John Matthews

Same…one of my most used lenses for my Z6, an old Nikon 17-35 2.8, is not weather sealed lol, but there’s the 5% of times where it’d be nice for the body to be weather sealed. 

Although it's not exactly what you're looking for, I'd have to second the Nikon Series E lenses. They truly are remarkable little lenses. I haven't been able to find a good copy of the 35mm 2.5 but the 36-72, 50mm and 100mm are nice little lenses, especially the size of the 100mm. Also the older non-ai lenses are pretty spectacular as well. One lens I hate to mention because it does get such bad reviews is the 35-70 3.3-4.5 ai-s lens. It's tiny and a lot better than the bad reviews give it. I mean, it isn't great, but there's something very Nikon in its not greatness.
Another zoom lens I love, which I assume you're familiar with is the Canon FD 35-105mm 3.5. This lens is ALMOST parfocal. Obviously constant aperture. Internal zoom. Fairly compact. I've had a few copies over the years, then end up selling it because I didn't use it too often, regret it and seek another one. My most recent copy I put on the Sigma FP and here's a sample of it at 105mm wide open...

 
No mind-blowing image by any means, but fairly sharp wide open and I like the way it handles the highlights. Of course it's a mess in direct light... as I found out last week during a shoot. However, there are rumors that Canon considered putting the L badge onto it because they were so happy with the lens.
As far as primes, other than the Nikons, the Takumar lenses are a personal favorite of mine. I've heard people argue that the 28mm 3.5 is one of the best 28mm lenses they've used. I haven't used that one but the 35mm 3.5 is excellent.
I've used a couple of the wide angle Tokina lenses from the late 70s, early 80s and they were decent, but I think they were f/2.8 lenses. Obviously you could get a cheap Neewer fixed ND to pop on the lens and leave there to give you that slower stop and to protect the front of the lens. Also check out the old Vivitar lenses, I have a set of mostly Tokina made ones in the m42 mount and I have always been very fond of them. The image instantly feels like an old 70s made for TV movie. I'm probably going to sell them though, not because I don't like them, I just have too much stuff and really need to scale back.
I guess you could also look at some of the older Zeiss Jena lenses... even the MF ones would give you the slower apertures you were looking for wide open.
Great thread! Wish there were more threads like this on here like it.

Just discovered that Minolta MD 35-70mm f3.5 is parfocal. 🙂 

Inspired by this post, I tried to make some flares with the Makinon.
Some were shot at f/16 and others f/3.5 with an ND filter. I shot in v-log and corrected for exposure and add the official Panasonic LUT.

And that is just Section 13b in building 21 on site 17.
There’s also an entire empty facility just in case ‘missing’ deliveries from MPB via DHL, turn up.

The cupboard in question

I'd go with Super Takumar,  Nikkors, or Olympus OM.

All have a good selection of 3.5 and 2.8 lenses that can be had cheap.

I put together a cheaper Takumar set a few years ago and got great deals on some bundles with the 3.5 primes. 

All the footage on this one (between approx 1 minute and 2 minutes 15 seconds) was shot on the Zeiss 40-80 f3.5 handheld.
I programmed 2x custom settings for the IBIS on the S5ii, one at 40mm and the other for 80mm and then only shot at these focal lengths.
I bottled it for the wedding day and went back to Sigma and Lumix AF lenses, but I am considering bringing this lens back as part of my workflow for these day prior and day after parts of a wedding where I am not under any real time constraints and can afford to be more 'creative'...
https://firehorsephotographyfrance.com/weddings/jenniedan

Thanks for sharing, might be the only lens that can compete with the first nikon 43-86 zoom😉 After some research, a little while ago, i got the 2nd edition? of the nikon 43-86mm. One odd thought later  (like how bad could it be? ) and a first edition was on its way... easiest way to tell them apart is the first has the text on the inside of the filter ring from memory.
The second gives a more pleasing image for the masses, the first is er... more subjective, dare i say it a specialist lens for particular projects. Now i guess i have to find the adapter to suit as its been awhile.  

 

Inspired by this post, I tried to make some flares with the Makinon.
Some were shot at f/16 and others f/3.5 with an ND filter. I shot in v-log and corrected for exposure and add the official Panasonic LUT.

Canon FD might do it - price might be an issue perhaps?  Plenty of F3.5 or F4 lenses in the lineup, they focus the way you want, and you even get a choice of coatings (normal, S C, or S S C).  Some of the slower ones are macro lenses too!
https://cameraville.co/blog/list-every-canon-fd-lens-ever-made
Zooms are also an excellent idea.
An out of the box idea is to use faster lenses, but to keep the aperture wide open and cut a round hole in a lens cap and get the aperture you want that way.  I'm not sure if this would reduce the DOF in the right way?  It would definitely lower the exposure though, and would definitely keep the bokeh the shape you want.

Turns out I had the Makinon in a cupboard all along and will also give it a go.
Some of these old zooms have terrible 1.5m+ minimum focus distances or rely on an awkward to engage separate macro mode, but some have the macro mode on the main focus ring and some are even par-focal. The Exakta 28-70mm F4 MC Macro (made in Japan with 62mm filter thread, and mine is an M42 mount version) in particular stands out for me, nice vintage look, nice size and weight, ergonomic to use, decent optics and distortion, covers GFX 100 well, especially in square 1:1 aspect for stills or 16:9 for video, and focuses down to 1:3.2 macro with one turn of the main focus ring (no funny separate mechanism to contend with).
The best for flare is the absolutely pre-historic Voigtlander Zoomar 36-82mm F2.8, think it was the first ever zoom lens for SLRs, the distortion is absolutely insane at 82mm but if you stay between 36-70mm it has a lot of cinematic goodness. 

That is all.  Thanks for coming to my TED talk.

I picked up the Nikkor after watching CP's review and doing some searching and seeing how many people described it as not only the worst lens Nikon ever made, but also possibly the worst zoom ever made.
They might be right, but I'm sure I'll find the right time to use it someday.  I'm not sure if this true of all of them, but mine also has the problem that when I put it on an EF adapter, the back of the aperture selector is so tight against the edge of the adapter that it can't even possibly be moved.  I had to use a pliers to take it off to make sure I didn't do something wrong.  Maybe there are other EF adapters that would work better, but for anything I'd use the Nikkor to shoot, I'm sure I'd want it wide open anyway.
I'm looking forward to watching the video on the Makinon.  I've not heard of that one before - and if it's still $30ish on eBay, I guess there's not a reason not to buy it.

I have tried a number of cheap/crap 28-80ish lenses on the GFX 100 and they all have a knack for covering the sensor perfectly if you zoom in past 35mm
So the Makinon I am interested to hunt down in Berlin and try... The Nikon in theory has the perfect focal length for the GFX 100, but I am not sure I share our YouTube friend's enthusiasm for the flare... The Makinon was much nicer to my eye

f2.8 on M43 is kinda a sweet spot though, don't ya think?  
Or are you trying to Spielberg it?

I don't really use the audio for dialogue so can't really comment on it specifically.
To zoom out and think more holistically about sound, and also a bit about getting in front of the camera, there are a few approaches.
High-quality sound on location.  
This is great but you pay for it in terms of paying for extra equipment, extra faff of charging it, setting it up, using it, cleaning and maintaining it, etc.  High-quality in-camera audio is the most convenient and the most expensive to get.  External audio makes it easier / cheaper but creates extra work to keep the audio files managed and to sync them in post.
Acceptable sound on location.
This could be through a combination of average in-camera audio and average external audio.  
The in-camera audio could potentially using on-camera mics like the Rode VideoMicro or a plugin Lav mic that don't require any power and are plug-and-forget but are dependent on the quality of preamps in the camera.
The external audio could be as simple as using a smartphone right next to your mouth, or using the integrated mic in the headphones as a short lav mic.  I've seen lots of vloggers do this in very noisy environments and it works fine.  First example, second example.
Record in post.
ADR (Automated Dialogue Replacement) is where actors re-record their dialogue in post production to match their lips in the footage.  It is so common that many films simply didn't bother to get good sound and created the audio (dialogue, sound effects, sound design, the lot) in post after the fact.  I've done this before on short films and if you take a bit or time to do it then you can get results indistinguishable from doing it on-location.
Recording in post also comes into the idea of appearing on screen, or not.  
By taking lots of notes and recording your thoughts during the trip (potentially just using voice memos on your phone at the end of each day) you can then narrate the finished film and have a significant presence in the finished edit, have high quality audio, and also take away the burden of getting great audio for everything that happens throughout the whole trip.
Narrating the film will also enable you to communicate ideas and feelings and information in a concise way with carefully chosen words, rather than trying to piece together a coherent summary from fragmented snippets of footage.
Narrating the final piece also takes a huge burden off the footage too, because anything you didn't capture can be explained in V/O so the film doesn't rest solely on the footage to be self-explanatory, which is a high-bar to achieve. 
There's a hidden mindset that you're at the cutting edge of (and being cut by), which is that the entire film-making industry assumes that anyone wanting high-quality equipment doesn't mind it being large, and that if you care about size then you don't care about quality.  I've gone round and round with people online and it's like "small and good" is a combination that somehow doesn't exist in their world-view.
This has lessened over recent years, but is still the elephant in the room.
Speaking of the elephant in the room, be careful not to lose sight of the final prize, which is an engaging final product.  I don't know how much editing experience you have, but making a doc is like making a bunch of lego pieces without knowing what you're eventually going to want to make, then designing the building, and then trying to assemble the building out of the lego blocks you have made.  Obviously those with a lot of skill will be able to anticipate the final result better, and will make better pieces, but to a certain extent the more pieces you make and the more variety you include, the easier it will be to assemble the finished product you want.
This is why I advocate for setups that:
1) you will use (giving you more footage)
2) is fast to use (giving you more footage of things that happen quickly)
3) is flexible (giving you more variety of footage)
4) is enjoyable to use (making you more likely to use it and also making the whole thing more enjoyable and more likely to be successful overall).
Remember, this person is ready for anything, but misses almost everything switching equipment, and has a hernia by the end...

You should start with the idea of just using your phone and only add equipment that will make the end result better, not worse.

It will be fine but needs either a baseplate & grip for even basic handling but better a cage from someone like Smallrig.
I have the Smallrig baseplate/grip myself  for my needs but if I was going anywhere rough and for more than a couple of days, the cage for sure as it’s not the most robust camera ever built.
S9 + grip + Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 (42-105mm in APSC mode), Sennheiser MKE 200, mount for monopod. 
If I had the cage instead of the baseplate/grip, I could mount 2 accessories instead of one such as a mini LED. As it is, I just have to swap out the mic for the LED if I need it. 
Extremely compact and lightweight package for it’s capability but neither the body nor the lens have any proper weather sealing so IMO, this is not something to take around the world when you are inevitably going to have some inclement conditions!

Thanks John.
The last camera I used at length was a C100MkII and it really had everything I needed short of a fatter codec. However I would never want to bring something this big with me cycling. Oh sure, stripped with a pancake it definitely shrank, but to the point that ‘control’ became challenging… though the NDs sure were helpful.
That S9 you recommended, would you still be happy after a few wireless receivers were attached? Those would certainly raise the footprint on this small powerhouse.
As an aside, does anyone make a wireless package with something like a small bolt on receiver that can handle multiple streams with minimal cable to the body?
Come to think of it, it would be a bit of a godsend if camera bodies had the option to included built in wireless receivers. I guess we can always dream.

I never used the GH7, only the GH6, but I found it to be great in low light; just not "no light" situations. Both of those cameras are mostly about 4k 120fps. The GH7 is about that and the AF in video and Hybrid Zoom. If the cost and size aren't the determining factors, the GH7 is the most fully-featured M43 camera for video today. Want the same features as the GH7? Go for the G9ii something smaller and cheaper, just no insanely long clips. In fact, the G9ii might be my last M43 camera as I don't see a point in anything more.

I can vouch for the GH7 as a workhorse.
In terms of low light, I'd say it's fine.  Here are a couple of stills from the GH7 with the Voigt 17.5mm F0.95 lens.  I can't remember if the lens was fully wide-open or not, but I think the GH7 was at ISO 1600?
These have a film grain applied, so the grain is deliberate.  GH7 ISO tests are available online if you want to see the grain at various settings.  Also remember that NR exists in post, and compression does a pretty good job of NR as well.
The first shot is lit from the candle and the light of the fridge:

and this is just the candle:

Here's are some shots from the OG BMMCC from 2014 at its base ISO of 800, the 12-35mm F2.8 lens and shot at a 360 shutter to cheat an extra stop.  These locations looked about this bright with the naked eye, and I have excellent night vision.







You actually need far less low-light performance than most people think.
Thanks!
The issue is that you're either showing a very wide FOV, which will have significant distortions, or you're cropped in to the point where the quality is low because you're cropping out most of the data.
IIRC, If you have a 100Mbps 360 image then by the time you crop to the FOV of a 24mm lens you're down to something like only a few Mbps.  This is why I said the bitrates are what matters most.

I'm going to revise my choice for this type of use. Camping and biking mean to me that one camera might not suffice if going Panasonic. I do not think that the OM-3 will give acceptable levels of noise inside a tent at night unless with a small light; nor do I believe the S9 by itself will give acceptable levels of weather resistance (by the way, I doubt the Panasonic 14-140 does either even though it's rated weather resistant).
Therefore, I would still go for the S9 with a 18mm f/1.8 lens for dark, inside a tent scenes and the 28-200. For bad weather, I'd get an action cam. This will eliminate bad-weather low light; maybe pick up a camera cover for the S9. At MPB, that setup will set you back 2500 euros.
The other option is the "do everything" set-up with the OM-3 with the Olympus 14-150 ii and the Panasonic 9mm for about the same amount of money, but you'll be spending more on the camera (double!) for less quality output (but still great).
If you are a disciplined shooter that usually uses a tripod and manual focus, there are options that will cost way less.

That OM-3 setup is about 950g and the S9 + action cam setup is 1300g. Note: Camera size doesn't have the Panasonic 18mm list, but it's the same size as the 24mm.
Again, this is for 10-bit with great IBIS and AF being the priority. I'd go with a much cheaper setup if it were me. I wouldn't want to take that expensive of gear out into the unknown. It's a close call though. There are so many good choices. It almost makes you say "screw it" and just use whatever you have with its limitations. If you're a creative, this is usually better.

I agree.  The ability to reframe in post is incredible.  
It even goes beyond that because you are essentially recording every camera angle at all times, so if there was something that happened around you, you could cut between multiple angles of the same event.  Even if you were psychic and were always pointing your normal camera in the best direction at all times, you couldn't record multiple angles at the same time with one camera, so it goes even beyond the mythical psychic camera person.
I saw a great example of this many years ago..  it was a guy recording his family walking through a fairground with mum and the kids walking behind him.  The sequence was something like:
his kids calmly looking around someone in a scary costume approaching from ahead his kids not seeing them scary monster seeing the kids and having the idea to scare them and starting to approach mum seeing him and smiling, knowing what is about to happen the kids suddenly seeing him and reacting very suddenly / loudly the monster reacting to their reaction the kids laughing the monster laughing mum laughing monster walking away It was essentially a three-camera shoot, and like all good reality TV I'm pretty sure he overlapped the shots to extend the event, which probably only took about 5 seconds.  
The killer thing is that just by having a 360 camera you're recording all the camera angles all the time, so when the thing happens you've probably got all/most of the angles to show it happening.
Just get the one with the highest resolution and highest bitrates.  When you crop in you're drastically reducing the quality of the footage.

Just pointing out that "weather sealing" is useful for more than just filming in the rain.
It's also protection against dust (which is a very common problem in arid areas).  It's protection against something in your bag breaking open and leaking on the camera.  Or your tent leaks in the rain at night and you had your camera sitting out.  Or you just drop it in a puddle/fountain/shallow water for a second.
And yes, it is good to understand how weatherproof something really is, but simply having gaskets around a lot of the buttons and on the lens mount is a big deal.  And sealing on a zoom lens can be even more important in a dusty area so that zooming the lens doesn't suck in a ton of dust.

I also doubt that "weather resistant" is sufficient for the random deluges that are likely to happen over that duration of trip, although it's absolutely worth reading the manufacturers description of what "weather resistant" means, just so you know what they are thinking of when they use the phrase.  It might be a lot more (or less) than what you might be thinking.  This is something I have pondered for some time but haven't gotten around to.
Better to just get something completely waterproof and be done with it.  Then you can record in monsoon rains and get good footage of waist-deep water, which would be a highlight of the doco in itself.
I would also suggest that the "bad weather low-light" situation isn't really that important.  Realistically, if it's bad weather due to rain or due to dust at night then you can't see that much anyway.  Just turn on your bike lights or headlamps and film the chaos.
My setup doesn't cover the "long-zoom low-light" combination because it's not a thing that you need to shoot normally, and while it would be great to have, I have only ever wanted this combination for taking shots out of the hotel window at night in Seoul, and that's hardly a situation to design my whole setup around.
I'm also surprised at how compact the 28-200mm lens is on the S9, it seems quite manageable.