Tight budget, full pack; any advice on glass?

[Mirocco52]

Hi Community, 

Your mission if you accept it is to devise the master plan to spend my money and guide my journey in videography!

The challenge: Blend speed, focal range, pack weight and budget for a globetrotting videographer who wants low-light and bokeh bliss out of 2-3 lenses max. 

I want to learn more about great composition, and think some hi-qual fixed primes can help. I also want to get into event/ wedding videography later this year.

The current gear: GH4, Oly 12-40 2.8, Ikan 3-axis stabilizer and Manfrotto fluid tripod head. 

The budget: I have a $300 credit at a great used/ pro camera shop in town. Was offered another $360 for my Oly lens and could potentially put that $660 into 1-2 faster primes for no/ little money out of pocket such as:

Samyang 12mm F2 $340; Voightlander 25mm .95 $480; Sigma 30mm 1.4 $340, Olympus 45mm 1.8 $230; Pana 12-35 2.8 mark i $550; Pana 35-100 2.8 mark i $650; Pana 14-140 4-5.6 mark i $250

Many video shooters SWEAR by the OIS and ease of use of the Pana 12-35, 35-100 f2.8, and using stabilized zooms for events. That`s where I am stuck: Should I scoop up some lo-light higher-quality image primes for my interests and rent zooms for events (if needed), then build my kit when I drop anchor? Or should I get the used mark i Pannys and soldier on with weak lo-light/ bokeh characteristics? Keep the Oly 12-40 and grab a prime? If so, which one?

I embrace the idea that learning more about subject/ background separation, carrying a light, gorilla pod etc will help with many of these challenges. But sometimes the moment dictates all the parameters.

Any recommendations beyond these listed and all advice is greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance!

 

 

[newfoundmass]

If you can get the 25mm Voightlander for under $500 you should probably pick that up because that's a good price. It's great for low light and it is a 50mm equivalent, which is good. 

The old school mentality was "zooms suck, use primes." And there is something to that, because a lot of primes give you a much nicer image. But these days zooms have gotten better in quality and frankly the convenience makes them ideal for any beginner videographers, and more and more professionals are using them. So keeping one isn't a bad idea. 

[kye]

I'd suggest working backwards from what you're trying to do.  

1) Work out what types of shots you are likely to want for your style of film-making - it can be useful to look at your previous work and look at what ended up in the final cut
2) Work out what you need to get those shots - there's no point having all the primes in the world if the situation requires being able to quickly change between a wide and tele shot to capture a moment, but also if your look is more important than getting every shot then a slow/bad lens may never make the final cut
3) Then work out what is the nicest / lightest / sharpest / fastest lenses you can afford

You might have the nicest lens in the world but if you miss the shot then the lens is worth less than a bad kit zoom that would have at least framed it right.

[scotchtape]

I suggest you change your expectations about speed, shallow dof, and m43, unless you like using manual focus.

M43 cams currently have unreliable af-c in video, so any shallow DOF shot while you are running around needs to have the subject camera distance locked in.  

M43 is also 2 stops over FF, so take your aperture and x2.  The "fast" 2.8 zooms are F5.6 equiv for DOF, which is pretty trash for shallow DOF.

I've used the GH5 since release with the 12-35 and 35-100 (and prior to that the G6 and G7). Without af-c, getting useable shallow DOF shots during run and gun is too frustrating for me, you are limited to certain types of shots where you either maintain your distance, or lock your focus and move into or away from your subject to get them in focus. I've owned many primes and hardly ever use them because zooms are so much more convenient, but to each their own.

A cheap option is the Panasonic 25mm F1.7, which is like a 50mm F3.5.  I ended up hardly using it because of no af-c, and using zooms was just way faster.

If you are a whiz at manually focusing your lenses while running around then no problem there, but it's something I found impossible to do.

That is probably an unpopular opinion around here but in my experience the tech isn't there if you need the speed.  If you have a very relaxed pace then sure you can setup your shots, but it's nowhere close to have the flexibility of F2.8 full frame.

Not saying you can't get great footage, it's just the shallow DOF takes more effort to achieve for run and gun on m43.  Best of luck and safe travels!

[jonpais]

+1

[IronFilm]

On 5/30/2018 at 6:33 PM, Mirocco52 said:

I also want to get into event/ wedding videography later this year.

The current gear: GH4, Oly 12-40 2.8, Ikan 3-axis stabilizer and Manfrotto fluid tripod head. 

Keep that fast mid range zoom lens! You will find it very useful for event / wedding videography when speed is of the essence. 

Also for most of these shoots you really do not want to be shooting with just a single camera! I'd recommend 3 or 4 cameras (or even more....). So thus at a minimum you should buy yourself a second camera, even if it is just a secondhand Panasonic GH2. (but a secondhand G7 is also very cheap, and would be nice)

Put what little money you have after this into say a Panasonic 25mm f1.7 plus a Nikon 50mm f1.8 with a cheap focal reducer. 

Oh and into buying a Tascam DR10L for the groom. 

 

[kye]

To add to what @IronFilm says, having two bodies is the killer combo for stills event shooters, and it's normally it's the 24-70 f2.8 on one camera and 70-200 f2.8 on the other.  In a setup like that you have to pay for the two lenses anyway, and buying an extra body for backup is good business sense, so you may as well put it to good use while you're at it.

Some photogs would have a "lesser" body as their backup, which if that meant it was a little cropped then you might have it on the 70-200 and that would mean you get a little extra reach on the zoom.  It means there's a hole in your zoom range, but it's not that large and photos can always be cropped, although your mileage might vary with video depending on capture format, codec quality and output formats.

I know it's not cheap, but it's a good use for your "old" camera when you upgrade.

Edit: a lot of pros just use two normal camera straps crossed over their chest, so no need to go spend a lot on fancy straps (although they are comfy!)

[anonim]

On 5/30/2018 at 8:33 AM, Mirocco52 said:

for a globetrotting videographer who wants low-light and bokeh bliss out of 2-3 lenses max. 
 

For a globetrotting isn't it logical to have two cameras? For a low-light, if you think about m43 system, than mostly mean primes. So, logical m43 conclusion looks for me as: two cameras and two primes or keep 12-40 + fast(er) prime. Or put accent/money on globetrotting experience not on videography and buy Panasonic lx100 (or two for either pocket).

[BTM_Pix]

1 hour ago, IronFilm said:

Oh and into buying a Tascam DR10L for the groom. 

Only if its on their wedding list though.

Otherwise a toaster or some cutlery would be more appropriate.

 

[kye]

27 minutes ago, anonim said:

or keep 12-40 + fast(er) prime

That's not a bad combo.  It means that you'll use the 12-40 as a "wide but slower" lens for landscapes, establishing shots, and groups of people, all of which don't require razor thin DOF.

Couple that with a fast prime that's somewhere in the 35-100 range (70-200 equivalent), and you can use that for portraits, detailed shots, and extra reach, which would all benefit from shallow DOF and add that bokeh sheen to your final projects.  I guess it could be either overlapping with the 12-40 as a more generalist lens or a bit longer to give more reach and variety.

A lot of the time a combination of using your feet and cropping in post can give you enough focal length variety, but it depends on your style and the situations you're in.

[BTM_Pix]

51 minutes ago, anonim said:

For a globetrotting isn't it logical to have two cameras? For a low-light, if you think about m43 system, than mostly mean primes. So, logical m43 conclusion looks for me as: two cameras and two primes or keep 12-40 + fast(er) prime. Or put accent/money on globetrotting experience not on videography and buy Panasonic lx100 (or two for either pocket).

I think this is a very shrewd suggestion.

You'll struggle to get the 24mm equivalent f1.8 lens that the LX100 has for even twice the price of a used one. (The Samyang is a good value but is MF only). Plus you get the other focal lengths it offers at not too slow a speed, it will cut easily with your GH4, gives you not only a backup camera but a more stealthy one if you are stealing shots. Its a very, very good option.

The other half of your budget you can use for a faster longer prime to cover the extra requirements. That Olympus 45mm f1.8 is a good performer and their 75mm f1.8 is very nice indeed but would blow your budget. I'd be tempted to look at getting the Sigma 30mm f1.4 and their 60mm f2.8 which you could probably just sneak in if you picked up used ones. I'd leave the 30mm on the GH4 as the standard lens and although the 60mm isn't particularly fast it is a capable performer and very good value for money.

For what its worth, I might even be tempted to try and trade the GH4 for a G80 to free up some more space and budget and get the benefit of IBIS.

 

[Inazuma]

I suggest getting one wide (around 28mm full frame equivalent, so 14mm on m43) and one somewhat Tele (around 85mm full frame, so 42.5mm m43). So for your budget is say something like the Panasonic 15mm f1.7 and Olympus 45mm F1.8

[IronFilm]

2 hours ago, kye said:

Edit: a lot of pros just use two normal camera straps crossed over their chest, so no need to go spend a lot on fancy straps (although they are comfy!)

Those straps can be found quite cheap, I have this dual camera harness set up myself from eBay. 
If you're a stills shooter then I'd very highly recommend it! (not so great for video though)

1 hour ago, anonim said:

For a globetrotting isn't it logical to have two cameras?

It 100% is if you're doing weddings/events. 

Heck it is even a good idea in general while traveling just so that you've got a back up quickly at hand. 

Is only if you want to take your weight savings to an EXTREME then you'd only carry one body, for instance if you're bikepacking around the world. 
 

1 hour ago, BTM_Pix said:

For what its worth, I might even be tempted to try and trade the GH4 for a G80 to free up some more space and budget and get the benefit of IBIS.

If you first (which is easy to do if you've got a 2nd body already) sell your GH4 for a good price, then I agree about switching over to a G80.

[jhnkng]

Dude, if your budget is that tight then I’d suggest not buying anything, because you already have the gear you need. With the Ex Tele mode you basically have a range between 24-160, which is about all you need. Since you’re travelling I’m assuming you’re looking for work when you get to wherever you’re going right? I’m guessing from the advice you’re after you don’t have a deep portfolio behind you to be able to pre-book work before you leave. So really, the work you should be looking for is as a second shooter for someone who is already established where you’re headed to, in which case what you want is to provide a specific utility. You have a gimbal and a lightweight and versatile camera/lens combo, so be a gimbal/second shooter for event and wedding videographers. That way you leverage the gear you have, and you get a foot in the door of that market, and you start building a network of other creatives who you can lean on for work. 

If you’re really itching to buy something get a decent lav mic (I have a cheap Rode one that sounds fine) and a Zoom H1, and a Rode VideoMicro for your camera. 

Oh, background separation is a function of camera / subject / background distance, don’t buy anything until you get a handle on that. Trust me, you can spend a lot of money and still be disappointed if you don’t know how to achieve what you want. And you can achieve separation through other means, like colour/costume, and composition, and lighting. And stop worrying about bokeh — concentrate on the parts of the frame you want people to pay attention to, not how pretty the blurry background is. 

[jhnkng]

6 hours ago, scotchtape said:

Not saying you can't get great footage, it's just the shallow DOF takes more effort to achieve for run and gun on m43.

I actually liked shooting m43 because I had more DoF -- even now with my C100mk2 my go to lens for completely uncontrolled run and gun is the 18-135, I'd set that thing to 5.6 and let the AF take care of the rest. Sometimes it's more important to get the subject in focus than to worry about separation. Plus I think it's weird to blur the background so much that you completely remove the subject from its context.

[IronFilm]

16 hours ago, jhnkng said:

If you’re really itching to buy something get a decent lav mic (I have a cheap Rode one that sounds fine) and a Zoom H1

A Tascam DR10L (or even a Zoom F1) is a better set up now than an H1 with a lav. 

 

15 hours ago, jhnkng said:

I actually liked shooting m43 because I had more DoF -- even now with my C100mk2 my go to lens for completely uncontrolled run and gun is the 18-135, I'd set that thing to 5.6 and let the AF take care of the rest. Sometimes it's more important to get the subject in focus than to worry about separation. Plus I think it's weird to blur the background so much that you completely remove the subject from its context.

 

100% agreed. I tend to feel that f4 on APS-C/S35 (or f2.8 on MFT) is the sweet spot for general purpose / run&gun shooting. Or a bit more or less is good too, such as even f5.6 on APS-C. (same as f4 on MFT)


 

[jhnkng]

30 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

A Tascam DR10L (or even a Zoom F1) is a better set up now than an H1 with a lav. 

Totally, though my thought was that the H1 can go double duty since it also has a mic. But on lav duty the DR10L is definitely better.
 

32 minutes ago, IronFilm said:

100% agreed. I tend to feel that f4 on APS-C/S35 (or f2.8 on MFT) is the sweet spot for general purpose / run&gun shooting. Or a bit more or less is good too, such as even f5.6 on APS-C. (same as f4 on MFT)

Honestly the only reason I shoot at 5.6 is because that particular lens is 3.5-5.6, and it's just easier to set it at 5.6 and leave it there. I was going to get the 24-105 f4, but the AF motor was noisier and it didn't support Face Tracking on the C100mk2. Plus I have more range on the 18-135, and more importantly I got it on special for *half price* -- $400!! ?

 

[User]

Not to derail the thread... but the 18-135mm certainly sounds like a decent solution for run and gun. Face tracking would certainly be welcomed at times.

I'd be curious how the look and feel of the image it renders compares to the Sigma 18-35mm at equivalent fstops. Something tells me I'd be more comfortable using 18-135 on productions where critical focus trumps image aesthetics. Any thoughts?

We know that the Canon 24-105 isn't a constant f4 through its zoom range, more like a 5.6 on the long end... so that 18-135 should have it beat by a hair for low light. But I do like the image it gives on the long end.

The Sigma almost never leaves my C100Mk2... and they are heavy enough together that I don't need IS. But it sucks that I can't trust the combo to auto focus. The 16-35 f4 nails it every time... but it's no damn good in the dark. Alas.

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, jhnkng said:

Honestly the only reason I shoot at 5.6 is because that particular lens is 3.5-5.6

Oh yes, I realised that instantly! F5.6 is a very common fastest speed at the long end of a variable zoom

[jhnkng]

17 hours ago, User said:

Not to derail the thread... but the 18-135mm certainly sounds like a decent solution for run and gun. Face tracking would certainly be welcomed at times.

I'd be curious how the look and feel of the image it renders compares to the Sigma 18-35mm at equivalent fstops. Something tells me I'd be more comfortable using 18-135 on productions where critical focus trumps image aesthetics. Any thoughts?

We know that the Canon 24-105 isn't a constant f4 through its zoom range, more like a 5.6 on the long end... so that 18-135 should have it beat by a hair for low light. But I do like the image it gives on the long end.

The Sigma almost never leaves my C100Mk2... and they are heavy enough together that I don't need IS. But it sucks that I can't trust the combo to auto focus. The 16-35 f4 nails it every time... but it's no damn good in the dark. Alas.

I own both lenses, and I just shot a quick test at home. I won't post those (the wife would not be pleased) but there's not a lot in it between those lenses at the same aperture. The Sigma is sharper at 18mm 3.5 (not surprising given the Canon is wide open there) but at 5.6 there's no practical difference. My 18-135 is the Nano USM version and optically it's pretty good. A bit soulless maybe but once you accept the compromises it does a good job paired with the C100mk2. 

The way I use it from 18mm to 30-ish it's an f4 lens, and from 35-135 it's a 5.6 lens. It actually doesn't click over to 5.6 until 85mm, but it hurts my brain to keep all that in there when I'm shooting. Face tracking works great for solo interviews, though it's not as good as the C200, and the C100mk2 is so clean even up to 12800 that I'm ok cranking ISO and keeping that lens on indoors as well. I like the extra range for fast moving jobs, and I don't know if it's the lens that does it or its the DPAF that does it, when you zoom in it it automatically changes focus to keep the same plane of focus -- so it's kinda parfocal. You will see the focus change and snap back in, but it's quick and doesn't hunt so it works very well.

I find the AF on the Sigma 18-35 works pretty well, it's a little slower but accurate. I was surprised how well DPAF worked even at 1.8, I love being able to do a pan and slide shot and have the AF track focus on the subject, it's like magic.