photoSmart42
New member
Take a look at the many photos posted with both lenses on this forum and decide for yourself if the added expense of the Contax G lenses produces better images than the 20/1.7 lens, which is smaller and comes with AF.
Don't make the mistake of equating the cost of a lens with it's performance. I've seen a number of expensive lenses that don't produce what I consider pleasing images, and I've seen some really cheap lenses (look at Ron Evers' posts) that produce very nice images. There are many reasons for the price on lenses, not the least of which is rarity.
The 14-140 is indeed NOT a low-light lens. It's painfully slow, but a great all-around daytime lens.
You're talking about the 'normal' aspect of 50mm lenses. That's a hotly debated topic across many forums, and there's no clear outcome from any of those discussions. Some people claim that the 'normal' part of the 50mm lens comes from emulating the same sense of perspective as the human eye, in which case you'll want an actual 50mm lens to maintain that perspective (that's my opinion as well, FWIW; when I look through the EVF on my GH1 with a 50 lens, and the other eye open, I see the exact same scene). Others claim it's the FOV of the 50mm lens that produces that 'normal' aspect, in which case you'd want something around 25mm.
To be honest, I wouldn't worry about any of that too much. Cameras and lenses are just tools, so get the right tool for the types of photos you want to take. I can tell you that you'll be better off in terms of taking good photos if you stick a single lens on your camera for an entire month and just take photos. You'll learn to live with the fixed focal length of your lens, and you'll naturally compose photos that fit that focal length.
