show, and imo a good light kit is needed for excellent shots. I am a beginner but have learned from my good friend that lighting is key.
Also every wedding I did had cables taped to the floor for all kind of things,, from live bands to the audio guys. Sure a fast lens will work better than the Kit with low light, but the kit lens will work and look better than a faster lens with no additional light for a lighting kit.
My .02 and personal opinion from real world experiences. Ideally a faster lens + light would look amazing but the do not mark the kit lens as "useless" as I can find many videos of amazing footage shot with the kit lens.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
But from my perspective, having shot weddings, is that a 20mm lens, even if fast, is not my 'choice' for receptions or other candid situations. Sure, mashed up in a dressing room, a hallway, or the like, 20mm would allow for a 'nice' shot... but reception... talk about 'in your face'... then again I've not shot weddings for several years, so who knows perhaps massive facial distortion is in...
The lens I last used was the Nikon 24-120 f/3.5-5.6, which is like a 1/2-1/3 stop 'faster' than the f/4 lens stock GH1 lens.
Of course I can shoot stills at 1/10 or 1/8 second... reasonbly steady for small enlargements... given half a chance. Otherwise flash is strongly recommended...
For a 'fast' zoom, perhaps the 35-70 f/2.8 lens would be good for the GH1 user. I had a Sigma version of that... but the Daughter broke it... or was it her boyfriend... no one's telling...
Actually....my post said:
I shoot and edit 40-50 weddings a year...by myself...and have been shooting them on the GH1 for several months now.
But yeah, even for wedding ceremonies, it's very much less than ideal...borderline useless. Not just because it's so slow, but because the zoom range is not anywhere near what the average prosumer video camera has.
Try shooting a wedding in an old Catholic cathedral, dark as a cave, in a balconey 40 feet off the ground and a city block away from the altar. Try using a massive lighting rig...or ANY camera lights...in ANY church. :laugh:
But weddings aside, it's an awesome and versatile lens for video and photography. Great zoom range for an SLR type lens, and amazing images throughout that zoom range.
I'd like to pick up an HMC40 next month for shooting ceremonies before my next big church wedding, since it's cheap, has a super long zoom, and is small enough not to bulk up my tiny kit too much. But for receptions...the GH1+20mm combo is amazing. It's brighter than real life, has lighting fast focus in complete darkness, and is the perfect focal length for most situations. I never take it off during receptions anymore, unless I've got some light and just want to go crazy with the super-fun 7-14mm.
If you haven't tried the 20mm, pick one up soon, and check it out!
If you don't have the GH1, keep in mind the 2x crop...the 20mm isn't a wide angle lens on the GH1...it's essentially a "standard" focal length lens.
Plus it's less "in your face" when you don't have to use a massive blinding camera light with the 20mm....you can use your cigarette lighter for fill.
rogar-BigGrin(DBG)mine just came in the mail today. about $450US posted to Australia from Japan. was surprised however that it does not do continuous focus which was the main reason why i bought it ..lol should have read up on it a bit more.
Does anyone know if the newer firmware for the lens allows for this?
Does anyone know if the newer firmware for the lens allows for this?
D90GH1_eric
Active member
I updated immediately after I got it and it does AF continuously. Not sure if it is the firmware however.
While this lens AF continuously, it hunts terribly especially in low light. Any slight change of subject distance causes the lens to hunt back and forth. so does flash from other cameras ... Thus it is better to MF or focus lock.
Actually....my post said:
I shoot and edit 40-50 weddings a year...by myself...and have been shooting them on the GH1 for several months now.
But yeah, even for wedding ceremonies, it's very much less than ideal...borderline useless. Not just because it's so slow, but because the zoom range is not anywhere near what the average prosumer video camera has.
Try shooting a wedding in an old Catholic cathedral, dark as a cave, in a balconey 40 feet off the ground and a city block away from the altar. Try using a massive lighting rig...or ANY camera lights...in ANY church. :laugh:
But weddings aside, it's an awesome and versatile lens for video and photography. Great zoom range for an SLR type lens, and amazing images throughout that zoom range.
I'd like to pick up an HMC40 next month for shooting ceremonies before my next big church wedding, since it's cheap, has a super long zoom, and is small enough not to bulk up my tiny kit too much. But for receptions...the GH1+20mm combo is amazing. It's brighter than real life, has lighting fast focus in complete darkness, and is the perfect focal length for most situations. I never take it off during receptions anymore, unless I've got some light and just want to go crazy with the super-fun 7-14mm.
If you haven't tried the 20mm, pick one up soon, and check it out!
Haha, great post and yes for what you are doing and exact locations then I agree. With that said thank you for sharing your real life experiences and I'm here to learn as well as have fun and enjoy. Footage coming real soon!
Revisiting the thread as I had to take a step back and think this one over..... So you gus are telling me that when you use the 20mm f1.7 lens you are not using ANY additional light?
Like just going into a room of any kind and not setting up lights and just using that lens and getting amazing results?
If so I would personally like to see some video of this, because if I need to use light kits indoors with the Lens Kit and not with the 20mm than I might just have to buy it!
Please someone post some real world examples
thank you
Like just going into a room of any kind and not setting up lights and just using that lens and getting amazing results?
If so I would personally like to see some video of this, because if I need to use light kits indoors with the Lens Kit and not with the 20mm than I might just have to buy it!
Please someone post some real world examples
thank you
scavenge vimeo....plenty of good shots in low light as is. honestly the kit lens just doesn't cut it indoors without additional light, its just too slow. If you are already using a lighting kit for the stock lens then you will get not amazing but super amazing results if you use it with the 20mm i recon.
I just had a quick play with it at 1/30 iso 500 f1.7 at 9pm in a room lit with a fluorescent ceiling light and it is nice and bright (slightly over exposed). to get the same result with the stock lens id have to crank ISO up to about 2500 using that ISO trick to get a similar result.
The downside however is it hunts and breaths in continuous focus as mentioned. the kit lens is a better performer in that regards and in saying that I don't think it will replace my zeiss 50mm 1.4 for rack focusing low light shots.
I just had a quick play with it at 1/30 iso 500 f1.7 at 9pm in a room lit with a fluorescent ceiling light and it is nice and bright (slightly over exposed). to get the same result with the stock lens id have to crank ISO up to about 2500 using that ISO trick to get a similar result.
The downside however is it hunts and breaths in continuous focus as mentioned. the kit lens is a better performer in that regards and in saying that I don't think it will replace my zeiss 50mm 1.4 for rack focusing low light shots.
Last edited: