Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: Brian Hirschfeld on July 10, 2013, 05:56:20 pm
-
At most I would carry three lenses, possibly two bodies since they are so small, but probably only one, and one lens most of the time but would want a few other lenses for other times, here are the lenses I am considering, which would would we recommend for best quality, performance and handling?
normal lenses:
Olympus 12mm f/2.0 (Black) 20mm equiv. - only considering this since it seems to be very compact, it would have to blow the others out of the water to be worth considering, and even then I'm not sure about the focal length.
Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (Black) 27mm equiv. - 28mm is a little wide but if it performed amazingly I might consider it, but how does it stack up against the others?
Lumix 20mm f/1.7 II ASPH 32mm equiv. - seems to be the best as relates to size / focal length / aperture for a normal lens for the system, how did the first version perform? we should assume this one is better yes?
Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH 40mm equiv. - is it worth the size, and would I consider it a slightly too long 35mm or consider it a 50mm? I prefer 35mm.
---- other lenses
Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH 72mm equiv. - my preferred portrait focal length is 82, so this seems to be as close as I could get, does this lens perform well?
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (Black) 120mm equiv. seems very nice on bokeh, does it perform stopped down as a telephoto?
Olympus 60mm Macro? 96mm equiv Worth considering? it would be either or for the 60mm and 75mm which do we think offers more?
Thanks for the help, I've never gone this small (sensor-ed) before and am considering if its worth it, once I have some recommendations from users, I will go hunt down the lenses in question and test them out to see if their performance combined with the body is worth my time to even be considered, thanks.
-
I very much like the Oly 45mm. Is there a reason you have not considered it?
I also like the Panny 20mm because it's a nice combination of good enough and so small it makes the OM-D pocketable in jacket and even in some pants.
-
...
Olympus 12mm f/2.0 (Black) 20mm equiv. 24 eq
Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (Black) 27mm equiv. 34 eq.
Lumix 20mm f/1.7 II ASPH 32mm equiv. 40 eq.
Panasonic Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 ASPH 40mm equiv. 50 eq
Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH 72mm equiv.90 rq.
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (Black) 120mm equiv.150 eq.
Micro 4/3 has a 2x factor.
-
Two points.
1. the new 20mm f1.7 is optically the same as the old one, probably focuses faster.
2. though the crop factor is 2x, remember the aspect ratio is different. The 20mm has the same vertical field of view as a 35mm lens on a "full frame" 2:3 SLR. OTOH, the 17mm likely has the same horizontal field of view as the 35mm lens.
-
I have experience with two of the lenses, the 20/1.7 Panasonic (I own one) and the 17/2.8 Olympus (a friend’s); my 20 blew the 17 out of the water in casual tests; one advantage of the 20 is that it distorts somewhat less; I just tried to visit the Photozone website, but the pages are displaying horribly. Read the 20mm review (http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/464-pana_20_17) and 17mm review (http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/468-oly_17_28) at Photozone.
-
I very much like the Oly 45mm. Is there a reason you have not considered it?
+1. A great lens at a great price.
On the 20mm Panasonic vs 25mm Panasonic-Leica, this is one of the hardy perennial arguments in micro 4/3. The 25mm comes our marginally ahead in most tests (although maybe not wide open) but following your preference for a 35mm over a 50mm equivalent field of view won't lose you much in performance.
-
Olympus 45 and 75mm. Both crazy great.
IMO
BC
-
Thanks for all the help guys, but to the point of Horizontal field of view, should I simply compare the provided FOV's of the lenses with those from their full-frame equivalents and determine their effective focal lengths this way?
Two points.
1. the new 20mm f1.7 is optically the same as the old one, probably focuses faster.
2. though the crop factor is 2x, remember the aspect ratio is different. The 20mm has the same vertical field of view as a 35mm lens on a "full frame" 2:3 SLR. OTOH, the 17mm likely has the same horizontal field of view as the 35mm lens.
-
Do not complicate things, it is 2x.
-
Right, just realize that the formats are different and use the lens that works best in any given situation. When we shot 35mm and 6x6 and 4x5 film, no one worried about "full frame equivalents" we just grabbed the right lens and shot photos.
For the m4/3, the 20mm Panny is excellent, as is the 45 Olympus. The Panasonic 12-35/2.8 IS is an outstanding zoom lens -- my lovely wife tried it for a shoot and never gave it back. :) The Panny 14 is pretty good if you like that focal length -- it's sharp and amazingly small. I bought it over the Oly 12 for cost reasons, but I've never been totally happy with 28mm-equivalent on any system, as I prefer wider.
I'd also want the Panasonic 7-14 zoom, as I really do like wide angle lenses. The 75 gets terrific reviews - never owned one, but wish I had.
-
Do not complicate things, it is 2x.
Sorry, Solbodan I must disagree. Actually it all depends.
Since I tend to crop the sides of images from 2:3 ratio sensor cameras to close to a 4:5 ratio for output (and therefore crop the sides of an image from a 4/3 camera much less), the correct ratio for me is 1.75. It all depends on how you will crop the final image. I agree that if you are going to crop your 4/3 image to a 2:3 ratio for output, you will want to use a ratio around 2 for comparison.
I use both 4/3 and "FF 35mm" sensors, so this is from me comparing the field of view of the various lenses on the various cameras in the viewfinders.
Though the OP is clearly interested in primes, I will add that the Panasonic pancake 14-42mm zoom is suprisingly good stopped down a bit (I tend to shoot at f5.6 with m4/3 most of the time) and makes an amazingly portable package, being only slightly deeper than the 20mm.
-
Jesus, Alan! If you want to go anal over it for your own purposes, go ahead. However, OP is apparently new to m4/3 and the last thing he needs is to overcomplicate. Since the dawn of mankind (or at least the invention of 4/3 format) everybody in the world lists the lens factor as 2x. Given that a lot of modern cameras offer a choice of crop ratios in-camera, including squares and panoramas, are we supposed to list several different lens factors for each of them, plus vertical, diagonal and horizontal for each of those, resulting in a dozen different lens factors!?
-
If we are going to get pedantic about this, I note that current Micro Four Thirds sensors have an imaging area of 17.3x13mm, diagonal 21.6mm whereas the old film format sensors are 36x24mm, diagonal 43.3mm. So ...
... if you mostly care about horizontal coverage and cropping to shapes from 4:3 through 5:4 and on towards square, the ratio is 1.85.
... if you mostly care about vertical coverage and cropping to shapes like 3:2, the ratio is 2.08.
... the traditional mid-way comparison based on image diagonal gives a ratio of 2.00.
... if you are not obsessive-compulsive, these are all adequately approximated by 2: the error is less that 8%!
-
It's a real shame we didn't standardize on using degrees to describe field-of-view rather than this "crop factor" and "equivalent focal length" crap. Degrees are format-independent.
That said, the Olympus 12, 17 f/1.8, 45 & 75mm lenses are all very, very good. The 75 is one of the best lenses I've ever owned or used. It's wonderful at all apertures..diffraction-limited past f/4, though. The Panasonic 20mm is pretty darn good too, and a nice all-rounder. The M43 system still lacks fast native lenses in the 90-200mm range. Not sure if a fast 200 is really what the system is about, but 135-150mm would be nice.
-Dave-
-
Well, I readily admit to being both anal and pedantic. (Just ask my wife ;) ) But in my defense I will say that I have used both 17mm and 20mm lenses on m4/3 cameras, and to for my anal, pedantic shooting style, there is quite a bit of difference bewteen the two.
I will say that sometimew I wish I gravitated towards the short tele style of shooting, because by all accounts the Oly 45 and 75mm lenses are cracking good, while the wide angle offerings are nothing special IMO
-
Olympus 75mm f/1.8 (Black) 120mm equiv. seems very nice on bokeh, does it perform stopped down as a telephoto?
Olympus 60mm Macro? 96mm equiv Worth considering? it would be either or for the 60mm and 75mm which do we think offers more?
in that range you have
1) Sigma 60/2.8 (native, AF)
2) Olympus 60/2.8 (macro, weathersealed)
3) Olympus 75/1.8
qualitywise 75/1.8 beats everything else in m43 (native) realm from 12mm to you name it... so I 'd skip both 60's unless you want macro...
-
Panasonic Leica DG Macro-Elmarit 45mm f/2.8 ASPH 72mm equiv. - my preferred portrait focal length is 82, so this seems to be as close as I could get, does this lens perform well?
you have both Panasonic 45/2.8 macro and Olympus 45/1.8...
P = macro+, OIS-, 2.8-, price-, good at macro distances, less further away
O = no macro-, no OIS+, 1.8+, price+, good @ portrait distances, less further away (like if I want by any chance to make a full body shot @ 1.8 then I'd skip O45/1.8 and take O75/1.8 any time - I have both O45 and O75).
I have both P45 & O45, I'd buy Olympus if I have to select.
-
I got the Oly 45 over the Panasonic macro lens - the extra stop+ of DOF control is well worth it for portrait shooting.
My wife just got the Oly 60mm macro lens. It's very nice for macro, not really a general purpose lens.
-
Somehow I find myself using longer m43 lenses in terms of FF equivalent focal lengths than I used to on a full frame SLR.
I don't know why that is, but 25/1.4, 45/1.8, and in my case, a 75-300 zoom (original not the newer one) take care of business. These all have designs that do something beyond just the performance testing numbers, they have unique characters that match up with the capabilities of the OMD very well.
If it comes down to one lens to walk around with, lately it's been the 25/1.4 for me. Keep in mind that it doesn't perform exactly like a 50mm f/1.4 lens would on a full-frame camera, you just have to see if it works for you.
I tend to stitch for wider landscape views and do occaisionally miss having a 12 or 17 with me, but have adjusted.
I gave away the 60/2.8 and plan to do the same with the Sigma 19/2.8 and 17/1.8 (haven't decided yet, but I barely use them).
Honestly though, when I first switched to m43, I spent several months with the 12-50 kit lens and reviewed my keepers to understand what primes I really needed. It changes over time and subject matter makes a difference, but for travel, a nice weatherproof zoom is far from a bad start.
-
The 12-50 mm zoom with the OMD works well enough and for travel works very well unless you are printing quite large.
On a recent city trip I carried the 12-50 on camera and had both the 12mm and the Pany 7-14 along too and used them much less than I expected. I was pleased to see ASA 1600 and ASA3200 shots (inside churches) more than useable until I got to larger sizes. Of course, most shots will only see web and computer use but then many of my travel shots are just for that.
Dave S
-
I love all of the Olympus lenses. I have the new 12, 17, 45, 75 and for a 25 I have the Pana Leica 25.
I haven't compared them in a science setting, but all of the lenses (if the camera really is a 2 to 1 crop vs. 35mm seem wider than the full frame 35mm dlsr camera and lenses.
The 75 on the 4/3 which should be a 150 on my Canons seems to offer more room (for a better word) and less squeezed, the 45mm more than a 90 on a Canon.
Don't know how to explain this but it does.
I really love the OMD, though they really need a 8,000 sec. shutter for outside in sunlight or some built in ND's.
The OMD is not a pixel peeper camera because next to even to most APS C cameras the file won't hold up as well in micro examination, though it produces a different look, somewhat more natural and less refined, which could be that the camera is smaller and allows for that type of photography.
Don't know, but I really like using it and have and will on certain paying projects (used it today, yesterday, last week, etc.).
IMO
BC
-
I haven't compared them in a science setting, but all of the lenses (if the camera really is a 2 to 1 crop vs. 35mm) seem wider than the full frame 35mm dlsr camera and lenses.
I noticed this effect when I first got my OM-D5. The Panasonic 20mm seemed more like a 35mm equiv. than a 40mm. (I agree with the comment earlier here that 35 & 40, or 17 & 20mm with M43, are not interchangeable.) I think it's due to the aspect ratio...the in-finder image maybe looks broader 'cuz it's closer to square.
-Dave-
-
i use 3 lenses on m4/3:
oly 12/2.0
pana 20/1.7
oly 45/1.8
for a really small package, i just grab the body with the 20 on it. when i carry a small shoulder bag, all 3 are in it.
the 20 focuses a bit slower than the oly lenses but is otherwise totally fine as a good standard lens.
the 45 is optically very good, and nice and light.
the 12 has great image quality for a wide angle, and its mechanical quality is outstanding. i especially love its ability to zone focus, and wish pana's 20 had this option as well as it's a nice focal length for documentary/street shooting.
i did not go for the oly 17 as compared to the pana 20, it's larger and does not give better quality. also, i prefer the focal length of the 20 over 17 but that's just a personal thing, of course.
-
Some comments on the new Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (see disclaimer!)
- This is not the older Olympus 17mm, which is f/2.8 and got mediocre reviews.
- It has an intriguing "Snap Focus" feature, where pulling back on the focus ring engages manual focus in a more traditional style, rather than the usual mFT focus-by-wire style. Stops at each end of the focus range, for example.
- It probably focuses faster than the Panasonic 20/1.7, due to using the newer approach of moving only light internal elements to focus and using linear stepper motors.
The Olympus 12/2 also has the Snap Focus mode.
Disclaimer: I do not have it or the Panasonic 20/1.7. I practice the approach above of starting with zooms like the 12-50, and using my experience with them to decide which primes would be useful for me, and so far that is just the 60mm macro.
-
I don't travel as much as I used to or would now like to but I do own an OMD. And I have the Panasonic 14 and 20 plus the Olympus 45 as well as the Samyang 7.5 FE (for VR panos, mostly). Whatever their benefits IQ-wise over the humble 12-50 kit zoom the fact is that the latter has an incredibly useful range. For myself, in unpredictable circumstances, its flexibility trumps the advantages of the primes. If you're shooting raw the deficiencies can be compensated for to an extent.
Roy
-
I should throw in a plug for the Panasonic 14-45mm zoom. It was the original kit zoom with the Pana G cameras and is quite a good performer. Still sold separately, at a modest price, though no longer bundled.
-Dave-
-
Thanks for all the thoughts and comment's, It seems like from the comments I may just wind up going the "brand loyalist" route and get the olympus set, since they seem compact enough and the 60mm offers some macro so I don't need the Leica 45mm. The Pan 20 and 25 are still in it, with the 20 winning because it is so darn small, and I assume the ii version will fix some of the problems with the earlier version.
Also any thoughts on the pan fisheye lens?
-
I assume the ii version will fix some of the problems with the earlier version.
Alas, the 20/1.7 II may only be a pure cosmetic upgrade : optical diagram and MTF curves are exactly the same as the "old" version on the panasonic website, and the press release does not mention any AF speed improvement (which was considered the main drawback of the lens).
Also any thoughts on the pan fisheye lens?
Much more expensive (2x here in EU) than the samyang/rokinon one, of which I'm quite pleased - but would be even more if it had a chip to pass at least the focal length to the camera's IBIS : the 300$ or so of the lens seem still expensive without that simple chip. Otherwise, the IQ is quite fine and the lack of AF not a problem at all with such a focal length.
Don't forget that kit zooms are often pretty good allrounders these days - the Oly 14-42 II is no slouch either.