Re: Widest Wide
 

When I'm using the 7-14 outdoors I generally stop down as I don't generally use an ultra wide angle lens for shallow dof shots. When the lights go off in a wedding I turn on my on-camera LED. Sometimes I'll switch to a faster lens, but when people are dancing and the dof is razor thin most of the shots are useless. Brides want to see people dancing and having a good time. They don't want to see the tip of someone's nose in focus and everything else a blur.

Re: Widest Wide
 

I use a 12mm f2.0 for the dancing part and then you don't have any shallow dof focusing issues, I find f2.0 just good enough to cover even the darkest venues.

Re: Widest Wide
 

I don't use wide angle for shallow dof either, but in bright, sunny days, keeping my shutter at 1/50 requires apertures well above f11 and sometimes as high as f18 or f22. In such cases, I find diffraction to be an issue. For my 12-35 lens, for sunny days, I stick an ND 2 or 4 filter on. ND filters are not just for shallow dof, they've been a welcome feature on professional cameras before dslrs.

I think it's hard to get razor thin shallow dof as you describe with micro 4/3s. I've used 0.95 in some dimly lit venues and still had the entire face in focus. Unless you're standing face to face, lower apertures are quite possible, whether to combat poor light without resorting to lights or for creative effect.

Re: Widest Wide
 

I use traditional cameras, so I'm well aware of the use of ND filters. The sweet spot for most lenses is between fully open and fully closed, so they help achieve that. Razor thin focus is easily achieved with m4/3. I shot a wedding yesterday and used my Voitlander 25mm f/0.95 on some detail shots during prep and pre-reception and got exactly that without even being fully open. I also used my Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 during the reception and shot people on the dance floor from a distance and just a slight movement from the subject, slight move of my camera, or nudge of the focus wheel put my subject out of focus. Do what works for you. For my purposes, and I shoot a lot of low light live events, the 7-14mm f/2.8 works great.

Re: Widest Wide
 

Ofcourse you can get razor thin focus depending on the focal length and distance to your subject but you said that with the dancing you get razor thin dof making shots useless but that only happens when you choose a wrong lens. Often in videos I post here people ask how I am able to get such a deep dof on my steadicam shots when it seems to be a very dark venue, my 12mm is at f2.0 all the time during the dancing part and if you put your focuspoint a few meter in front of you focus is no issue while I move around. I do use my 42,5mm at f1.7 as well and then focus becomes much more tricky but as long as I keep sufficient distance and shoot persons that don't move from their place while dancing then it's no issue either, it only is a problem once they start moving around but that's why I use the 12mm for those cases.

Re: Widest Wide
 

This is off-topic, but at that wedding yesterday the dinner seating area (it was an outdoor wedding) had lights that caused horrible flickering/banding. The Synchro Scan feature on the GH4 worked great once I tuned in a good frequency.

Re: Widest Wide
 

Not disputing the 7-14mm is a fine lens and I do use my 2.8 12-35 indoors and late into the evening on some Weddings. Plenty of Weddings alas where I can't use it once the lights go down. The 7-14 is one I seriously considered, but the lack of filter thread and the 2.8 aperture are stumbling blocks for the kind of use I need it for. I can get the SLR Magic 10mm 2.1 and Olympus 9-18 for not much more than the price of the 7-14 and this would work better for my way of filming

Re: Widest Wide
 

Just make sure that SLR magic lens f/2.1 is actually f/2.1. What I'm trying to say is that I had Panasonic's 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens, and when I compared it to the 12-35mm zoomed in at 14mm, I had the exact same amount of light hitting the sensor. So the 12-35 f/2.8 was as fast as the 14's f/2.5.

I heard the same story from a friend of mine regarding a Samyang 14mm f/2.8 on his Canon 5D. he recently switched to Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8 and noticed he's actually getting slightly more light.

regarding the 7-14, here's my 2 cents (since I own it). for outdoor use I set it at f/8 and I'm fine with whatever shutter the camera uses. I don't mind filming at 1/4000. yes, it's choppier, but for me it's not a problem and I've been doing it for years, nobody has ever complained.

for indoor use it becomes more complicated. if they turn off the lights, the olympus f/2 is not going to save you either. it has to be either the voigtlander (which is not THAT wide) or a speed boosted FF lens. I already made my choice and there are pros and cons for each one.

I like the fact that anything farther than ~80 centimeters is in focus, which is REALLY nice. you almost don't have to worry about focus at all. and if you do want to get up close, you can just gently touch the screen and it focuses quickly. you can't do this with a Voigtlander, you can't do this with a speed boosted lens. and since the camera is on a stabilizer, you can't refocus manually since you'll induce all sorts of shakiness. but the touch focus is harmless :)

yes, there have been situations where I really wanted a faster lens, but for those moments you have your 1/25 shutter speed and 4k. let's not forget that 7mm in 4k becomes a 16mm FF equivalent which is still nice and wide.

honestly I would have preferred them to just make it a 7mm prime lens with an aperture of 1.8 like they made their 8mm fish-eye. would have been amazing.

Re: Widest Wide
 

To be fair Luc, the pancake lens is a nice little lens, but hardly a large bit of glass to let a lot of light in. You do get what you pay for I agree.

I'm afraid that I hate the fast shutter look and limit using it as much as possible. Useful if I have to, but to be avoided if not.

If the lights are out, I agree f2 won't be too much good, but thing is, light levels aren't just off and on, there are different levels of lighting and the f2 would handle more of them than f2.8. Mind you I lose the zoom, but for my use zoom is less important and the 9-18 would cover that anyway when outdoors.

Re: Widest Wide
 

Then the only viable option (in my opinion of course) would be that Rokinon 10mm f/2.8 that was mentioned here. Speed boosted with the Metabones XL, which should bring it to 12.8mm f/1.8 and 14.72mm in 4k. Which means you will most likely not be able to use it in 1080p. Maybe there's a 12mm or 14mm variant? I haven't checked.

But I say the only viable option for a *WIDE* and fast lens. Now that I have the 7-14mm I almost never bring out the 12-35 for receptions anymore. I just love how much action I can fit into my frame and how great party footage looks with a bit of distortion around the edges. Plus you can film handheld even without stabilization, if you're a bit careful.

Here's an example of when they stole the bride and took her to another wedding that was nearby. Shot at 7mm but in 4k. The light was more than enough, footage looks very clean. If only that were the case at every reception...

I don't think I ever refocused here. Pay attention to that, you will see how pretty much everything is in focus, even when subjects get a bit closer.

PS: you're hearing the GH4 internal mic only, with lows boosted in Audition. it's not amazing sound, but plenty good for most if not all clients!

Re: Widest Wide
 

Well I'm still holding onto the idea of the slr magic 10mm 2.1. Add the 9-18 and I've got wide angle covered well for my needs. I'm not interested in metabones adapters. As for my 12-35, its my go to lens during the day. The 35 reach is quite good for marginal close up shots and its wide enough for general footage. Going wide angle is for camera 2 or when 12mm isn't wide enough. Some interiors, getting the whole church in if I can't get far enough back. Dance floor for camera 2, gimbal use both indoors and out.

I'm not knocking the 7-14. It's an excellent lens. Very practical, just not for me.

Re: Widest Wide
 

Why aren't you guys using LED lights? I never have an issue with lighting because I bring my own. Neewer CN160. Lightweight, cheap, and the thin Sony NP-F550 batteries last forever.

Re: Widest Wide
 

Patrick, don't be silly, of course I have lights and do use them. However faster lenses are equally valuable. I've had a couple of dimly lit ceremonies, one was horrendous and when the lights went down suddenly, I had to ditch my 12-35 for my 42.5 1.2 pronto for decent footage, whilst my 12mm 2.0 rescued the wide angle. Lighting only goes so far and covering a wide angle of a large room dimly lit, f2 can be useful as long as long as you check focus. Then there's the fact that lights can upset people. Small room, very crowded, getting footage of guests mingling. In some cases, pointing the light up at the ceiling and combining it with a fast prime has yielded great results without distracting the guests. Otherwise you get filthy looks and that hardly makes great footage.

Ultimately the more options you have, the better. Having an f2 lens doesn't mean I have to use f2, but it does mean its there when I need it.

Re: Widest Wide
 

Yes Patrick, Steve pretty much hit the nail on the head. I stopped using LED lights about 2 years ago. I use it inside dark churches but that's about it. It upsets and makes people feel uncomfortable at receptions. They become self-conscious and immediately stop their crazy dance moves once they see me pointing their direction...

Steve, what kind of LED light are you using that's powerful enough to bounce light off the ceiling? O.o

Re: Widest Wide
 

In that example, the ceiling wasn't that high, it was perhaps a metre and a half above head height and white. Small room too. The light in quest was a rotolight though I have others that I use. Mainly it's for table decorations and to provide fill light, but I also use it on the dancefloor attached to another camera. Being quite portable, I have it on my person to grab when needed.