I've been looking into lens options and came across the following info which may be of use to others:
Top 10 Native Lenses for Micro Four Thirds cameras 2012 | OSGFilms (http://osgfilms.com/top-10-micro-four-thirds-lenses-2012/)

I'm thinking of either:
* Panasonic Lumix H-H020E (HH020E) 20mm f1.7 Micro Four Thirds Lens for AG-AF101 and DMC-GH3
Panasonic Lumix H-H020E (HH020E) 20mm f1.7 Micro Four Thirds Lens for AG-AF101 and DMC-GH3 (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/panasonic_h-h020e)

or:
* Panasonic Lumix H-H014E (HH014E) 14mm F2.5 Micro Four Thirds Lens for AG-AF101 and DMC-GH3
Panasonic Lumix H-H014E (HH014E) 14mm F2.5 Micro Four Thirds Lens for AG-AF101 and DMC-GH3 (http://www.creativevideo.co.uk/index.php?t=product/panasonic_h-h014e)

I'm assuming these will work with either GH2 or GH3? Want to keep options open - may have a cheap GH2 body on the way.

I'm thinking these would be suitable for a locked-off shot, mainly for church/reception interiors - this sound like a good use?

Would they also work well with Sliders and Steadicam? I'm thinking they'd be better than the stock lens coming with the GH3 (14-140).

Any opinions?

There are pros and cons of both lenses, but the 20mm F/1.7 is going to give much better performance in low light situations. It is a very nice focal length and can be used for a wider variety of circumstances than the 14mm.

I have shot many weddings using the GH2 with a variety of lenses, and in my opinion, if I could only choose one lens, the 20mm would be an ideal choice.

I advise both. I have and use both.

The 14mm is a good "workhorse wide" lens at a reasonable price and the f2.5 aperture is a fair performer for low light situations (the Olympus 12mm f2.0 would be a lot better but might be a bit out of budget range). The Lumix 20mm f1.7 is almost a must have although the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f1.4 is awful appealing for about $150 more.

Again I have and use both the 20 and the 25.

And if you don't mind lens changes at an event, the Olympus 45mm f1.8 is another almost must have.

I've used the above lenses on Olympus cameras, GH2's, and now on GH3's.

Here's a useful guide from Panny on all the various features and restrictions across the lens space for the GH3. Change the URL to gh2 for that camera's compatibilities:
Compatibilities of DMC-GH3 | Compatibility | Digital Camera | Digital AV | Consumer Products | Support | Panasonic Global (http://panasonic.jp/support/global/cs/dsc/connect/gh3.html)

I agree, both are fine lenses. If I could only have 1, it would be the wider 14mm. However, my favorite pair are the 12-35 f2.8 and 20mm f1.7.

Best of luck with your choice.

Thanks for all the advice and info -

Some honest reviews I came across that may help others in a similar situation:

14mm: "It's crappy but I like it"
Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 ASPH Lens REVIEW - YouTube

20mm: "Mixed bag review"
Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Aspheric G- Series Lens - YouTube


And footage from the Olympus 45mm:
Low Light Performance: Micro 4/3 Panasonic Lumix GH2 + Olympus 45mm, f/1.8 + Panasonic 20mm, f/1.7 - YouTube

And Olympus 12mm:
Trams in Turin: Panasonic DMC-GH3 Low Light Video Test - YouTube

All very nice options... the advice here and some of the footage from the 20mm clip above (filmed inside a cathedral) has me leaning towards that lens though.

Again, thanks for the help.

Good reference videos Ryan. Thanks for sharing.

Something that is seldom mentioned, but significant is, when using Lumix lenses on GH cameras, many of the technical issues mentioned in reviews are being corrected in-camera. These include distortion, vignetting, chromatic aberration, etc.. Even more significant is, when using non-Lumix lenses these corrections are NOT being made.

Happy hunting.

Ryan, the reviews and comparisons of the lenses can cloud the issue you are facing.

Your question should not be which is the best lens, because they are all good lenses. More importantly, you are dealing with prime lenses, and none of them, by themselves, will be right for every situation.

Dan recommended both the 14mm and the 20mm so you would be prepared in a larger variety of circumstances, and his advice was sound, based on what you asked.

However, your original question was about choosing only one lens.

As a wedding shooter, if you only choose one lens for now, you will need the best low light you can afford, and something not too wide or too long. The 20mm fits this bill.

The 14mm would provide you a great lockdown shot, but only IF the church is not too long. If the church is large with a long aisle, your 14mm will be too wide. I have used the 12mm for dozens of lockdown shots and in a large church it's a great lens but the footage from it in larger venue is limited in it's usefulness.

I have also used the 20mm and 25mm lenses from Panasonic for lockdown shots for a number of weddings, and overall, the 20mm footage is more useful in the cutting room.

Conversely, I have used both the 20mm and 12mm at the same time from different sides of the aisle, and the 20mm shots are much more useful.

I have sold my 20mm and got the 25mm F/1.4, but I do miss the 20mm at times, it was a nice focal length, and I find the 25mm a tad to narrow at times, albeit it is a better lens.

Despite everything I've said, the 12mm is my favorite lens by far. It is a handy lens, and has provided me with great shots and some of my best video.

In your shoes, however, I would without question begin with the 20mm. It's good in low light, it's wide enough to be usable in most wedding situations, especially for receptions, dancing, etc., it's a killer lens.

Ideally a fast zoom is the best solution, but they are expensive!

I'm of the belief that you could shoot an entire wedding with nothing but the GH2 or GH3 and the 20mm lens, as long as you can get down front for the ceremony.

Good luck with your decision!

I have to agree about the 20mm. Killer lens. I just sold mine with my GH2 to buy a GH3. I honestly now miss it and am thinking of getting one again. Torn between that and the Olympus 17mm.

I found the 20mm to have a good focal length for M4/3, Sometimes 24mm and larger can be too tight for certain situations. 12mm and 14mm is nice to have but like Jeff says isn't always useful and can create some shots that are just too wide. This is fine for an establishment shot or cut away but you wouldn't want to only use it. Jeff is spot on that if you can only get one lens right now then the 200mm may function better in a greater percentage of your shots you need to get.

The main reasons why I sold my 20mm were:
1. Give an incentive to sell my GH2.
2. Autofocus not as good.
3. Kind of hard to manual focus since it is so tiny. I actually like a nice solid feeling lens to shoot with and grip.

I know some may not factor these lenses in but there is also the new Sigma f2.8 primes. Not as fast for low light but just as bright as the very popular f2.8 zooms and almost as bright as the 14mm f2.5. The lenses are fairly highly rated in reviews and very sharp wide open even in the corners. The best part is the price. There is a 19mm, 30mm and very soon a 60mm all of which are $200.00 each. Getting the 19mm and 60mm could cover you in many situations. Autofocus is also very quick. I know many M4/3 users dismiss them right away because they want to shoot in the dark but from what I have read they are very good lenses.

The M.ZUIKO 12mm f2.0 looks interesting. Does anyone use the M.ZUIKO 17mm f1.8 or f2.8 pancake?

Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital 17mm f/1.8 Lens (Silver) V311050SU000

Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17mm f/2.8 Lens for Micro Four 261502

I have the 20 f1.7 & 12-35 F2.8. It obviously depends on exactly what you are using it for. The 20 is great as it is a 40mm is old money (i.e. 35mm full frame), so it is slightly wider than a standard lense. It depends how much an issue low light it. Bear in mind that if you dont want noise you need to shoot at 800iso max in low light so the faster the better.

Thanks for the input - very helpful

Since I last posted, I'm after coming across a secondhand Lumix GF2 for sale with three lenses:
14mmm
14-42mm
45-200mm

That really shakes it up! I think the lot could be had for around the 400/450euro mark and I'm sure it would tide me over nicely. The GF2 itself looks like a decent camera so could also be used as a third camera (to a Sony EA50 and Panasonic GH3).

The 14-42 and 45-200 are not suitable for low light situations, been there, tried that. The GF2 has very limited frame rate selection, you should want to try to shoot with cameras with matching frame rates. As long as you know this then you are walking into things with your eyes open.

It is not what I would consider a good wedding kit, but that is just my opinion.

Thanks for the reply Jeff,

I get what you're saying - I wouldn't be hoping either lens would cover me for low-light any better than the kit lens that's with the GH3 (14-140).

It's the 14mm in the secondhand package that has me tempted - as it's going for 315euro (ex VAT) new.

And I'm not really content with the length of the 14-140 kit lens either, the 45-200mm would be useful for general photography work.

I see the GF2 can be hacked also... so must look into that more. The GH3 would be a 'b camera' to a Sony EA50, so the GF2 would not really be needed - but may as well set it up in case of a worst case scenario.

There is actually little difference in focal length between 140mm and 200mm. There is but not by as much as you would think.

I had the 14-42 and 45-200 lenses. They were great in good lighting and I loved the 45-200 but during weddings it was a pain to switch lenses. Sold them to get the 14-140 and never looked back. What you gain in being able to zoom the entire range without having to stop shooting was worth so much more than the little extra reach. The 14-140 is not very great in low light but in my opinion a beautiful lens and almost perfect for live shooting outdoors. For outdoor events it would never leave the camera.

I'm about to order my GH3 very soon, and since my current camera suffers in lowlight (i.e. inside churches and even the reception locales where I have to use a lamp and render all the people dancing blind and self-conscious), that's the issue I want to fix first. I'm ordering just the GH3 body and currently, after quite a few hours of research, I see 3 options:

1. Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 MFT (OR the 17.5mm variant)
2. Panasonic Leica dg summilux 25mm f/1.4
3. Panasonic Lumix 20mm f/1.7 Pancake

I am reluctant regarding the third option since I know the GH3 does not have a sensor with awesome lowlight performance to begin with, and f/1.7 sounds like noise to me. I might be wrong, this is my first time buying lenses and filming with a DSLR.

From the youtube videos I've seen, the second lens, the f/1.4 Leica, seems like it can be used in lowlight with pretty good results. While I'm sure it will be enough for wedding use (which will be my main use for it), the Voigtlander is not a LOT more expensive, but I'm sure it has vastly superior lowlight performance. I'm interested in it because I might start filming club events/parties as well, and, as you know, the only light there is very scarce. I have looked for vids with that particular lens but almost all of them were used with a GH2. If anyone has any GH3 footage, please show me :)

Thank you!

Luc, you state: "I know the GH3 does not have a sensor with awesome lowlight performance to begin with..."

The GH2 and GH3 each have a sensor that is nearly 1", nearly three times the size of the best prosumer cameras.

F/1.7 is very fast, as is F/1.4 and F/0.95. They are all fine lenses. If you have the money, get the Voightlander, but be forwarned it is an extremely difficult lens to learn DSLR on.

It sounds like you are at the beginning of a difficult learning experience, good luck with your choice. I personally would begin with the 20mm or 25mm Panasonic, if it were me. The DOF on the Voightlander is intense, but it is said to be a great lens.

The Voightlander is the fastest lens you can buy for the GH3, if you want fast, buy the camera and the lens, it would be hard to find much of anything better in low light than that combination.

Jeff, thanks for your reply. What I meant by "not awesome lowlight performance" was in comparison to the big daddy, the 5D Mk3. But the body alone would have eaten up more than three quarters of my budget, so it simply isn't an option :(

Alright, I take it your vote goes to the f1.4 Leica then. I admit I am somewhat afraid of the very shallow DoF on the Voightlander, especially since while filming people dancing there is a lot of movement to keep up with. In addition, my only stabilization tool for the GH3 will be a Manfrotto monopod. I'm guessing one of my hands will have to permanently be on the lens's focus ring. Sounds like dangerous fun.

EDIT:

Here are 2 vids I found with the Voightlander on GH2s. One in which the DoF would be waaaaay too much for wedding videos:

Voigtlander Nokton 25mm f/0.95 test with the GH2 - YouTube

And the second, in which there is hardly any!

Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 Nokton on a Panasonic Lumix GH2 - YouTube

I am officially confused.

F/stop affects your DOF. You have more flexibility outdoors, since it's bright, so you can increase your F/stop if you choose, and thereby have more in focus. Indoors you could reduce shutter speed,increase ISO, and raise your F/stop to keep more of the scene in focus. When you're wide open, thats' when you get the intense DOF effect.

...Here are 2 vids I found with the Voightlander on GH2s. One in which the DoF would be waaaaay too much for wedding videos:...And the second, in which there is hardly any!
...I am officially confused.

If auto focus and auto exposure are important to you, the web page I mentioned in this post provides compatibility information on lenses for the GH3:
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-lumix-gf-gh-series/516422-gh3-lens-options.html#post1794797

When you say a lens has "to much DoF", that means there is too much depth of field. That is, the depth of field (the area in focus) is large. That is the opposite of what I think you meant. I think you meant the DoF in the first clip is way to little for what you want. I know english is a second language for you but understanding you will help us help you better.

Keep in mind there is a learning curve for you to shoot video with a DSLR after being a TM900 user with zebras to help you with exposure and focus peaking to help you with focus. The GH3 has neither. Be prepared to come home to a lot of blurry video.

On the other hand, the focus tracking feature by tapping on an object in the display is totally awesome. However, you'll need a lens that is compatible with the GH3 AF (see compatibility chart).

Les, you are absolutely right, and while it is my second language, I knew the term "shallow depth of field" but completely forgot about it :) I only slept 2 hours last night as I was researching lenses and watching countless youtube vids, and my post was immediately after those 2 hours and before any coffee!

Bill. I cannot express the gratitude I have for you right now. That is the type of footage I needed to see to know I need not look any further. I am completely sold, sir. The low light performance is MILES better than the TM900's, and with no lamp either! The DoF is not as shallow as I'd hoped it to be, but I'm guessing if you get closer to the subjects you will get a much more blurred background, no?

Alright, added this lens to my shopping list. Now, one last question, and here I am a bit scared: stabilization. I have been advised to buy a Manfrotto monopod (the 561 BHDV with 700 series fluid head) to use with the GH3. However, if you look at the first Voigtlander vid I posted, you will see a lot of focus play while the camera remains absolutely planted, no shaking at all! How is that possible considering those are macro shots and you have to actually operate the focus ring and rotate it quite a lot? Do you think he is using a really expensive tripod for the shots? I sent him a PM but got no answer back yet.

It depends on what you are doing but I have a 12-35 F2.8 and it is excelent. I have even used it for shooting drama.

Also be VERY wary of low light test videos on Youtube and Vimio. They both do verry efective noise reduction so hide noise.

The reality is if you really want no noise you cant go above 400 ISO. This means you really need a .95 lens to shoot at night (for drama). For documentary it is less of an issue but it is best to not go above 800 in low light.

Ben

Quoting Ben Edwards:

The reality is if you really want no noise you cant go above 400 ISO. This means you really need a .95 lens to shoot at night (for drama). For documentary it is less of an issue but it is best to not go above 800 in low light.

End quote.

Concerning noise there are some variables to take into account.

One would be "do you forgo the shot, or do you slavishly go no higher than ISO 800 and get video that is too dark and murky?" I'll go as high as I have to to get the shot, then worry about noise (use something like NeatVideo if I have to).

Another is delivery format, maybe this is where noise is best evaluated. Does the noise you see on the computer show in the delivery product.

Third would be your monitor settings. ANY DEGREE of oversharpening will take minor artifacting that is normally not very visible and accentuate it creating noise where there is little or none. Most monitors seem to come out of the box with Sharpness, Contrast, and Brightness set to high. I pull those back to midpoint and "tweak" from there for the best balance between settings that keep the image sharp but stop short of accentuating noise. I'm a "sharpness nut" so I'm not sacrificing any definition in doing so (better sharpness is why I switched from Canon to the GH2).

Tests with my GH3s show no objectionable noise at ISO 6400. And I have and use both the Lumix 20mm f1.7 and the Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f1.4

Bruce, yes I agree, there are lots of factors. All I stated that above 400 ISO noise starts to creep in, its up to you if this is an issue.

In terms of 6400 was this a low light test or a high ISO test? A low light test is shooting a VERY dark image (i.e. at night not directly below street light) and seeing how much noise you get. A lot of tests are simply high ISO tests and test high ISO in good lighting (i.e. outside during the day). This is NOT as low light test. Signal magnification (which is what high ISO is) works fine when the sensor has lots of light, you can magnify a lot and you do not see artifices. On the other hand if there is verry little light the sensor does not have much to magnify, the less light the some noise FOR THE SAME ISO.

This means that it is not simply a case of saying you can shoot in low light at X ISO, the ISO you can get away with depends on how little light there is.

I have shot performers in not so well lit venues on 6400 ISO but there is noise, it is actually in the darker parts of the image so crushing the blacks helps but when shooting Drama I am very verves going about about 600 ISO (when you have light the client does not expect to see any noise).

For Drama you are almost always using lights if you are shooting in low light (if you want it to look any good) so noise would generally be not acceptable, for documentary there is a lot more flexibility as it is capturing the moment that matters most, aesthetics can take second place.

Best thing to do is experiment and get experience with the camera and make your own conclusions. This can be done with cheaper glass and then if you need more expensive glass you are making a informed derision.

Ben

PS when I say 'if you really want no noise' I mean in the footage, it is of course possible to reduce noise in the final product but it generally gives you some softening of the image.

In terms of 6400 was this a low light test or a high ISO test?

Both. I had just got my first GH3, grabbed the 20mm f1.7 the first night and went out to a shopping strip late at night after all the shops were closed. I had a variety of night street scene and shop front lighting conditions available. And yes I could see some subtle noise in the darker tones and even in some of the stone work if I looked for it (at ISO 6400) but nothing objectionable.

Underexposed darker areas were nowhere near as noisy as I used to get with the Canon 7D, the GH3 has much improved performance in this area. 1600 and 3200 looked pretty clean.

The "eye opener" for me on monitor settings and noise was when I was using Canon APS-C cams and had just ordered a new Dell, got a new 22" monitor with it and had horrible noise showing up on web videos. But on my other workstation with a 21.6" Samsung monitor the same videos looked fine.

It was months before I thought to check the monitor settings. Sharpness, Contrast were up around 95% ! Brightness at around 80%. Pulling those down to sensible levels got rid of most noise for me.

The interesting thing I saw when I did my low light tests was that as well as that as well as noise in the dark areas I also got a LOT of noise in my garden shed (dark mid tone), there was even noise in whites.

In terms of the monitor thing I would want to set my motor up to show the maximum about of noise as you don't know how monitors people viewing your stuff is set up. In terms of brightness I use a i1 Display Pro.

Ben

It may be old news but it looks like the Panasonic 20mm f1.7 has been revised and will ship as a version 2 in August. Hopefully the AF speed is improved. It's a metal body.

Panasonic LUMIX G 20mm f/1.7 II ASPH. Lens (Black) H-H020AK B&H

The interesting thing I saw when I did my low light tests was that as well as that as well as noise in the dark areas I also got a LOT of noise in my garden shed (dark mid tone), there was even noise in whites.

In terms of the monitor thing I would want to set my motor up to show the maximum about of noise as you don't know how monitors people viewing your stuff is set up. In terms of brightness I use a i1 Display Pro.

Ben

Different picture settings will show a different amount of noise. That may explain the difference. Some of the styles show more noise than others. If I recall correctly I think the flatter styles will show more noise.

Before I click the "submit order" button, just wanted to double check with you guys if there are any reasons why I shouldn't get the Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I have a set of 3 primes so far (14mm, 25mm & 45mm, all pretty fast) and was thinking a zoom lens would complement them nicely (I miss doing some zoom work at events), especially since this particular model has stabilization.

Any better options out there or am I good to go on this one? Thank you.

Lens:

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 G Vario Aspherical MEGA OIS Lens for Micro Four Thirds Interchangeable Lens Cameras: Camera & Photo (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-42mm-3-5-5-6-Aspherical-Interchangeable/dp/B0043VE28I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377035385&sr=8-1&keywords=14-42mm)

Before I click the "submit order" button, just wanted to double check with you guys if there are any reasons why I shouldn't get the Panasonic 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 lens. I have a set of 3 primes so far (14mm, 25mm & 45mm, all pretty fast) and was thinking a zoom lens would complement them nicely (I miss doing some zoom work at events), especially since this particular model has stabilization.

Any better options out there or am I good to go on this one? Thank you.

Lens:

Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix 14-42mm f/3.5-5.6 G Vario Aspherical MEGA OIS Lens for Micro Four Thirds Interchangeable Lens Cameras: Camera & Photo (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-42mm-3-5-5-6-Aspherical-Interchangeable/dp/B0043VE28I/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377035385&sr=8-1&keywords=14-42mm)You might prefer the power zoom version of this lens Amazon.com: Panasonic Lumix G X Vario PZ 14-42mm/F3.5-5.6 Lens for Panasonic Lumix G-Series Digital Cameras (Black): Camera & Photo (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-14-42mm-F3-5-5-6-G-Series-Digital/dp/B005J5TZVG/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377075524&sr=8-1&keywords=14-42mm+power+zoom) You can even operate the zoom remotely via the WiFi link & a smartphone or tablet.

I have indeed considered this lens, but there are quite a few people saying it has issues, that it causes a double image due to some sort of vibration. The powered zoom is very nice (plus being able to remotely control it), but I'm afraid to actually order it because of the mentioned issues.

Luc, there are many, much better options. The 12-35mm f/2.8 by Panasonic. The 14-54mm F/2.8-3.5 by Olympus, and my personal favorite, the 12-60mm F/2.8-4.0 by Olympus.

Indoors you will not get much use from the 12-42mm. It's a fine lens, gorgeous images with sufficient light. But it's too slow for event work. Much too slow. You are using this for event work, right?

For event work you will find that even the fine Olympus lenses above will be too slow after you start zooming to full range. You could get by with the Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8 but it's truly a tad too slow in my opinion, but it will certainly work.

For low light situations the best you can do in a zoom is the Olympus 14-35mm F/2.0.

Thanks Jeff, you're actually making me reconsider now.

I would not have even asked about the 14-42 if the 12-35 were in my budget. However, as it is right now, it's almost 10x more expensive.

The 14-54 is $600 (bhphoto), and the 12-60 is $1000.

The 14-42 Panasonic is $165.

See my point? :)

Yes, I will use it mainly for events, but not indoors. Here restaurants and churches tend to be kind of small or medium-sized, I can get away with walking.

PS: The 14-35 f2 is $2300 *sigh*

Luc, we are all aware of the prices of these lenses. The point is, if you spend $165 on a lens and cannot use it, it's money thrown away. If you're shooting outside, it is a really really nice lens. I absolutely loved it outdoors. Gorgeous images, nice zoom, IS, it's just great, but turn the lights down and you have to switch to another lens.

The fantastic Oly 14-54mm is available used all over the place, it's a great lens, people are always upgrading and selling that lens.

I owned the 12-60mm and my god what an amazing lens. Photos and video were superb, but at a wedding reception, in the dark, it did not work out so I sold it. It wasn't really too useful at ceremonies either, but full wide it was great. Just couldn't zoom too much or it got slow.

Buy the 14-42mm, try it out at a wedding. Be sure the place you buy from has a return policy, because you'll want to return it. I tried it out at a wedding, and had to remove it as soon as the light went down, did not work out. On your LCD it might look fine, but when you look at the footage later on your PC you'll see the noise, it's not good.

But keep in mind, even the 14-54 is a tad too slow for event work.

The 14-42 is $165 for a reason, Luc.

You're on a journey learning the economics of lenses that many of us have already been on. Thousands of dollars after beginning my journey with the GH2, I can tell you I would go with the fastest zoom I could afford. At a minimum I would get the Panasonic 12-35mm F/2.8, and if that did not work out I would return it and go with the Olympus F/2.0 lens. Then you're good, and you're done with it.

I am so over buying lenses, especially primes, working with the limitations, and stressing out at weddings over lens selection and DOF. Great images, but not for me anymore.

Good luck Luc, if you knew what was in front of you, you would probably turn back, but stick with it and you'll be fine.

12-60mm F/2.8-4.0 by Olympus.

Jeff, does the autofocus of his lens work with g6/gh3 panasonic camera's? Not sure about image stabilisation but I guess this lens doesn't have any?

The 12-35mm from Panasonic does have both and is rain proof, it "only" costs 100 euro more but like Luc says both are expensive investments but I think the 12-35mm lens from Panasonic is worth it.The fact that there are so big pricedifference to the 14-42 is because of the constant 2.8 f-stop vs a f3.5/6.5 f-stop throughout the zoom range. And you could use the lens in etc mode and get a new focal range by the press off a button and still at f2.8 all the way.

If you are able to shoot in sufficient light then I agree that cheap 14-42 lens will do fine, it's sharper then my samyang 14mm lens.

I"m still looking for a good steadicam lens but I want a all purpose lens as well that's wide and fast enough, currently I use the 18-200 stock lens a lot on my nex-ea50 and eventhough it's slow I enjoy using it because it has image stabilisation and autofocus and other good focussing aids if you need it, with this camera I can shoot in run and gun situations and I"m sure the 12-35mm lens would enable me to do that as well on the gh3.

Eventhough f2.8 can be too slow at dark reception I rather not have a faster lens because keeping good focus on a steadicam would be impossible. f2.8 is more forgiving.

I think I will just take the money hit and get the 12-35mm lens which can double as a steadicam and run and gun lens, sigh...Better not tell my wife :)

Yes, Noa, with the Panasonic 4/3 to m4/3 adapter, lens works like it was made for camera. IS? Not sure, don't think so. I sold my 12-60mm a year or two ago, bur pretty sure no.

Actually Noa, the 14-54 F/2.8-3.5 is a bit faster, almost as wide and long, and is very very close in quality. Was it Robert Benda who used to use that lens around here? I forget who it was, but they shot some really great stuff with it.

I personally, as much as I love the 12-60, would probably choose the 14-54, mainly because it's hundreds less, lighter and smaller, and a touch faster. It's more practical. The F stop drops more quickly on the 12-60 so you do lose some light sooner than you would on the 14-54. The 12-60 is heavy heavy heavy. Keep in mind it's a 4/3 lens so it's kind of huge. The 14-54 is not exactly dainty either.

You would really be better off with the Panasonic 12-35mm if you could pull it off.

Thx Jeff for the info, thing is I want a wider lens then the 14mm from Samyang I"m using now on my gh3, used to have this lens on my 1,5 cropfactor 550d and to have the same range I should have a 10,5mm lens but there are no zoomlenses I know of that start at 10, have a constant f2.8 and do keep the autofocus and more importantly the ois function. That last part I regard as most important. Think I"ll have to dig deep one more time. :)

Finding a fast & wide lens for M43 has always been a problem. the 7-14mm is plenty wide enough & a great sharp lens but only has an aperture of F/4. The Olympus 12mm F/2 is the fastest wide lens but not as wide as a 14mm on a APS-C sensor (24mm vs. 21mm FF equivalent)

I recently picked up the Panasonic 35-100mm. Let me tell you -- at $1400, it's worth every penny. I only wish it would go a little wider -- 20 or 25mm would be ideal. But I'm just nitpicking, because I can't find anything else negative to say about this. If you can spare the cash, get it.

Bill, that lens sounds very nice, never really heard much about it. I really like Olympus lenses anyway, but that lens really kind of escaped my attention, probably because I had the 12mm. Sounds excellent. I would probably hardly ever take if off the camera if I had one.