I'm filming my first wedding with my new Panasonic GH5.

>>3062278
I would rather use a good normal zoom for video and the Sigma 35/1.4 for still portraits and the zoom for any other event stills.

>>3062278
>sigma art
>on 2x crop
This makes all kinds of sense ergonomically

>>3062348
Agreed. 12-35 2.8

File: 1483789963340.jpg (288KB, 900x506px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 900x506px

>>3062278
>Sigma Art
>on micro 4/3
For what purpose

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SAMSUNG
Camera Model	SM-P605
Camera Software	P605XXUCNF2
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	32 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:12:17 17:00:39
F-Number	f/2.4
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Focal Length	3.40 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	3264
Image Height	1836
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Unknown

>>3062278
>GH5
>spending $2k on Micro Four-Turds
lmao

>>3062380
>I'm filming my first wedding
>filming
Learn to read; the GH5 is still hard to beat for video quality, and sensor size is less relevant for video.
Anyways, OP should get some sort of m43 zoom or at least a metabones speed booster if they insist on using full frame lenses.

>>3062383
The gh5 is hard to beat for reportage video, should have stuck with a ff sony for weddings or anything creative man, wedding customers want bokeh.

>>3062278
get native lens you cuck.

>>3062386
G85 (aka babby GH5) shooter here. I can get good bokeh just fine. Don't know where that meme came from.

>>3062432
>Don't know where that meme came from
from a single 7 stops overexposed sonyfag shitposter.

File: 1475613388534.jpg (25KB, 720x504px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 720x504px

>>3062278
You have wasted an insane amount of money, this has to be bait. A GH5 with a fucking FF top of the line lens? Why don't you go and put something medium format on a Pentax Q while you're at it.

>>3062278
On mft you should consider the crop and that you need wider angels all the time. Your 35mm is already a 70mm ff and thus already a light tele. forget the 85mm. what you want to do with 170mm ff?
when filming you definitely need wider angels. So the 25mm cosina is a better way. still it is very soft wide open. or rather: glowing. if you have no hard contrasts it is okay.

but honestly: fuck that shit. go with the 20mm pencake, the 25mm 1.7 or the 25mm summilux.
as stated before: if you want to spend >=600 bucks buy a 12-35mm 2.8. aperture is sufficient for video and a plus is IS.

I have the Nokton 25mm f.95. Why would you film with this? It's so soft wide open and it's difficult to focus if, if you were intending to film wide open.

Get the panny 12-35mm f2.8 or oly 12-40mm f2.8. Makes so much more sense for a wedding.

OP here I have a metabones speedbooster for canon ef mount... I love that not a single comment weighed the benefits to a 50mm vs a 85mm.
I'm not purchasing a zoom btw the two lens here are all I'm looking to getting for the moment.

>>3062536
Get the Nokton 25mm then and weep about the lack of angles. I was serious about the standard zoom, but it is your own right to go after your own stupid head.

>>3062451
>Why don't you go and put something medium format on a Pentax Q while you're at it.

Hey, I do that all the time, usually use my SMC Pentax 67 55mm f/4, on my Pentax QS-1.
With the MF lens being the equivalent of a 28mm on a full frame on the Q it works out to about a 130mm.
Have to hold the lens rather than the camera, the Q looks like an afterthought add on.

Do you have something you've already done to show ?