Workhorse lenses

It might have been on P. Bloom's audio review, I'm not sure, but has anyone seen any posts on the OLYMPUS ZUIKO ED F2 lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm) being possibly TOO SHARP for the AF100? I thought one of the Japan shooters mentioned it somewhere, no?

Any thoughts?

I really like the F2.
 
kylekmd said:
It might have been on P. Bloom's audio review, I'm not sure, but has anyone seen any posts on the OLYMPUS ZUIKO ED F2 lenses (14-35mm, 35-100mm) being possibly TOO SHARP for the AF100? I thought one of the Japan shooters mentioned it somewhere, no?

Any thoughts?

I really like the F2.
Click to expand...

The 14-35 is actually the one that had me interested, that's why I was curious about adapters. Seems like it would be a variable prime at that speed. I did see some footage from japan with this lens.
 
Has anyone seriously considered the Zeiss CP.2 lenses? It seems to me that their optics are no better than the good still lenses by Nikon, Olympus and Canon, but they function better than still lenses with regards to pulling focus. Can anyone who has shot with these comment?
 
Last edited:
how about Panny / Leica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 OIS?

how about Panny / Leica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 OIS?

What about Panasonic/Leica 14-50 f/2.8-3.5 OIS? Anyone have experience with it? Will the OIS indeed work on AF100? Seems a good alternative to the Zuikos and the slooooow Panny 14-140

Also considering the Zuiko 14-54mkII f/2.8 to 3.5 (only around $500) or the Zuiko 12-60 ($900)
 
Last edited:
Thinking about this lens also
Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f2.8-3.5

3.5 too slow for night time exteriors or low light lounge environment?

Thanks
 
Seamus McFlannel said:
Has anyone seriously considered the Zeiss CP.2 lenses? It seems to me that their optics are no better than the good still lenses by Nikon, Olympus and Canon, but they function better than still lenses with regards to pulling focus. Can anyone who has shot with these comment?
Click to expand...

I have used the 1st gen. Zeiss Compact Primes, which are T1.5 for 50 and 85mm vs. T2.1 for CP.2. The focus draft is much more than any SLR lens, certainly compared to my Nikon manual primes. Iris has no clicks, more blades, markings are much better, as is feel. They are amazingly light, but their front diameter is very large, requiring a studio matte box. They are so much better for narrative work than 35mm stills lenses. Image wise, using 35mm DOF adapters, which soften everything, it's hard to see a difference in sharpness vs. my Nikons. They are the same glass as the Zeiss stills lenses and offer full frame 35 coverage, which is unusual for Cine lenses. The main down side is that they get slow at the wide focal lengths.
 
Seamus McFlannel said:
Has anyone seriously considered the Zeiss CP.2 lenses? It seems to me that their optics are no better than the good still lenses by Nikon, Olympus and Canon, but they function better than still lenses with regards to pulling focus. Can anyone who has shot with these comment?
Click to expand...
The glass is definitely better than Canon L glass, although not better than Zeiss ZF glass -- because they're the same glass. Only real difference, imaging-wise, is the 14-blade iris, which delivers perfectly circular bokeh.

I bought a complete set of Zeiss ZF lenses, 18 to 100mm, intending to get them cinevised. Stumbled across a great deal on a complete set of Compact Primes (not the CP.2's) and decided to get those instead. Very happy with that decision. CP.2's have interchangeable mounts, whereas the CP's have only PL mount; but I prefer the CP's because the 50 and 85 open up to T1.5, whereas on the CP.2's they've limited them to T2.1.

In any case, if you've got the means, and you intend to be shooting cinema-style, the CP's are so superior in operation that it's obvious. However, they're massive and heavy, so if you need a lightweight handheld rig you'll get basically the same optical performance from the ZF's (ZE's) and save a ton of dough, even if you spend to have them cine-modded by Duclos.

CP's = the real deal.
ZF's = best bang for the buck, considering they're the same glass.
 
Barry_Green said:
The glass is definitely better than Canon L glass, although not better than Zeiss ZF glass -- because they're the same glass. Only real difference, imaging-wise, is the 14-blade iris, which delivers perfectly circular bokeh.

I bought a complete set of Zeiss ZF lenses, 18 to 100mm, intending to get them cinevised. Stumbled across a great deal on a complete set of Compact Primes (not the CP.2's) and decided to get those instead. Very happy with that decision. CP.2's have interchangeable mounts, whereas the CP's have only PL mount; but I prefer the CP's because the 50 and 85 open up to T1.5, whereas on the CP.2's they've limited them to T2.1.

In any case, if you've got the means, and you intend to be shooting cinema-style, the CP's are so superior in operation that it's obvious. However, they're massive and heavy, so if you need a lightweight handheld rig you'll get basically the same optical performance from the ZF's (ZE's) and save a ton of dough, even if you spend to have them cine-modded by Duclos.

CP's = the real deal.
ZF's = best bang for the buck, considering they're the same glass.
Click to expand...

Barry,

Does that include the Zeiss ZF.2 series, or only the older ZF series?

Also, in which case would you reach for the 14 mm, 20mm or Kit 14-140 Panasonic lens instead of the Zeiss ZF prime?

Thanks for the tips...
 
The ZF and ZF.2 are the same glass; I don't remember the differences but I think it's just that the ZF.2 sends electrical feedback about what its aperture is set at, or something. But the glass is the same.

The times to go for the 14mm are speed and field of view. The widest ZF is 18mm, the 14mm is a lot wider than that. And, it's a lot faster -- f/2.5 instead of f/3.5.
Same with the 20mm, it's fast fast fast. f/1.7 is about two stops faster than the ZF 18mm lens.

As for the 14-140, it's mainly about convenience. The ability to zoom, having a ton of focal lengths all in one lens... it covers more than the entire range of all the ZFs put together. And it has OIS. I love the ZF 100mm, it's probably my favorite of the lenses, but... it's tough to handhold steadily at 100mm without major motion going on. The OIS in the 14-140 makes telephoto handheld shots a breeze. And it costs about half what any individual ZF lens costs.

So there are reasons for having both.
 
Barry_Green said:
The ZF and ZF.2 are the same glass; I don't remember the differences but I think it's just that the ZF.2 sends electrical feedback about what its aperture is set at, or something. But the glass is the same.

The times to go for the 14mm are speed and field of view. The widest ZF is 18mm, the 14mm is a lot wider than that. And, it's a lot faster -- f/2.5 instead of f/3.5.
Same with the 20mm, it's fast fast fast. f/1.7 is about two stops faster than the ZF 18mm lens.

As for the 14-140, it's mainly about convenience. The ability to zoom, having a ton of focal lengths all in one lens... it covers more than the entire range of all the ZFs put together. And it has OIS. I love the ZF 100mm, it's probably my favorite of the lenses, but... it's tough to handhold steadily at 100mm without major motion going on. The OIS in the 14-140 makes telephoto handheld shots a breeze. And it costs about half what any individual ZF lens costs.

So there are reasons for having both.
Click to expand...

Thanks so much for your response. Final question is what's the widest lenses you've had success using which have minimal/no visible distortion with video? Somewhere between the 14mm and 20mm range on the Af100? Many thanks and cheers!
 
the 14mm feels pretty good without too much distortion. Mind you, you can go wider but I would lock the camera off for sure.

J Bellari said:
Thanks so much for your response. Final question is what's the widest lenses you've had success using which have minimal/no visible distortion with video? Somewhere between the 14mm and 20mm range on the Af100? Many thanks and cheers!
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
The ZF and ZF.2 are the same glass; I don't remember the differences but I think it's just that the ZF.2 sends electrical feedback about what its aperture is set at, or something. But the glass is the same.

The times to go for the 14mm are speed and field of view. The widest ZF is 18mm, the 14mm is a lot wider than that. And, it's a lot faster -- f/2.5 instead of f/3.5.
Same with the 20mm, it's fast fast fast. f/1.7 is about two stops faster than the ZF 18mm lens.

As for the 14-140, it's mainly about convenience. The ability to zoom, having a ton of focal lengths all in one lens... it covers more than the entire range of all the ZFs put together. And it has OIS. I love the ZF 100mm, it's probably my favorite of the lenses, but... it's tough to handhold steadily at 100mm without major motion going on. The OIS in the 14-140 makes telephoto handheld shots a breeze. And it costs about half what any individual ZF lens costs.

So there are reasons for having both.
Click to expand...

Just got the 20mm 1.7 and the 14 -140 today. I picked up a GH1 & 14-140 kit, (making the GH1 practically free, and great to use as 2nd cam, tight spaces, etc., even without the hack) and have only been able to test the lenses for a couple hours. But so far, WOW. The 20mm is insane. After looking at all my footage on a 24" broadcast monitor, I became annoyed because I kept hearing myself saying "oh my god this lens is awesome." But seriously, it is. I find it pretty wide, sharp, and great shallow DOF if you want it. I actually even like the manual focusing. Coming from an XH-A1 that also had an electronic focusing ring, I find it works about the same. Main issue is that my hand sometimes gets in the shot as the pancake is so small. Have to remember to keep my hand close to the camera body. But in low light it is amazing. I shot my wife cooking in the kitchen, lit only by a couple overhead lamps, and everything was exposed. I even had to stop down a little bit sometimes.

I didn't use the 14-140 as much, but it was very nice as well. It was virtually useless in my dark apartment building stairwell and hallways, but once outside, it looked great. I think I will pretty much only use it for outdoor shots + running & gunning. But it still gives a great image, shallow DOF if you zoom in a bit, and I love the stabilization. Cannot wait to see these babies truly sing when I get my AF100.

Off to test out some more!
 
EidolonFilms said:
Just got the 20mm 1.7 and the 14 -140 today. I picked up a GH1 & 14-140 kit, (making the GH1 practically free, and great to use as 2nd cam, tight spaces, etc., even without the hack) and have only been able to test the lenses for a couple hours. But so far, WOW. The 20mm is insane. After looking at all my footage on a 24" broadcast monitor, I became annoyed because I kept hearing myself saying "oh my god this lens is awesome." But seriously, it is. I find it pretty wide, sharp, and great shallow DOF if you want it. I actually even like the manual focusing. Coming from an XH-A1 that also had an electronic focusing ring, I find it works about the same. Main issue is that my hand sometimes gets in the shot as the pancake is so small. Have to remember to keep my hand close to the camera body. But in low light it is amazing. I shot my wife cooking in the kitchen, lit only by a couple overhead lamps, and everything was exposed. I even had to stop down a little bit sometimes.

I didn't use the 14-140 as much, but it was very nice as well. It was virtually useless in my dark apartment building stairwell and hallways, but once outside, it looked great. I think I will pretty much only use it for outdoor shots + running & gunning. But it still gives a great image, shallow DOF if you zoom in a bit, and I love the stabilization. Cannot wait to see these babies truly sing when I get my AF100.

Off to test out some more!
Click to expand...

How is the low light of GH1 compared to XHA1? I ask because this is the camera I am moving from to purchase the AF as well. How does the 14-140 compare to the XHA1 in low light...in your opinion? Useless, little better than the A1, same?
 
But so far, WOW. The 20mm is insane.
Click to expand...
Yeah, the 20mm 1.7 is just a great little package. Everyone kept praising it and I was like "come on... it can't be that good." But after getting it, I was very surprised to see just how happy I am with it! It's great. A very nice tiny sharp fast lens.
 
swanny said:
How is the low light of GH1 compared to XHA1? I ask because this is the camera I am moving from to purchase the AF as well. How does the 14-140 compare to the XHA1 in low light...in your opinion? Useless, little better than the A1, same?
Click to expand...

I haven't done a direct low-light comparison yet, but I did shoot a quick talking head shot with both side by side. It was quick and dirty - just one key light, nothing else. I was just testing out how my Minolta 50mm 1.7 would look for a standard interview shot. The test wasn't really low light, as the subject was properly lit, but the background I didn't do anything with, so parts were underexposed. The main thing I noticed was that no matter what I did, I could not get the XHA1 and GH1 footage to cut together. I did some tight CUs with the XHA1, keeping the GH1 wider, hoping that would help to cut them together. That didn't help either. The GH1 footage just looked so much better overall. Cleaner (so very little noise compared to the A1 at -3 db) and just much more filmic. I was able to cut together GH1 and HVX200 footage of the same shot much easier. So I would assume the AF100 would behave the same.

I don't know about how the 14-140 would work in low light compared to the A1. I'm not planning on testing that, but if I happen to try it, I'll let you know.
 
Yes the 20mm is a no-brainer. I unfortunately bought it back in the day when it was like $450!

Barry_Green said:
Yeah, the 20mm 1.7 is just a great little package. Everyone kept praising it and I was like "come on... it can't be that good." But after getting it, I was very surprised to see just how happy I am with it! It's great. A very nice tiny sharp fast lens.
Click to expand...
 
It's a little frustrating reading these posts, not knowing which "20mm" we're talking about. "The 20mm"? Is there only one 20 1.7? For those posting, please be more precise in your descriptions of these lenses you're praising or describing so others have a clue what you're talking about. Thanks!
 
Thinking about this lens also
Zuiko Digital ED 50-200mm f2.8-3.5

3.5 too slow for night time exteriors or low light lounge environment?
(assuming an ISO no higher than 800)

Thanks
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top