Lumix 12-35 in low light?

People's thoughts on shooting in low light at 2.8 at 1600 Asa? I am torn between sigma 18-35 1.8 with SB or lumix 12-35 2.8. Both round the same price.. Both have pros and cons. My main concern is using the lumix in low light at 2.8 and max Asa compared to the sigma which with the speedbooster can shoot at 1.2.

I am leaning towards the lumix for ois and form
Factor but still am interested in the sigma for the quality and the speed.

I have to take the same decision. The panny or the sigma. At this moment I'm preferring the panasonic for OIS. I think you will always need a stabilized lens for holidays and casual filming. That lens is have a perfect form-factor for the pocket. I can';t always use a tripdod. Focussing and avoiding shakes with the sigma below F2.8 will be hard in real life situations.

Later I can add a voigtlander 17.5mm 0.95 or even the SLR Magic 12mm for shoots where I use a rig or a tripod. This lenses will deliver better quality footage (and the voigtlander is faster than the sigma).

Sometimes I think that even a 14-45 panny with IOS is the best walk around lens and it's very light & cheap. And for low light a voigtlander 17.5 is perfect.

I already win the 14-45 and for what it is it's great.. But obviously no good in low light. That's my worry if I get the lumix.. Perfect walk around lens.. Small.. Relatively fast.. With iOS.. But will it be any good in low light??.. That's where the sigma would win hands down.. And the quality if the glass is supposed to be a lot better too.

Thanks

Lee

I have Lumix 12-35 for day time shooting and switch to fast prime e.g. cosmicar 12.5 f1.4 at night

I don't think this should be an either/or question. Granted people have budget limits.

The Lumix 12-35 is OIS and if that's mission critical for you that's a done deal. If you can't use support sometimes than it's what you need. It's reasonable in low light at f2.8.

On the other hand if low light with support is mission critical than the Sigma 18-35 f.1.8 (f1.2 with MBSB) is clearly the choice.

If you need both… well you need both. The "compromise" would be the Lumix 12-35 if you can only get one since Sigma would be a fail without support whereas the Lumix will still be OK in lower light although there's a notable difference between f2.8 and f1.2

One additional consideration is if you need long without making a lens change.
MFT 12-35 is about 35-100 Full Frame
MBSB 18-35 is about 36-70 Full Frame
So Lumix is a bit more versatile and having f2.8 at 100mm has a value to some.

I had the Panasonic Lumix 12-35 and returned it because I felt it just couldn't capture enough light to shoot indoors in my dimly lit apartment.

I had the Voigtlander 17.5 and returned it because I felt it was not sharp enough wide open, and others reported similar experiences.

I got the Sigma 18-35 with SB because it was supposedly the sharpest low light option for the pocket. I just used it last night to film my girls trick or treating in our dimly lit building. I found it difficult to focus as they moved, but I suppose I'd of had the same issue with any lens on the pocket because none of them continuously adjust to keep a subject in focus if I'm not mistaken. Can anyone confirm this? Anyhow, hopefully I'll get better at keeping a moving subject in focus as I practice.

I can share the video once I'm finished editing it if anyone is interested.

I had the Panasonic Lumix 12-35 and returned it because I felt it just couldn't capture enough light to shoot indoors in my dimly lit apartment.

I had the Voigtlander 17.5 and returned it because I felt it was not sharp enough wide open, and others reported similar experiences.

I got the Sigma 18-35 with SB because it was supposedly the sharpest low light option for the pocket. I just used it last night to film my girls trick or treating in our dimly lit building. I found it difficult to focus as they moved, but I suppose I'd of had the same issue with any lens on the pocket because none of them continuously adjust to keep a subject in focus if I'm not mistaken. Can anyone confirm this? Anyhow, hopefully I'll get better at keeping a moving subject in focus as I practice.

I can share the video once I'm finished editing it if anyone is interested.

Yes would be interested to see the vid thanks

Ok, I should be able to finish it tonight, so I'll post a link to it then. I'll warn you in advance, it's just a toddler and a baby visiting a few apartments - not the most captivating stuff, but hopefully it will give you a feel for what's possible with the lens in less than ideal lighting conditions.

Insomniac, I think you need a basic primer on how lenses work (and specifically with the Pocket camera).

If you're shooting wide open (f1.8, f1.2 MBSB) you're going to have shallow depth of field. That means you must be good at "focus pulling"

With Lumix lenses the Pocket camera can do the equivalent of "push to focus" which sometimes is slow and that's still not tracking focus during movement if the focal plan is changing.

If you're shooting hand held with a lens that has no OIS like the Sigma that's going to be another issue unless you're OK with the camera shake or OK with post stabilization (and loss of some resolution).

You really need to understand how the lenses and the camera work and also know the shooting circumstance so you walk out the door with the appropriate gear for the shoot. That also includes why you'd be walking out the door with a Pocket camera rather than an Canon Vixia for example.

While I own a Pocket camera I also have a Sony EX1 and even a Canon Vixia. None is a replacement for the other just as a wrench doesn't replace a hammer which doesn't replace a screwdriver.

Thanks, Craig. I have discovered most of this about the lenses through experimentation. I didn't know that I'll have to do less focus pulling to account for movement on a higher f stop, though, so I'm relieved to know it will only be this difficult when shooting fully open indoors.

I know that the Lumix 12-35 will focus if you hit focus, but lose focus just as quickly if the subject moves forward or backward as it would if you'd focused manually and didn't adjust when the subject moved. When I tested the Lumix 12-35, I found that I could get a subject that wasn't moving forward or backward into focus manually just as quickly as the push to focus feature, sometimes faster since the lens seemed to "hunt" at times, so I didn't consider the push to focus feature important to have.

Yeah, I really do wish that the Sigma had the OIS that the Lumix had, but I ultimately decided that I would rather accept minor shake or try to correct in post but have footage I was otherwise happy with than have stabler footage that was considerably more limited in lowlight. I figured I could always purchase something to stabilize the camera with the Sigma down the line, but I couldn't purchase something to enhance the Lumix's low light footage.

As for knowing when to walk out the door with a Vixia vs the Pocket, I seriously considered the Vixia G30, but I read that the Black Magic Pocket Camera shot superior footage and would work better for VFX work as well on account of the color information. Since my budget would only allow for one of the two, I went for the Pocket, even though it will mean more work when I want to, say, shoot my daughters trick or treating.

Sorry for getting a bit off topic in your thread, Lee!

No probs it's all valid points.

See I already own the 14-45 which I know would be useless I low light but it can be my go to lens in daytime for when I need stabilisation. I can then use the sigma for shallow dof and also low light

Of course it all seems on topic because it informs us how and why we make the decisions, often different ones, even when involving the same lens options.

I bought and returned the Lumix 14-45. I actually found the "push focus" reasonably fast and accurate with this lens (I do need to update firmware on my 12-35 though). OIS was good as well. What I disliked most was going to f5.6 on the tele end. I felt that set up too many limits on the use of the lens. Granted the 12-35 is about triple the price so that involved a conscious budget decision that some may not want. Staying at f2.8 at 35mm hand held (OIS) in lower light situations was too important for me (again just me, as we all have different needs, goals, clients).

If "stealth" isn't a factor than the Sigma 18-35 with small shoulder rig or maybe even a monopod (so you can still be very mobile) is certainly a viable means to stabilize with better low light performance that the Lumix 12-35.

We can layout the specifics use advantages and disadvantageous with each lens so people can find the best fit or…. the best part about interchangeable lenses is you can buy each.

Sigma 18-35 1.8 (1.2 MBSB) is clearly a low light leader but needs stabilization (unless you want the shake).
Lumix 12-35 2.8 is still decent in low light, is longer on the tele side and has OIS.
Lumix 14-45 3.5-5.6 is longest on the tele side but may be limited to daytime use, also has OIS, by far the least expensive.

So as we look at some overlap the key points for us, is where they don't overlap.
So rather than either/or I can see someone getting the Sigma where low light is critical and getting the 14-45 were OIS is important and day time tele and it doesn't add much to your budget.
For me the 12-35 is a good "middle ground" but I may add the Sigma as well.
For me f5.6 on the tele of the 14-45 would be too limited in too many circumstances but that's due to the circumstances I shoot in (often indoors or low light).

So one "lesson to learn" is that it's not just about the specific lens but how that lens fits in the puzzle of the rest of your lens kit. We each have different puzzles of course.

I just wish panasonic would bring out a fast ois lens!! I had the 50mm 1.8 lens ois lens on my sony nex 5n and didn't realise how lucky I was back then!

I know I cannot afford both the signs and lumix.. The issue is now deciding which one...

I think low light problems will be less troublesome than lack of iOS woukd be.. So maybe I am leaking towards the 12-35 now!.,,

I like the 12-35 Lumix a lot on my BMPCC. If you are standing still fully zoomed in to 35mm (90mm) and have the OIS on, it's crazy how well it performs. Only opening to 2.8 is a little tough to work with sometimes, but for everything I've shot so far it's been easily workable. I'm planning on getting one of the 17.5 Voigtlanders or a fast C mount 15-20mm lens for anything where light is a bit scarce. When I start working on more controlled sets with the camera though I'm sure it will be plenty versatile, considering the only issues I've had with the lens so far have been shooting indoors in dim settings and hand-held walking shots, which with the OIS and extra stabilization look very smooth.

Hmm, I wonder if I didn't give the 12-35 a fair shake because I didn't have any means to update the firmware. I actually didn't observe much of a difference whether I switched the OIS on or off, but perhaps that's owing to the lack of firmware update. Has anyone found a way to update the lens without a Panasonic camera? Maybe it's worth revisiting.

Oh, another thing worth mentioning is that, if I recall correctly, the 12-35's focus ring felt like it was not meant to be used manually even though it could be, whereas the Sigma's focus ring was inviting in comparison.

Hmm, I wonder if I didn't give the 12-35 a fair shake because I didn't have any means to update the firmware. I actually didn't observe much of a difference whether I switched the OIS on or off, but perhaps that's owing to the lack of firmware update.

OIS should have made a world of difference, so it sounds like your firmware needed to be updated.

I found the 12-35 f2.8 panasonic lens impossible to do repeatable focus pulls with. Since the focus ring floats and I also believe it accelerates so the faster you turn it the faster it pulls the focus. So for now I'm sticking with the 2.5k EF body with a 17-55 2.8 i.s. for image stabilization and the 18-35 1.8 with speedbooster on the pocket cam for low light.

I found the 12-35 f2.8 panasonic lens impossible to do repeatable focus pulls with. Since the focus ring floats and I also believe it accelerates so the faster you turn it the faster it pulls the focus. So for now I'm sticking with the 2.5k EF body with a 17-55 2.8 i.s. for image stabilization and the 18-35 1.8 with speedbooster on the pocket cam for low light.

You got any videos with the 18-35 with SB?

This is a novice video question (I'm coming from the world of stills shooting), please excuse my ignorance. I have the BMPCC with the Panny 12-35 f2.8. Can someone explain both push and pull focus and how to accomplish them with this lens?

Thanks,

gurujeet

Speedbooster is in the mail right now. Should be here monday.

There's only pulling focus as far as I know. And it comes from the film world of having a dedicated focus puller who's job it is to always keep the main subject in focus.

Push focus in this case means that with a native mft panasonic or olympus lens auto focus is an option so by pushing the focus button once the camera will attempt to focus.. This option is not available on manual lenses like the sigma. This auto focus feature IMHO is useless as it hunts far too long and just looks ameturish in use.

Low light is always a compromise, simple as that.
Professionals carry around lights, newscrews have camera mounted LED's etc.
If you set the f stop very low the focussing range is tiny, most of your image will be out of focus and any movement might compromise the sharpness of your main subject. If you bump up the ASA, you have to contend with more noise. This was true decades ago with film. A B&W photographer wanted to use ASA400. They could use 800 too, but at 1600 there was always a lot of grain.

I want to film in my music studio.
I've already added a huge worklight (for plumbers and electricians) as I could grab it cheaply, and I'm still at f2 or f2.8 most of the time. I'm now about to buy a film light. If I shoot outside I'm at f16, f22, so I need to add ND filters. This is how video is.

Ugh, this video is taking forever to render out in Premiere so I can upload it. What format/codec/settings do you guys use to render in Premiere to upload to Vimeo or YouTube?

OK, I wasn't quite sure how I should export the video from Premiere so I ended up using the settings suggested here:

http://whoismatt.com/exportsettings/

I think I lost a good deal of quality right off the bat that way. If anyone has any suggestions that would result in higher quality when uploaded to Vimeo or YouTube I would appreciate it.

I uploaded the video to Vimeo and it informed me that it downscaled it from 1080p to 720p because I don't have Vimeo Plus, so I suppose that's another quality degradation.

Anyhow, here is a link to the video of my girls trick or treating that I made with the Sigma 18-35 and SB. It's really my first use of the lens (and the camera, for that matter) outside of shooting a couple of test shots:

So how does it feel to you compared to Lumix 12-35?

Did you find yourself opening up beyond 2.8 (limit of the Lumix)?
Does the weight feel more comfortable than the lighter Lumix?
Was lack of OIS an issue?
Was it easier to use focus and aperture ring?
Do you feel image is sharper?

Curious to hear you evaluation.

So how does it feel to you compared to Lumix 12-35?

Did you find yourself opening up beyond 2.8 (limit of the Lumix)?
Does the weight feel more comfortable than the lighter Lumix?
Was lack of OIS an issue?
Was it easier to use focus and aperture ring?
Do you feel image is sharper?

Curious to hear you evaluation.

As far as the general feel of the Sigma vs the Lumix, I found holding and working with the Sigma to be a very different experience. Between the size of the lens, the weight of the lens, the feel of the rubber as I focused, etc., it just felt... serious. I'll try to elaborate because that likely doesn't mean much. Holding and using the lens gave me the sense that the camera and I were committed to getting down to "business". The Lumix lens seemed like something that might come attached to a point and shoot, at least in comparison.

I shot with the aperture fully open the entire time. The halls in the building have no windows and are relatively dimly lit by overhead lights spaced a fair distance apart, so I wanted to capture as much light as I could. I brought the exposure up in Premiere and got rid of the noise with Neat Video.

Regarding the weight, I certainly felt it after a while, but I think I prefer the Sigma's weight to the Lumix. Like I tried to express above, it felt... substantial (that is, the lens did, not necessarily just its weight).

Regarding the lack of OIS, while my inability to focus fast enough in a few shots made me wince, I don't recall watching the finished product and thinking to myself "damn, this is too shaky". Although, if this were something more serious like a narrative short rather than just shots of my daughters then I may have felt otherwise.

The focus ring on the Sigma is MUCH easier to use than the Lumix's and feels much better. As I said in an earlier post, the Lumix's focus ring feels like it isn't really supposed to be used manually. It's really... insubstantial as compared to the lens's zoom ring. Just the opposite is true for the Sigma.

I think the Sigma is sharper, but that may just be because I seem to have an easier time focusing with it. The Lumix wasn't capable of the Sigma's 1.2 (or is it 1.4?) equivalent with SB anyhow, so I suppose it's fair to say that the Sigma is infinitely sharper at this aperture.

A couple questions for you about the video (or anyone else who watches the video ):

Is the image quality good? Do the colors look OK or are they too muted? Is this a good result considering it was shot in low light conditions? Could I likely achieve the same or better quality with a G30 with much less hassle? I really have no basis for comparison, so I'd appreciate any help in determining whether the output of this camera's arguably more demanding workflow is actually higher quality than I could achieve with a "lesser", simpler camera. Thanks!

Thanks for that assessment.
Personally I feel that despite some overlap in the zoom range, they serve different needs.
For me, I MUST have OIS in some cases and the Lumix 12-35 is the best reasonably fast constant aperture available for the Pocket.
For lower light performance or even shallower DOF where either the shake is acceptable or support is being used, the Sigma is the better choice. As per your description it might be the better suited lens for a follow focus as well.

For example, I'd use the Lumix for walking around. I'd use the Sigma for shooting an interview in some offices and darker environments where, lighting might be a problem, pushing shallow DOF as much as possible, camera is going to be on tripod.

For those making either/or choice you'd have to look at the full range of what you shoot to see which hits the most checkboxes and there priority to you.

A couple questions for you about the video (or anyone else who watches the video ):

Is the image quality good? Do the colors look OK or are they too muted? Is this a good result considering it was shot in low light conditions? Could I likely achieve the same or better quality with a G30 with much less hassle? I really have no basis for comparison, so I'd appreciate any help in determining whether the output of this camera's arguably more demanding workflow is actually higher quality than I could achieve with a "lesser", simpler camera. Thanks!

Grading is so subjective sometimes I feel raising questions is better than a subjective judgement.
It looks a bit desaturated to me and I'm not sure about white balance but that doesn't make your look wrong at all.

If you shot everything at f1.8 (f1.2 boosted) you've likely exposed as "far right" as you could (short of raising ASA to 1600 and/or going to 360° shutter). The rest is up to how you want to push things around in post. Then it depends on the look you want. For example, you might want to crush the blacks a bit, adjust gamma relative to that, push saturation up generally maybe or, focus on bringing attention to the subject or subjects face by playing with flesh tones ranges and/or masking.

A fun test might be to just take two or three shots and grade as if this were a Halloween horror film and, alternately, a happy children's fairy tale.

Insomniac,
Is the Sigma/SB combo Nikkon mount or Canon EF mount? And, how useful is the Aperture control on the SB?

Thanks, Craig. Did what I posted look better than what you'd expect out of the Canon Vixia G30? I'm still trying to determine if I'm getting higher quality than what I could get just turning a "simpler" "consumer" device on for all of this work.

I actually had the saturation turned up quite a bit.

RayZee, I used the Sigma with the Nikon mount. Although I didn't use the aperture control because I kept it wide open the whole time, I did try it out a few times and it seemed fine; it is click-less and gradually turned the footage from bright to dark.

Not necessarily any low light shooting, but I did this quick project for a local contest. Everything except 00:19-00:50 was on the BMPCC with the 12-35. Used the vari ND from Tiffen as well. Pretty happy with how it turned out. Excuse the Vimeo compression on it.