Question to GH4/Lumix 12-35mm f2.8 users; Why this lens over the Olympus 12-40mm f2.8, and which do you prefer for video and which for stills?
810997
I have the Lumix 12-35mm for my GH3. It's a great lens. But I would also like the Olympus 12-40mm for my OM-D E-M1. It's also a great lens. The Lumix 12-35mm has Optical Image Stabilization. The Olympus does not. It requires Image Stabilization in the camera body. If you have Panasonic stick with Panasonic. It you have Olympus stick with Olympus. If you have both get the Panasonic. You can turn off Image Stabilization when on the Olympus camera.
810998
I think both are great for video and stills. I chose the Lumix because I work with a Panasonic GH3. Prime lenses are better for definition and color
810999
The Lumix has OIS built into the lens, so you'll get stabilization with Panasonic bodies that lack stabilization in the body.
794476
I have the 18-135mm STM lens and if your planning to do any video shooting its a better buy hands down! I use this lens daily! I also have the 40mm STM lens the STM version is quiet and it seems to work best with the Canon DSLR's
932392
It depends on what you are shooting and how much money you have. For example for sports videos you would need extreme telephoto lenses. For general purpose film making the Panasonic 14mm, 20mm and the Olympus 45mm MSC would give you very professional results. If you already have DSLR or 35mm camera lenses then look for an adapter for the GH2 mount. you will have to use manual controls but I believe it's well worth the trouble. Hope that helps.
967682
I don't use the lens for video. I have seen no affect on my OM EM5 for still or sports photography.
110373
Actually, I did sell my 12-60 to help pay for this lens -- they're about comparable w.r.t. image quality. The 12-40 doesn't have as wide a range of focal lengths, but is optically faster.I've also heard about a couple of examples of this lens having structural issues. But mine is holding up nicely, even in spite of a bit of accidentally rough treatment (I slipped on a muddy slope and landed on the lens).
590633
Ahhh...that makes it clearer. I also have the GH4 and find it to be almost second nature for 'most' adjustments. I wish you well with your photo endeavors!
2097649
This is a system camera that shares the lensmount with Panasonic. There are great zoom lenses and prime lenses available. You can save a lot if you know what you want at purchase time. Olympus may offer rebates on lenses. These may vary depending on the country you live in. The 12-50 is weather sealed. Most other lenses are not. This lens has some macro ability and reputedly is a good video lens.
1566532
The lens is quite sharp at f2.8, I have no hesitation to use it wide open. If it will work for your purposes will depend more on your lighting conditions and the maximum ISO you feel comfortable using on your camera gear. If the light level is really low, you might be better off with the Olympus 75mm f1.8, but the cost of that lens is much higher. The other question that only you can answer: Is this focal length long enough, at 120mm equivalent for 35mm, long enough for your sports needs? The Sigma is a terrific value for this focal length, very happy with mine.
1069238
I can't speak to that, but I'm fairly finicky about the glass I use (I mostly shoot olympus m4/3 primes), and I really like this 75-300 lens. With good light, you can get some stunning images of wildlife, landscapes, and the moon! I've even used it indoors (with the olympus 600r) and gotten some fantastic shots as well. Olympus used nice glass in this lens. While it's not going to be on my camera every day, it's great for specific applications.
528653
Does that lack of image stabilization in the 20 mm lens factor in against choosing it over the 14-45 lens? I think I'm all set to get the 20 mm lens after doing my research and reading these comments, but that was one area I was still questioning.
575221
I agree and have noticed that as well. I bought the older version and have been pleased with it. I have also not read complaints about the newer version. It may be as simple as supply and demand or something we are not aware of. You might check review sites just to make sure the version 2 is well rated and then go for it if it's cheaper. The 20MM has been a great lens, I have received compliments about my photo's and 9 times out of 10, it's taken with the 20mm.
1551101
That is exactly why I purchased this lens and I love it! The focus is a bit soft if you try and go below f2.2, but as I'm generally shooting moving children I usually keep it around f2.5 or 2.8 anyway. Hope this helps!
1922080
I love my 35 but my 50mm 1.4 was what I started with and I still love it.:)
2120275
I own both lenses, but the 12-40 (24-80 in 35mm terms) with its constant f2.8 aperture and 24mm viewing angle of 84º makes it more useful to me. Statistically and chart-wise, I'm certain the 12-40 would beat the 14-45, but I've found the latter to be quite competent when used. "Mind-blowing" would not be accurate. You'd be hard-pressed to see a visual difference (unless you're an extreme pixel-peeper).
2105362
Sorry to take so long to respond. I've only used this lens for video once, and it was on a very sturdy tripod. A lens this short would probably cause little problems with shaky images in video. If you already have the 14-to-140mm lens that the GH2 is usually shipped with, you already have 20mm focal length covered. The only advantage to this lens is the larger aperture, which will allow for faster shutter speeds in still mode. If you are shooting video indoors in available light, this lens might be worth the investment. I shoot a lot of video and use a top quality tripod with an expensive video head for steady shooting and smooth panning. The GH2 100-to-300mm lens with the GH2's built in optical teleconverter equates to a 1540mm telephoto lens in 35mm film! At that length any vibration at all is magnified. But anyway, I didn't buy the 20mm for use in video mode. I'll do some testing and give you an update.
433202
I got the 40mm Micro lens over the 35mm and I am really happy with the purchase. It cost about $80 more but it does more. That being said, I have the 35mm on the wish list even though it will be horribly redundant. The 40mm Micro has so drawbacks but it does get you in close. I don't know how the 35mm could be sharper but lots of reviews comparing the two indicate it can be depending on subject matter. This is probably a topic people make themselves crazy with so I will probably buy some peace for $200 by getting the 35mm lens sooner than later.
1918120
I've had very good results using the optical zoom on both stills and videos. I was impressed with the video sharpness at high zoom settings. I've only used the digital zoom on stills. It got in really close with OK results but wasn't as sharp as I would have liked. I was using 1600 ISO settings which may have contributed to some loss of sharpness.