Just thought I'd share this with you guys. Event videographers such as myself have the most money to spend on gear right about this time of year, so smart decisions must be made!

Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 7-14mm f/2.8 PRO Lens V313020BU000

Olympus M.ZUIKO Digital ED 8mm f/1.8 Fisheye PRO V312030BU000

Voigtlander Nokton 10.5mm f/0.95 Lens for Micro Four BA328A B&H


Personally I'm very tempted by the 8mm. Would use it a lot at wedding receptions in low light and I'm sure it would produce a much cleaner image than the 12-35 f/2.8. However, it's just $100 cheaper than the Voigtlander, which is REALLY annoying. A lens that I now see in stock for the first time, by the way.

For me it's a tough decision between these two. I would buy the Voigtlander just so that I would never fear low light again, but at the same time an ultra-wide lens that's also FAST is a very, very nice thing to have.

I'm not sure why you're comparing the 8mm fisheye to the 12-35mm. A fisheye is an effect lens to be used sparingly, not a go-to wide angle lens. Plus, the ability to zoom with the 12-35 outweighs the low light capability of the fisheye.

The Nokton has the advantage that is has a declicked irisring but the focus is all manual, the Olympus has the advantage that it has autofocus but iris adjustments cannot be made smoothly.

The oly 7-14 is the most versatile lens but it will cause issues at very dark venues, if I had to choose I would pick the Nokton.

I'm not sure why you're comparing the 8mm fisheye to the 12-35mm. A fisheye is an effect lens to be used sparingly, not a go-to wide angle lens. Plus, the ability to zoom with the 12-35 outweighs the low light capability of the fisheye.

Because of 3 reasons:

1. The distortion can be somewhat fixed in post.

2. Filming in 4k reduces the distorsion (larger crop factor).

3. While filming people dancing at receptions (and therefore moving via a stabilizer) you can get away with some amount of distortion. I have a friend who's done this with a 14mm on a 5D Mk2 and has never received one complaint from his clients. The Olympus would be the equivalent of 16mm to which you apply the lens distortion effect in Premiere to make it look more "natural" - I think it will look more than reasonable. Yes, the 7-14mm will look better but right now I find myself needing to be at ISO 2500 or 3200 in some venues with the 12-35mm because of its f/2.8, so I consider this extra "de-fishing" work to be worth it if my footage looks cleaner.

And 4: I agree with Noa, that Voigtlander, even with the lack of AF, is just a very hard thing to turn down right now. I'm waiting for Youtube videos showcasing it.

Do you use an on camera LED? I use the 12-35mm at a lot of events (weddings, bar/bat mitzvahs, birthdays, concerts, clubs, private parties, etc.) and I use a $30 LED (Neewer CN-160) that allows me to keep my ISO usually at 800 or less, with 1000 generally being my max. The trade off with a lower aperture is a shallower dof, which can be a pain with lots of moving subjects in a live atmosphere, unless that's the look you're going for, but if you can't miss key moments due to focus, it's better to be closed down a bit. I'd prefer to get it right during production, not fix it in post with distortion correction. It makes editing a boar. I myself am strongly considering the upcoming Olympus 7-14mm f/2.8.

I do but only inside dark churches and when the bride gets stolen. I have given up using an on-camera light for about 2 years now, ever since I got the GH3. I really, really disliked the reactions it provokes in people, anywhere from embarrassment to squinted eyes (even when set on minimum power). It makes them very much aware that they are being filmed and causes weird / unnatural behavior which I don't like.

You are also right, of course, doing anything extra in post when you can avoid it is not ideal. That being said, because you can do that in post I really consider that lens to be versatile. If you want to get something funky, you film in 1080p, if you want something more natural you film in 4k (18mm equivalent, still wide enough) and "help" it in post if needed.

Hell, I'd buy all 3 lenses if money wasn't an issue. But sadly it is. At least you guys can ask for over $2k / wedding, here it's at around $450 for 1 guy with a DSLR. And yet we get even higher gear prices than you in the US. Good ol' Eastern Europe.

Comparison here of sigma 17-50mm with speedbooster

Run & Gun Lens Shootout: Sigma 17-50mm f/2.8 - Suggestion of Motion (http://suggestionofmotion.com/blog/sigma-17-50mm-f2-8-lens-review/)

I have ordered the Voightlander - On that I can mount a variable ND filter - It cannot be done on the Olympus -7-17 without a matte box - unfortunately!

Bo, PLEASE upload some footage once you get the lens! Especially footage taken at night at f/0.95 please :D

Are you afraid f0.95 is not fast enough? :) The only thing that might be an issue if you use panasonic lenses as well, not sure about that but I do recall my samyang lenses had a different "look" then my panasonic and olympus lenses, once I started mixing those you could see the difference.

Nooo, I just want to see what the bokeh looks like. I saw a clip taken with the 17.5mm f/0.95 and to me it looked a bit weird. Watch the shot at 0:59:

https://youtu.be/aYdXBAqib90?t=59s

Well, here are a few shots with the Voigtlander:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX_JCbv4RFE&feature=youtu.be&t=9s


and same video at 3:43. that warp stabilizer doesn't help. my 2 cents? "not bad". sadly, just "not bad". not sure if it's worth the thousand bucks yet. waiting to see more footage, perhaps downscaled 4k and with at least one human being in it for crying out loud.

EDIT: here we go, this is better:

[4k] NOKTON 4Lenses with GH4 - YouTube

bokeh still looks a bit weird if you ask me *sigh* it's a bit of a letdown compared to the 25mm and 42.5mm variants. let me know what you guys think.

It doesn't say at what f-stop this video was shot while using those 3 different lenses so then it's hard to judge the bokeh. I don't see anything wrong with the image though.

I bit the bullet and ordered the 7-14mm. Should arrive on Friday. Will get back to you.

I ordered the 7-14 today, as well.

i just got the Olympus 7/14 its really nice, enjoy

The 7-14 arrived, unfortunately I don't have the time today to get some sample footage. So take this selfie at 7mm f/2.8 for now. I do need to be careful, it does seem to distort a lot around the edges, I doubt faces will look good.

http://i.imgur.com/UMcIrgO.jpg

This discussion is where I'm having trouble too. 12mm isn't wide enough for my purposes and all the 10mm and under options are a big compromise for me. I really wish Panasonic would add an 11mm f/1.7 lens to their lineup. It would be a perfect fit with their other primes. 11, 15, 25, 42.5

F2.8 just doesn't work for me as you have to be very close to the subject to get shallow enough depth of field and then you get that distorted look at these wider angles.

Looking forward to seeing you samples with that 7-14 still though.

Cheers,
Pete

So take this selfie at 7mm f/2.8 for now.

I think that lens is broken, unless your face looks like that :) 7mm is more for wide spaces, I think it's normal that it distorts like at it's widest and in a narrow space.

Noa I think the jpg correction is a bit weird. I know the pics look different when you compare RAW to jpg because the camera compensates for distortion.

So, alright, I filmed my first wedding with this lens yesterday. Here is a short clip chosen at random, straight from the camera:

https://youtu.be/m9BeuAPPNyI

Here are some thoughts:

1. The distortion is much more acceptable for video, even at 7mm. I was worried that it would be a problem but I doubt any client will mention it, unless I really get in their faces.

2. The lens suffers from a lot of flare, even from standard light bulbs. If you look closely you will see little spots of light across some people's faces. I'm not sure I like that.

3. The reception for this wedding was quite dark and I was struggling. The clip I uploaded is 1080/25p, filmed at 1/30 shutter speed and either ISO 2500 or 3200, not sure. Still, there is a considerable amount of noise and compared to your sample footage taken with the 42.5mm at the same ISO (Noa), mine just looks awful.

I was shooting in Natural:

* contrast -2
* sharpness +2
* noise reduction -5
* saturation -5
* luminance 0-255

Rest is stock. Am I doing something wrong here? Judging by our footage it looks like we have different cameras.

For those who haven't seen Noa's video, here it is: Private Video on Vimeo (password: test)

EDIT: I looked at my own vid on youtube and it does look cleaner thanks to compression I guess, the original vid has a lot more grain to it. however, there is still a noticeable difference in quality between the two.

I shoot standard, everything at zero and 16-235 luminance, you have noise reduction at -5, does that not mean the camera is not applying any noise reduction at all which could explain your noise issue?

I doubt going from NR -5 to 0 would make the footage look like I didn't capture it in iso 3200 but rather something like 1600. The luminance thing... I will try it for my next wedding. Standard too. Thank you.

from my testing noise reduction is a mixed bag on the GH4. Sometimes it works great and others it makes the footage a tiny bit mushy. I've never seen it look significantly worse with NR at 0.

What recording mode were you in Luc ???

Shooting that original is 1080-25p would explain it. Shooting 4K UHD-25p and down scaling to 1080-25p output for youtube is radially better. Noise almost completely disappears when downscaling 4K to 1080 for me.

That 7-14mm definitely looks good and is a tempting piece of kit !!!

Cheers,
Pete

I rarely shoot in 4k. Don't know why, but I don't like the feeling I get from that extra crop factor and the significantly slower autofocus, so I avoid 4k. I am also a big fan of slow motion (even 50%), so 25p doesn't really work for me. I film all my weddings in 50p unless there are low light issues where I have to use a slower shutter speed than 1/50. You never know when you need to slow-mo a clip to get something nicer out of it.

fyi, that particular coffee clip was shot in 4K and downscaled in a 1080p project in Edius.

I did ask you that on the other thread but you didn't respond. So is that the solution then? Hm. On that note, forgive me for asking an even more off topic question, but do you guys recommend recording on a 128GB SD card? I did record a wedding in 4k just once, and I found myself running out of space exactly during the service at the church. with a 64GB card. 128 would solve the problem but I'm worried that if something does happen to it I will lose a big portion of the wedding. Thanks.

Just keep the idea of shooting 4K and even down to 1/25th shutter in your bag of tricks for that super dark shot you have to get. I also like to shoot 1080-60p for most of my action shots so I can get good slow motion, but when I need to I'll shoot 4K and 1/30th shutter. It gives some great results when nothing else looks good.

I only shoot with 32gig cards. I never like having those super long clips in the first place. Then I am always protected on most of my footage in case a card goes bad. For your weddings, 64gigs should go for 80 minutes and be sufficient for the ceremony. If someone really needs the whole ceremony from start to finish, I'd use a 1080 camcorder for that and use the GH4 for all the beauty shots and the video that will be distributed. Only the bride and groom will ever watch the whole ceremony ever again. Most likely, not even them :)

Cheers,
Pete