jonpais

I just placed my order with B&H. I'll be wiring money to them and they'll ship to Vietnam. Yay! Shipping will be around USD 6.00 by DHL.

I should add that if the Tamron lenses turn out to be as good as hoped, I'd trade my Sigma's zoom for Tamron's stabilization and weather sealing any day. The zoom range is rather tiny and not of much use to me. It is a fine lens though: fast, great resolution and color, and solid build quality.

I thought they wouldn't ship to you because you live overseas and your credit card has a US billing address. That's standard procedure for most shops, unless I am misunderstanding something. Anyhow, I'm going to try ordering mine and making a wire transfer to B&H. And yes, if that fails, I'll probably do like another reader already suggested...

Weather sealing, metal body, stabilization (according to Tamron, 3 stops), relatively inexpensive: what's not to like?

I haven't seen any comparisons online. The XL has a bit wider field of view and a bit brighter, ULTRA is supposed to be sharper, especially in corners. I'm more interested in wider, because of the crop factor in 4K. I've never heard anyone complain that my clips weren't sharp enough. (^-^)

Here's a video I just shot using the Lumix GH4, Speed Booster XL and Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8:

Use the XL 0.64. It is sharp as a tack with the Sigma 18-35mm, and offers a touch more FOV than the ULTRA 0.71.

This is great news. Since I've never shot LOG, is it going to be necessary to use an external monitor to judge exposure and focus when shooting with V-Log Lite? I certainly hope this becomes available through a shop in Malaysia or Hong Kong, as I can't buy stuff from B&H in Vietnam.

Actually, the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 lens + Metabones Speed Booster XL 0.64, whether it is a 1/2 stop slower or whatever than stated, is a spectacular combination that allows me to get shots I could never have gotten with the Panasonic Vario 12-35mm f/2.8, and, if anything, is even sharper than the Panasonic lens. The color rendition is also beautiful. It is already razor sharp at f/1.1 and improves a bit when stopped down to f/2 or so. If anything, the pairing is already almost too sharp for shooting faces, even with the sharpness setting turned all the way down. I don't regret spending $1,500 for the Sigma and Metabones, and wonder how the new ULTRA 0.71 could possibly better this. Since most GH4 owners are looking for an adapter that reduces the crop factor, I wouldn't hesitate a second to recommend the XL over the ULTRA version.

right, Brian, I was thinking of full-frame equivalent.

With the Speed Booster XL, the Sigma 18-35mm becomes a 27-52.5mm f/1.1 lens (when shooting 4K). Brian - Don't you multiply the focal length by 1.5 when using the Speed Booster XL 0.64 when shooting 4K on the GH4?

In that case, giving advice is easy - go with lighting. Keep your 12-35mm. It's an awesome, crisp, beautiful lens. If you are looking for bokeh, you'll want to invest in longer lenses at some point, if you haven't already done so. I've read that the old Nikkor AIS lenses and a cheap Chinese adapter from eBay are a good place to start. Good, inexpensive stabilizers are becoming more common. Came is supposed to be good, according to Cheesy Cam. I have a Nebula 4000 and haven't even used it yet because it was so difficult to balance. Maybe a tool-less stabilizer is the way to go. BTW, I don't believe what I've read here about the Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 + Metabones being only T 1.8. It has got to be very close to T 1.1, because it is very bright. But it is a very heavy, unbalanced setup and will require a rig of some sort. That is not true of the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 lens - but the Sigma is optically superior.

I've forgotten: what exactly is it that you are shooting all the time at such high ISOs?

From my own experience and from what I've read from others I respect, if you want to deliver in 1080p, acquisition should be 4K. And so forth... But I agree with Andrew, if you've already invested in Nikon lenses, for your purposes, maybe just a new body is all you need.

Interesting take. When it comes to tech reviews, I usually trust the reviewers, not the company. But I live in Vietnam, where 99.9% of shooters use Canon, so I feel a little like I'm the one thinking out of the box... Lots of big companies with 'experts' produce garbage.

Welcome aboard, Dearborn. I haven't noticed that the shutter button is wobbly (maybe 'mushy' would be the right word), but yes, many of the buttons are way too small, and the rear wheel can be inadvertently turned, screwing up your shutter speed (but there are a couple of workarounds for this). The buttons could perhaps be made a touch wider and higher, with more tactile user feedback when they are depressed. I really like my 12-35mm f/2.8 and don't regret purchasing it at all, though it is really plastic -y (not at all what I'd expect from such an expensive piece of glass); and focusing by wire isn't ideal for video - and the whole point of the GH4 is video. The Sigma 18-35mm feels much more solidly built and has superb optics, but it is a real burden to carry around all day, and will require some sort of stabilization. It also has an extremely limited range for a zoom lens - I almost wish it were a prime. I tried the GorillaPod, but I still get jitters. Still, it's awesome to be able to shoot at f/1.1 on micro 4/3: the Sigma is tack sharp from its widest setting and focus peaking (especially when set on 'orange') makes focusing a breeze. I'm not sure I understand what you are saying about ND filters: it's true larger filters cost more, but I would just get an inexpensive but respectable Hoya 77mm ND filter with a 72mm step up ring for when you purchase the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 (or Tiffen if you like). Unlike the Sigma, the Tokina balances perfectly with the GH4 and stabilization will no longer be an issue. So I guess my advice would be to keep the 12-35mm and purchase the Metabones and other lenses later. On the other hand, if the majority of your projects are shot at ISO 1600, ignore all my advice, return the Vario and get the Sigma: you'll be able to shoot the same scenes at ISO 400, with a dramatic improvement in color and noise. Moreover, should you ever decide to change systems, you could still use the Sigma, whereas the Vario is only usable on micro 4/3. [edit] The Vario also has the advantage that you can fly it on a USD 700 pistol grip gimbal, whereas the Sigma will require a more expensive, traditional brushless gimbal.

Sony body only $3,200. GH4 $1,500 (or even less on eBay). Incidentally, can anyone direct me to a feature film or documentary that was shot at ISO 16,000 that is worth watching?

without meaning any disrespect, to my eyes the video looks overly contrasty, lacking in detail and dynamic range. I would guess that even my GM1, which has been sitting around neglected for awhile, could deliver even better results. May I ask what ND filters you are using and how you are using them?

https://***URL not allowed***/5-reasons-xeen-lenses-big-deal/ after watching this clip, I don't think it's the Xeen lenses that are going to hold anyone back from making their next feature...

This was all but impossible to watch.

and the Matthew Duclos article claims they are rehoused but with new coatings

more info at https://matthewduclos.wordpress.com/2015/08/07/rokinon-takes-aim-with-new-xeen-cinema-prime-lenses/

that's why I haven't noticed anything. but I'll still be sure to check it out over the weekend when I have more time

I'll give it a shot over the weekend, and I will also have a look at the links you posted

I've been testing the GH4 with the Sigma and Speed Booster XL 0.64 for the past couple of weeks and haven't experienced any noticeable change in brightness like you describe. And just to be sure, I just took mine out and did a couple of zooms and see no discernible difference in luminosity. Of course, there will be minor changes in luminosity with any zoom, even those with constant aperture. But to assert that the lens is defective, or to demand that a reviewer is obligated to mention the obvious, is going a bit too far, IMHO.