Well, first of all I must say that I'm only a student and not pro. I prefere a good lens without zoom, you get sharper images and they are much faster. I dont like digital color grain ( though the gh2 performs very well) and i do everything to avoid it. Indoors with a 3.5 -5.6 just isn't a good idea. Also when you decide to use zoomlenses for video you basically say that you want to zoom in or out, however with cheap lenses like the 14-140 you loose light when zooming in since the aperture isn't constant. Olympus makes a good zuiko lens with a constant f2 aperture (2000 $). So my advise would be, if u focus on shooting vids is this: buy the gh2 with the cheapo lens kit 14-48, just so you have a lightweight lens you can carry around everywhere for taking picture or just when going somewhere without a full bag. And with the money you'd spend on that 14-140 you buy a good single mm lens. I bought the 25mm leica summilux by panasonic, its 1.4 and produces very nice images. i took this one instead of the voightlander 0.95 because its automatic. If you want you can buy a cheap adapter and buy canon fd lenses , they cost around 50 $ a piece.

sorry for all the typo's i'm kinda sleepy =) hope i helped a bit

yes the 25mm leica summilux looks great .. is the 14-42 kit lens that bad compared to the 14-140? thx 4 the replies..

To be honest, nearly all lenses on a 14MP sensor that down samples to 1080p very well are going to be fine in terms of desirable sharpness.

One thing the 14-140 does, is allows you to move light, move quick and setup quick. This has a lot of advantages. It's also perfectly sharp across the range and has excellent OIS. If you're not stabilised (tripod, rig, etc) then you will definitely want OIS. The other option is the 14-42, but I would personally miss the 135-200mm equivalent end.

The Pana Leica 14-50 2.8-3.5 is probably the best alternative, requiring the FT to mFT adapter too. It'll probably cost around $300 more in total buying separately, but the 14-140 is heavily discounted when buying as a kit, by about $200. So in reality, it's more like a $500 addition. And you still miss out on the nice 135-200mm equivalent range.

Personally I'd get the 14-140 as a brilliant all rounder, and then add some cheaper legacy primes to supplement and give some low light capability.

Just to say that with practice, you can do very well with a 50mm without OIS. It may be the limit though...

For documentary use in low light I'd use a fast wide, 12mm or the 14mm prime. If you know how to move your feet and maybe add a monopod/center weight, it's the only lens you'll use that evening. For lighting where you can get a f5.6, the 14-140 is amazingly crisp and versatile, fast focus and nice colors. It's more a question of philosophy and what you're used to: If you're coming from camcorder with video lenses, you'll like the 14-140, even without zooming in-shot. If you're coming from film, you'll like primes first, and maybe exclusively. Personally, I have the 14-140 and love it, and a full set of FD fast primes

I have the 14-140 and it is a pretty good lens but not very good for inside shooting without setting up lights.

That said I bought it with the 20mm 1.7 and that lens was on my camera 90% of the time.

Now I own the Nokton 25mm and it is on my camera 24/7 now.

Thanks for the replies. My question was, if it makes sense (whats the experience) using even in low light the 14-140, pushing up the ISO and then denoise with neat video. Right now I am using the 20mm pancake the FD 50 1.4 for low and the Sigma 2.8 EX DC for low and high light situations. But the 14-140 is definitely the better lens, sharper, smaller OIS, AF and much more comfortable. I am coming from film, doing a few docs, of cause prime lenses are much better, but in my situation I need to be quick and easy.