Lens for shooting outdoor acrobatics ?

I bought a Panasonic Lumix G7 about a year ago primarily for video purposes but I ended up using it way more for photography and I would like some advice for a new lens.

Until now I have used the 14-42mm kit lens and I have to admit that it is really good but I'm looking for something that fits my needs a little better. Most of the time, I shoot outdoor acrobatics (sometimes dynamic, sometimes static) but I would like to have a lens that I can use for more than just that.

I could buy a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for around $150 if I am lucky but I don't know if it is what I'm looking for.

My price range is around $200 and I will also be looking at second-hand lenses.

Also, do you think I should change bodies before lenses? I know the G7 is great for video but isn't really praised for photography.

Thanks a lot for your advice.

You didn't define you needs.

You have a lens that hits 30 mm already.

As HCR2016 says, tells us what you want to shoot that you can't shoot with your current lens. For example:

• You might want to shoot subjects further away and/or not crop. There you want a telephoto lens. Since your camera does not have sensor shift stabilization, for telephoto, it is probably better to stick with Panasonic lenses that offer lens stabilization (the longer the focal length of the lens, typically you would need a faster shutter speed to stabilize camera shake without having lens or sensor shift stabilization). Note that with the telephoto lenses in your price range typically need to be switched off with your 14-42mm lens. If you want the convenience of a single lens that covers a wider range without taking off the lenses, there are 3 superzooms (Panasonic 14-140mm, Olympus 14-150mm mark II, and I think Tamron 14-150mm), but these are a little more than your budget. I use the 14-150mm mark II lens often as a vacation lens so that I don't have to switch lenses, but like anything it can be a compromise between convenience and the ultimate image quality.
• You might want to shoot in lower light without using a flash. Typically here, you would want to get a prime lens (fixed focal length). Note if you have never used a prime lens before, spend some time with your current lens fixed to the focal length you want to buy (in this case, probably 17mm, 20mm, 25mm, 30mm, 45mm) and see whether limiting yourself to a single focal length will work for you. If so, go and buy the lens. If not, try the other focal lengths. I have 2 prime lenses, the Panasonic 20mm and the Olympus 45mm. When I use them, I find the 20mm is better for indoor settings in a small room, while the 45mm tends to be better for stage performances, particularly if I can choose where I shoot from. If the prime lens you are interested in is only manual focus, then switch your lens to manual focus as well as a single focal length, and see if you can get the pictures you want. For manual focus, be sure to look at the photos on the computer and not just on the rear screen. Be sure to take your time, as it is a skill you need to hone to learn how far back you need to be for a given focal length, and more so to learn how to do manual focusing.
• Rather than telephoto, you might want more wide angle. There are some options for zoom lenses that go down to 12mm instead of 14mm, which would give you some flexibility that may be in your price range (Panasonic 12-32mm, Olympus 12-50mm). There are also some prime lenses, but most of these in your budget range are manual focus only. If you go for a fisheye lens instead of a rectalinear lens, because sure to understand the kinds of images the lens produces and whether or not your software can 'de-fish' the lens.
• If you want to photograph close-up items, you would want to look at macro lenses. Typically the shorter the focal length of the lens, the closer you have to be to the object. Both Olympus and Panasonic make 30mm macro lenses that are fairly cheap. Typically with macro lenses, you would want to manually focus rather than use auto focus. If your subject is static, you might want to look into post focus mode where the camera takes many pictures with slightly different focus points. You might be able to combine these later via various post processing software (unfortunately the G7 doesn't seem to support focus stacking where the camera will combine the images in the camera).
• I've been experimenting with using the phone app to control my cameras. If you wanted to do it with the G7, you might want to look at either the Panasonic Power Zooms (14-42mm PZ, 45-175mm PZ) or the Olympus Electronic Zooms (14-42mm EZ, 12-50mm EZ) that would allow you to zoom the lens from the phone app. This is obviously a rather specialized usage, and I suspect you aren't looking for it. These 4 lenses are also useful for doing slow zooms in video (though usually it is better to use slow zooms sparingly).
• Since your G7 is not splash proof, it won't matter whether your lenses are splash proof or not (in general -- if you were planning to upgrade, it might matter).

I generally recommend people take notes (either on paper, or with a memo function on your phone) every time you wished you had a different piece of gear.  Then over time, hopefully a pattern will emerge which lens to buy (or buy now with the others on your someday list).

schwdim wrote:

I bought a Panasonic Lumix G7 about a year ago primarily for video purposes but I ended up using it way more for photography and I would like some advice for a new lens.

Until now I have used the 14-42mm kit lens and I have to admit that it is really good but I'm looking for something that fits my needs a little better. Most of the time, I shoot outdoor acrobatics (sometimes dynamic, sometimes static) but I would like to have a lens that I can use for more than just that.

I could buy a Sigma 30mm 1.4 for around $150 if I am lucky but I don't know if it is what I'm looking for.

My price range is around $200 and I will also be looking at second-hand lenses.

Also, do you think I should change bodies before lenses? I know the G7 is great for video but isn't really praised for photography.

Thanks a lot for your advice.

Pick up an Olympus 45mm f/1.8. Bet it'll go to $200 on Black Friday.

I am mainly looking for something sharper and better in low light.

schwdim wrote:

I am mainly looking for something sharper and better in low light.

That is going to be difficult for $200 so can you give us some more information?  You won't be able to afford a better zoom lens so it is going to have to be a fixed focal length or "prime" - but you probably know that already.

• What focal length do you want?
• What do you want to photograph with the lens other than acrobatics?
• Do you want to photograph acrobatics in low light?
• What type of photographs aren't sharp enough at the moment? Lack of sharpness may be a technique problem rather than a lens problem, especially when you are shooting acrobatics.

30mm may be OK for your acrobatics but it isn't a very useful focal length for other things - not really wide enough for general purpose photography and not long really enough for portraits.  Most of the cheap primes, including the Sigma, don't have OIS which may be a problem.

Panasonic 20mm 1.7

Sigma 30mm 1.4

Olympus 45mm 1.8

All of these are at or slightly above your price range, but the best choices.

Step 1 is to decide what focal length you will be comfortable with having a prime at. The rest is given.

Edit: although the 30mm is an awkward focal length for most situations, it might well be perfect for you.  You don't need the width of 20mm, and 45mm might be too much depending on how close you are (I am guessing not too far away).

Chris R-UK wrote:

• What focal length do you want?
• What do you want to photograph with the lens other than acrobatics?

I just checked my photos and I seem to be shooting most of the acro stuff from 14-30mm focal length and the rest of my pictures at 42mm. I figured I'd save a little bit more and get 2 different lenses.

For the acrobatics, I'm looking at the Pany 25mm 1.7 or the Pany 20mm 1.7 if I can find a good used one and I'll probably get a Panasonic 45-150mm for all kinds of other photography.

Chris R-UK wrote:

• Do you want to photograph acrobatics in low light?

I usually shoot when the weather is nice but sometimes I go to forests or indoors and I found out that I have to boost up the ISO rather quickly and then there is noise.

Chris R-UK wrote:

• What type of photographs aren't sharp enough at the moment? Lack of sharpness may be a technique problem rather than a lens problem, especially when you are shooting acrobatics.

It probably is a technique problem, I do this as a hobby and my knowledge isn't really that good What bothers me most is that even if my model is in focus, the edges aren't sharp enough and then she doesn't "stand out" enough or sometimes even blends in the background.

The answer to what you are looking for is fairly complicated so this is going to be quite a long post.

There are several situations to consider:

1. Videoing acrobatics.  For this you don't need a fast shutter speed because it is determined by the video fps rate, so a "fast" lens (small f/ number) isn't necessary.  If you are hand holding, OIS (image stabilisation) is certainly necessary and neither the 20mm f/1.7, nor the 25mm f/1.7 nor the Sigma 30mm f/12.4 have it.  If you want to change focus during a video clip then you need a fast focusing lens and one that focuses silently so that the focus noise isn't heard on the audio track.  I am not familiar with the 25mm f/1.7 but the 20mm f/1.7 is both slow focusing and noisy.  So, overall,the "prime" lenses that you are looking at may not be as good as the 14-42mm lens that you currently use.
2. Still shots of acrobatics.  A "fast" lens will help you to freeze motion if that is a current problem and OIS is not an advantage because you need a fast shutter speed anyway, but fast focusing will be very important.  So the 20mm f/1.7 is out but I don't know about the 25mm f/1.7 or Sigma 30mm f/1.4.
3. Indoor shots of moving subjects, including children and people.  A fast lens like the 20mm f/1.7 or 25mm f/1.7 will be good for these, but an external flash with a head that can be tilted up to bounce off the ceiling may well be a cheaper and better alternative.  It will be the only alternative in really low light.  External flashes can be very cheap and the image quality if you bounce the light off the ceiling is excellent.
4. Outdoor shots of moving subjects in low light.  You can't bounce the flash because there is no ceiling so a fast lens would be a good solution.
5. Indoor or outdoor shots of stationary subjects in low light.  Holding the camera steady become the main problem as a fast lens would be useful but, if it doesn't have OIS, it may not be as good as your kit lens with OIS.  The other alternative would be a to use a tripod.

So, lenses like the 20mm or 25mm f/1.7 may not be any better than your kit lens for your acrobatics video, but get advice from other people on this forum about using them for this kind of video.

Still shots of acrobatics are likely to be tricky because you need fast focusing and the 20mm f/1.7 won't be good at that.

Lenses like the 20mm and 25mm f/1.7 will be good for shooting people in low light and that is what I use my 20mm f/1.7 for.  However, indoors a flash may be even better.

I am sorry that I can't simply say "get this lens and use it for everything" because unfortunately a simple solution like that, e.g. the 12-35mm f/2.8, just isn't possible within your budget.

I hope that somebody else may be able to come onto the thread with a different solution that I haven't thought of.

I mostly do stills so the 20mm is definitely out of the picture. I am still considering the 25mm but sadly I haven't heard only the best things about it.

Thanks a lot for your help, I will keep looking around second-hand lenses and read the reviews before jumping on anything.

If I might ask one more thing:

schwdim wrote:

..What bothers me most is that even if my model is in focus, the edges aren't sharp enough and then she doesn't "stand out" enough or sometimes even blends in the background.

Do you think this is a lens problem or rather a settings/technique problem? Because I feel like my close-up shots are very sharp around the subject if I shoot flowers or bugs but nowhere as sharp when shootings persons from farther away.

schwdim wrote:

Do you think this is a lens problem or rather a settings/technique problem? Because I feel like my close-up shots are very sharp around the subject if I shoot flowers or bugs but nowhere as sharp when shootings persons from farther away.

It could be a depth of field issue where parts of the image are out of focus due to a smaller depth of field.  If you have plenty of light, you can often step down the lens to f/8 (or f/11, but when you go further than f/11, you might get diffraction -- note your 14-42mm is f/5.6 at the long end, so you only have a stop or two that you can stop your lens down to):

• http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/depth-of-field.htm
• http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/DOF-calculator.htm
• https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm