/ Register


  1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Panasonic 14-140 II for video?

Discussion in 'Native Lenses' started by Talanis, Jul 12, 2014.

Top Rated
Page 1 of 3
  1. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    What do you think about the Panasonic 14-140 Mk II for video use? I'm searching for a nice stabilized and versatile lens for using with the GH4 in video when I'm not on a tripod (handheld, steadycam, slider). Would it be a good choice? Should I instead go for the Panasonic 12-35 or pick a cheap used 14-140 Mark I?

    Any advice would be welcome :) 
     
    Talanis, Jul 12, 2014
    #1
  2. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    or the 14-42 X ?
     
    Talanis, Jul 12, 2014
    #2
  3. dornblaser

    dornblaser Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    3,321
    Aug 13, 2012
    Chicago-area
    David Dornblaser
    What are your subjects and at what distance? Short of primes, it would be hard to beat the 12-35 out of your choices. Edit: I use the 12-35 and 17, 25, & 42/45 primes for video.
     
    dornblaser, Jul 12, 2014
    #3
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    Well, on a steadycam, I can't imagine shooting anything longuer than 35, even 25 so I guess the 12-35 would be the best choice. I have the Olympus 12-50 at the moment but I think the OIS would help making the steadycam clips more steady... hehe. Maybe not either. I don't have a lot of video experience yet and am new to the steadycam. As for the primes, I have the Bower 7.5, the Pana 20 and the Olympus 45 and 75mm.
     
    Talanis, Jul 12, 2014
    #4
  5. alexcox

    alexcox Mu-43 Rookie

    10
    Mar 31, 2014
    Oregon
    Alex Cox
    I've shot video with the 14-140mm lens using a Black Magic Pocket Camera (which has a 1:3 conversion factor). The stabilization doesn't work with the BMPCC so on the longest settings the lens was on a tripod. Hand-held or tripod-based, the footage looks great.
     
    alexcox, Jul 12, 2014
    #5
    • Like Like x 1
  6. arson519

    arson519 Mu-43 Regular

    99
    Feb 10, 2013
    Canada
    I have the first gen 14-140 and I think its great for video I barely use the long end tho but you appreciate having it.
     
    arson519, Jul 12, 2014
    #6
  7. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    1,820
    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    It's a great video lens overall, but it doesn't hold focus with zoom and my copy focus creeps badly. I've been wondering if perhaps the II is a better built lens.
     
    Promit, Jul 13, 2014
    #7
  8. speedandstyle

    speedandstyle Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    2,477
    Nov 29, 2011
    Roswell NM yes that Roswell!
    I have used the 14-140{original version} on an AF100 and it works good. I work for a church and have to shoot video of events. It works great for that because you have a wide angle to a short tele without having to switch lenses. I have not noticed any creep in the copy we have. However the AF will not keep up with the zoom unless you go super slow. I generally don't zoom while shooting but the few times I tried it I did find that problem. BUT I have seen that problem on every video camera I have ever used, some are just worse than others.
     
    speedandstyle, Jul 13, 2014
    #8
  9. ntblowz

    ntblowz Mu-43 Veteran

    341
    Nov 13, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    If size doesn't concerns you the Mark I is good enough. I tend to use 12-35mm since it gives you good enough bokeh and 12mm + F2.8 gives you better/wider indoor performance than kit, but if you are shooting events outdoor then 14-140mm is really versatile.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lhaLdZE0Mo
     
    ntblowz, Jul 13, 2014
    #9
    • Like Like x 2
  10. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    221
    May 16, 2013
    14-42X is a great lens for video. It's not the sharpest stills lens, I figure it will resolve about 12-14Mp of detail using a 16Mp sensor. However, the 14-42X has more than enough resolving power for 1080P and almost certainly even 4K.
    I believe you can find them dirt cheap too.
     
    STR, Jul 22, 2014
    #10
    • Like Like x 1
  11. poopstick

    poopstick Mu-43 Regular

    112
    Aug 9, 2013
    Burlington Ontario
    I agree with STR.
    The Power zoom along with the Power OIS makes the 14-42X an excellent lens for video.
     
    poopstick, Jul 22, 2014
    #11
  12. John Araki

    John Araki New to Mu-43

    5
    May 28, 2013
    I am also pondering this same question, re 14-140 I vs II.

    I have the 14-42x on my GH4 and agree that with the prior posters about the benefits. In addition, I should add that wifi controls the zoom with the 14-42x.
     
    John Araki, Jul 23, 2014
    #12
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    Still not decided. The plain 14-42 G II is interesting for the price and it seems it is sharper than the X Vario (although quite a bit bigger). Still trying to decide if I want the versatility of the 14-140 or will opt for the IQ and wider aperture of the 12-35. It would be a lot easier if any of those lenses were available in my city for testing.
     
    Talanis, Jul 24, 2014
    #13
  14. markdaunt

    markdaunt Mu-43 Regular

    38
    Nov 18, 2012
    The 14-140 is a great daytime walk about lens and I use it all the time. But if you are doing serious video work with set scenes then the 12-35 would be the better option of the two.
     
    markdaunt, Jul 24, 2014
    #14
    • Like Like x 1
  15. STR

    STR Mu-43 Veteran

    221
    May 16, 2013
    12-35 has pretty amazing stabilization (75% stills keeper rate at 1/2 second at 35mm), but would be rather overkill for video, honestly.

    If I was looking for background separation, I'd just use a longer lens, which tend to be more flattering for subjects.
     
    STR, Jul 25, 2014
    #15
  16. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    I agree with you for separation but for steadycam shots or handheld, I prefer to keep it wide. I usually don't shot at 2.8 on a steadycam either. But photography is still my main craft. I do prefer shooting primes. On my full frame, I had a 70-200mm that I really loved. but for shorter, focal lenght, I was using primes (14/2.8, 35/1.4 and 50/1.4), I don't plan on getting the 35-100 because I love using the 45 and the 75mm so that would be redondant. I guess a cheap 14-42 or the 14-45 with OIS would do a very good job on video and I would continue to use my primes for photography.
     
    Talanis, Jul 25, 2014
    #16
  17. Livnius

    Livnius Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    2,256
    Jul 7, 2011
    Melbourne. Australia
    Joe
    Yeah it can be a tough choice Eric. I went through the same conundrum recently. I researched all the options extensively and found that of the two versions the ver II 14-140 was not only smaller but optically a little better than its older brother and I was close to getting it, super versatile focal coverage was the real hook. But in the end I opted for the 12-35/2.8....simply because it also doubled as no compromise 'stills' lens too. Like yourself stills photography is my main thing, probably 95% of what I do is stills, so while the 12-35 gives up some in the versatility department to something like the the 14-140 in terms of focal length coverage it more than makes up for it in other ways. I can be on a family fishing trip doing video and with full confidence switch between video and stills without changing lens in the knowledge that the one lens is a superb performer for both tasks....also being f2.8 it will allows me to shoot both stills and video in lower light and afford me the opportunity to get creative with shallow DOF stuff with both as well.

    Not to say that there is anything wrong with the 14-140 as a stills lens, it's just that I concluded the 12-35 was more suited to my needs and was less of a compromise being a super stills/video lens despite not covering the same focal range as the 14-140. Like yourself, the bulk of my video work (and stills stuff) is on the wider end.....on the very rare occasion I want to shoot some video at long focal lengths, I bought the very cheap, very small yet surprisingly excellent 45-150HD. Barely takes up any space tucked away neatly in the bottom of my kit back.

    Good luck mate.
     
    Livnius, Jul 25, 2014
    #17
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Talanis

    Talanis Mu-43 Top Veteran

    509
    Oct 15, 2012
    Sherbrooke, Canada
    Eric Cote
    Thanks Joe, you just summed up all my thinking and made it clear. One thing I learned through the years with photography is when you chose the cheap option, you always end paying more at the end. ;) 
     
    Talanis, Jul 25, 2014
    #18
  19. Vesku

    Vesku Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Sep 23, 2014
    Fin
    My 14-140 II has fast AF for video, great IQ, BUT

    It is impossible to shoot stable video handheld with that lens. POWER OIS is adding a micro vibration even at 14mm. Every clip must stabilize in post or use a good tripod without OIS.
     
    Vesku, Sep 23, 2014
    #19
  20. stripedrex

    stripedrex Do or do not. There is no try.

    374
    Jun 8, 2012
    Long Island, NY
    Alex
    This a major bummer I was hoping to eventually get this lens as my travel lens when I need reach (zoos etc). Are there those with a copy of the 14-140 without that jitter? Is it sample variation or consistently bad for everyone?
     
    stripedrex, Sep 23, 2014
    #20
Page 1 of 3
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Accept Learn More...