Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Panasonic Lens Dilemma

profile picture
Boo.
Posts: 692 - Karma: 417
Hey NS,

Hopefully there are some knowledgeable m4/3 people out there.


--(Before I start, everything listed is panasonic, and there is a reason I am asking NS and not another forum)--

Right now I've got a:
gh1
g1
14-45
14-42
45-200.
(bought the g1 at an amazing price with the 14-45 and 45-200)

Very Soon, I will be selling most of that and buying and a gh2 in a bundle with a 14-140, a 20mm pancake, and another 14-45.

BACKGROUND:
%80 filming (most of it skiing in the day, some night urban, I like having the possibility of using AFC which is why I'm sticking with panny lenses)

%20 stills (beginning to mess with macros, and reverse adapters, I like having the 200mm possibility)

*I feel like I won't be switching lenses out very often whilst skiing.

*I probably won't need the 45-200mm skiing.

Here are my questions:

1.What lenses should I keep? make $200 and keep the 14-45 and the 45-200 or is it worth simply using the 14-140.

2.Is the pancake worth $300?; its a very fast lens, but--(to my knowledge), 20mm is already covered adequately with both the 14-45 and 14-140

3.Is anyone looking for a hacked gh1 and/or lenses?

4. (opinion) Would it be worth lugging around a 14-140 when 14-45 is probably adequate?

Big thanks to anyone who helps, major K. I've got to make this decision within the next day.
Oct 2 2011 1:54PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
I would pick the 14-140 or the 14-45, not both, but I would lean towards the 14-140 because it is "HD" and has the range (plus you will get it with the kit). The advantage to the 20mm 1.7 is the aperture, it is much better in lowlight that the 14-140 @ 20mm. With that said, I have heard that it is noticeably slower than the other lumix lenses. Honestly though, you will have the 14-140 for AF if you need it, but even with legacy lenses, if you stop down it isn't very hard to keep something in focus, not to mention the fact that you can save a ton of money
Oct 2 2011 3:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Boo.
Posts: 692 - Karma: 417
Thanks for the response.

I would choose between getting the (14-140) OR the (14-45 and 45-200)

I'm leaning towards the latter as I have been reading that the HD is just a gimmick due to its low noise focusing. I'd be using an external mic anyway and reviews and testing of my own tell me that any of their lenses can earn an HD stamp.

When a lens is called "slow" this refers to the time it takes to focus, right?

Do you think keeping the pancake is worth it?
Oct 2 2011 3:50PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
When someone says a lens is slow, it means that the aperture doesn't go very low. For example, the 14-140 only goes down to like 3.5 @14 and 5.6@140 Even though the 14-140 would "cover" the 20mm pancake, the point of the 20mm is to have a flat lens for low light/shallow DOF situations. For my rig, i have a series of zooms from 11 up to 200 but i also have a few primes in there because my longest zoom is pretty slow. I'd recommend picking up a 35 or 50mm too for the m4/3 and also picking up like a 10mm for wide shots, which wont be cheap but it will be worth it.
Oct 2 2011 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
Coalescent
Posts: 4871 - Karma: 2,063
The lens is deemed slow because of the aperature. HD is a gimmick. Honestly pick up some minolta glass. Cheap and great image.
Oct 2 2011 4:05PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
actually in this cae it is slow because of its AF speed. the only 20mm we are referring to (the only one for m43) has an aperture of f1.7, which i would say is reasonably fast. The AF speed for stills and video is a bit slower than some of the other lenses tho, and the AF noise is more apparent in video than the other lenses. I'm not sure if the new firmware update addressed these issues or not
Oct 2 2011 9:21PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
AF really isn't something used very often with film making especially at 20mm....
Oct 2 2011 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Coalescent
Posts: 4871 - Karma: 2,063
with my 14mm i never rarely ever touch the lens.
Oct 2 2011 9:44PM
0 0
profile picture
123+ski
Posts: 2832 - Karma: 581
it is a 2x crop and he mentioned wanting AFC. I was pointing out another reason that he should just manually focus, and I was also saying this incase he ever wanted to use it for stills
Oct 3 2011 7:31AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61603 - Karma: 123,093
Well, with a 20mm thats a 40mm full frame equivalent or 25mm on a canon 1.6 crop, which AF still isn't needed even for photos. its really not that much different when it comes to the wide angle lenses. The 2x crop really don't start becoming very different until past 50mm.
Oct 3 2011 2:18PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)