Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Possibly considering an OM-D for travel, lens suggestions?  (Read 5405 times)
bcooter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1206


Bang The Drum All Day


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2013, 05:39:26 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged

Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 937



« Reply #21 on: July 12, 2013, 06:20:05 PM »
ReplyReply

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-
Logged
atassy
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 30


« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2013, 01:55:02 AM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5182


« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2013, 12:15:26 PM »
ReplyReply

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.
Logged
OldRoy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 437


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 14, 2013, 02:44:31 PM »
ReplyReply

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
Logged
Telecaster
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 937



« Reply #25 on: July 14, 2013, 04:14:22 PM »
ReplyReply

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-
Logged
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 821



WWW
« Reply #26 on: July 17, 2013, 05:58:47 PM »
ReplyReply

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?
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 18, 2013, 08:09:43 AM »
ReplyReply

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).

Quote
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.
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad