Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: lens choices - opinions please

  1. #1
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    lens choices - opinions please

    I just finished selling off most of my 43rds gear with the exception of my original E1, one E5, the 50-200 SWD and my 35-100f2. Since July I've been doing 99% of my shooting with my two OM-D's which came with the 12-50 and 14-42 kit lenses, a used 40-150 I picked up used for $150 and I caved in to lens lust and grabbed a new 75f1.8 a couple months ago. So, I now have a fair bit of cash on hand from selling off a nice collection of 43rds gear and that has been allocated to photography equipment - definition: more m43 lenses. I have years of personal experience shooting with focal lengths ranging from 7 to 1200 but now with the move into m43 I once again find I have difficulty choosing just what I need the most on top of what I've already got. The lenses that have been tempting me are the Oly 60f1.8 Macro, the new Oly 17f1.8, the Oly 45, and Pany's 12-35 f2.8. In reviewing the data from a lot of my shots I find that I don't really do that much work at the ultra wide end of the spectrum, and I have my two trusty, if not a bit on the big side, 43rds tele zooms to catch the longer end. That leaves me seeking the best options for shooting everything else in the mid ranges. I have become quite intrigued by Macro work, I started playing with the Macro settings on the 12-50, saw it's limitations, and that is why the 60 Macro is on the list.

    I've read every review and test of each candidate, they're all stellar performers and each highly recommended by the reviewers. But I'm still stuck in the "which way should I go?" mode and seeking opinions from those I feel are qualified to give them, and that means you guys. So, if you don't mind sharing some of your thoughts on my quandary I'd be most appreciative.

    cheers, and Happy New Year!!

    Lorne Miller

  2. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    60
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorne Miller View Post
    I just finished selling off most of my 43rds gear with the exception of my original E1, one E5, the 50-200 SWD and my 35-100f2. Since July I've been doing 99% of my shooting with my two OM-D's which came with the 12-50 and 14-42 kit lenses, a used 40-150 I picked up used for $150 and I caved in to lens lust and grabbed a new 75f1.8 a couple months ago. So, I now have a fair bit of cash on hand from selling off a nice collection of 43rds gear and that has been allocated to photography equipment - definition: more m43 lenses. I have years of personal experience shooting with focal lengths ranging from 7 to 1200 but now with the move into m43 I once again find I have difficulty choosing just what I need the most on top of what I've already got. The lenses that have been tempting me are the Oly 60f1.8 Macro, the new Oly 17f1.8, the Oly 45, and Pany's 12-35 f2.8. In reviewing the data from a lot of my shots I find that I don't really do that much work at the ultra wide end of the spectrum, and I have my two trusty, if not a bit on the big side, 43rds tele zooms to catch the longer end. That leaves me seeking the best options for shooting everything else in the mid ranges. I have become quite intrigued by Macro work, I started playing with the Macro settings on the 12-50, saw it's limitations, and that is why the 60 Macro is on the list.

    I've read every review and test of each candidate, they're all stellar performers and each highly recommended by the reviewers. But I'm still stuck in the "which way should I go?" mode and seeking opinions from those I feel are qualified to give them, and that means you guys. So, if you don't mind sharing some of your thoughts on my quandary I'd be most appreciative.

    cheers, and Happy New Year!!

    Lorne Miller
    I think your problem is a good one because you have such good choices for m43. It depends on what you shoot and for me it's portrait glamour. I use following lenses:
    - 45mm 1.8
    - Just placed the order for the 35mm/1.4 SLR magic
    - Voigt 25mm 0.95
    - 20mm/1.7
    - several Pentax 110 lenses
    - many c-mount fast lenses
    Yes, I don't use zooms because I prefer fast primes and bokeh.
    Some sample shots on Flickr or visit the sets with the relevant lenses...
    Flickr: -DD'sAngels-'s Photostream
    The 45mm is a must for its price. I think the 17mm/1.8 would be faster than the 20mm on AF, but the 20mm is a very good lens in any case.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Tokyo, Japan
    Posts
    280
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    I'm kind of jealous of your remaining 43s gear. I sold off all my 43s gear including the 50-200 and I kind of miss that lens.

    I don't think you can go wrong with any of the lenses you are looking at. Schneider is also coming out with a 60mm f2.4 macro sometime and their 30mm f1.4 looks interesting. No real dates on them.

    I really like my Panasonic 20mm/1.7, although I plan on picking up the 17mm/1.8 in the near future. The 45mm/1.8 is an amazing lens for the size and price. I don't think Oly has any announced by unreleased lenses. It might be worth holding some money back until CP+ the end of this month to see if they announce anything interesting. I think Sigma (and others?) have said they have new lenses coming, so I'm keeping some cash in reserve.
    Charles - flickr

  4. #4
    Subscriber Member Jorgen Udvang's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Pratamnak
    Posts
    9,336
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    2157

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Hard to make recommendations, since there are so many excellent choices. If you want wide, the Pana 7-14 is an absolute no-brainer. In addition to that, my own setup in a month or two will be Zuiko 12mm f/2.0, PanaLeica 25mm f/1.4, Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 and the Zuiko 75mm f/1.8.

    I'm undecided with regards to zooms so far, and still use the 4/3 PanaLeica 14-50mm f/2.8-3.5, a lens that I'm totally in love with. Autofocus is very slow on the GH2 though. I'm afraid I will find the shorter reach of the Panasonic 12-35mm limiting, but I haven't tried it yet.

    I'm probably also buying the Zuiko 17mm f/1.8 sooner or later, mostly to use with an E-PL5 as a semi-pocketable combo.

  5. #5
    Senior Member kweide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    1,631
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    I followed the traditional way "doubling focal length"
    So i started with WA lens for my street work and added by above rules:

    1. M.Zuiko 12 mm f2
    2. Summilux 25, f1.4 ( my fav portrait lens )
    3. M. Zuiko 45 mm, f1.8 what a dreamlens

    The above set is my always with me equipment I added some special lenses

    4. M. Zuiko 75 mm, f1.8 , stellar lens, out of this world, superduper-portrait lens
    5. M. Zuiko 60 mm Macro, now i never miss my Zuiko 50 mm Makro anymore

    from older Pen-Times:

    6. M. Zuiko 17 mm, f2.8, great street lens
    7. Panasonic Lumix 20 mm, f1.7, a star still ...

    The last two make a wonderfull, small and light set, a pocketable set. That is the reason why i keep them.
    __________________________________________________
    Part of the Wonderland
    see more ( NSFW ) on : http://www.klaweide.de

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,623
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    In the midrange I really like the 12-35/2.8. IMO f2.8 is great to have and I find the sharpness very good and the handling as well.
    I also have 20,25 and 45mm primes but the zooms gets by far the most use.
    If you are after shallow DOF the zoom doesnt cut it. in this case I would get the Panaleica 25/1.4

  7. #7
    Senior Member biglouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,122
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    For me, the three essential lenses are:

    Panasonic 7-14 - outstanding performer and versatile
    Panasonic 20/1.7 - outstanding performer optically and ridiculously priced. The most obvious Leica summicron rip-off I have ever seen or owned.
    Panasonic/Leica 45/2.8 macro - the m43rds macro lens, do not accept inferior altenatives.

    Just my two cents.

    LouisB
    -----
    My new book "Whitechapel in 50 BUildings", Flikr Stream, www.louisberk.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    315
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    In posts like this I suggest to people that they take a few minutes to see, in a sequence of zoom shots, how often they use the middle settings compared with the extremities.

    Like Biglouis I love the 7-14 but it is only the lack of a decent wide prime that makes me stay with it.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Cool Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorne Miller View Post
    I just finished selling off most of my 43rds gear with the exception of my original E1, one E5, the 50-200 SWD and my 35-100f2. Since July I've been doing 99% of my shooting with my two OM-D's which came with the 12-50 and 14-42 kit lenses, a used 40-150 I picked up used for $150 and I caved in to lens lust and grabbed a new 75f1.8 a couple months ago. So, I now have a fair bit of cash on hand from selling off a nice collection of 43rds gear and that has been allocated to photography equipment - definition: more m43 lenses. I have years of personal experience shooting with focal lengths ranging from 7 to 1200 but now with the move into m43 I once again find I have difficulty choosing just what I need the most on top of what I've already got. The lenses that have been tempting me are the Oly 60f1.8 Macro, the new Oly 17f1.8, the Oly 45, and Pany's 12-35 f2.8. In reviewing the data from a lot of my shots I find that I don't really do that much work at the ultra wide end of the spectrum, and I have my two trusty, if not a bit on the big side, 43rds tele zooms to catch the longer end. That leaves me seeking the best options for shooting everything else in the mid ranges. I have become quite intrigued by Macro work, I started playing with the Macro settings on the 12-50, saw it's limitations, and that is why the 60 Macro is on the list.

    I've read every review and test of each candidate, they're all stellar performers and each highly recommended by the reviewers. But I'm still stuck in the "which way should I go?" mode and seeking opinions from those I feel are qualified to give them, and that means you guys. So, if you don't mind sharing some of your thoughts on my quandary I'd be most appreciative.

    cheers, and Happy New Year!!

    Lorne Miller
    If I may paraphrase and reformat a little:

    You currently have:
    50-200mm f/2.8~3.5 Zoom,
    35-100mm f/2.0 Constant Zoom,
    12-50mm f/3.5~6.3 (Macro) Zoom,
    14-42mm f/3.5~5.6 Zoom,
    40-150mm f/3.5~4.5 Zoom,
    75mm f/1.8 Prime,

    You're currently thinking about:
    17mm f/1.8 Prime,
    45mm f/1.8 Prime,
    12-35mm f/2.8 Constant Zoom,
    60mm f/2.8 Macro Prime, (you typed f1.8 by the way)

    You're currently interested in macro and you're not very interested in UWA shooting.

    That about sum it up? It would seem to me that there is a lot of redundancy listed there and also too many dark zooms but I wanna talk about what you seem most interested in - macro!

    The Olympus 60mm f/2.8 is good but almost all reviewers give it much higher marks than is the reality of the situation. This lens falls a little short in the micro-contrast department and that's one of the main qualities which set apart the exceptional from the average-good when talking macro. It's weather sealed and has a few convenience features like instant 1:1 focus setting. It does 1:1 [which is NOT 2x (2:1) in 35mm equivalence as some reviewers suggest - nor does the crop factor affect working distance as yet others suggest] and 1:1 reproduction ratio is important in a macro lens - more if you can get it. The AF is incredible at high magnifications too but AF isn't useful almost at all at such magnifications and it is focus-by-wire (FBW) which sucks for macro work. The bokeh disks are not round but jagged - and that's quite annoying for me. And it's working distance (WD) is less than desirable - as almost all focal lengths below about 100mm will be.

    I've spent a lot of time investigating the ultimate macro lens and setup and here are some of the things I've discovered:


    1) Focusing
    From about 1:5 to 1:1 AF isn't useful because focusing is accomplished by timing the shutter to your natural bobbing and swaying. At those high magnifications 1mm of head, torso, or hand movement throws the subject out of focus - even at small apertures. The other way to accomplish focus is on a tripod with either bellows or a set of macro-rails and here again AF is hardly needed nor at all handy to have. Sure, focus on something a meter away (not macro) and AF is a style choice and very handy to some people - but you already have that covered with your 75/1.8 which has better IQ and bokeh anyway.

    When manually focusing via the focus ring a large to very large throw is desirable. FBW is the last thing you want for making super tiny adjustments at high magnifications. The Oly 60/2.8 has a pretty good FBW as FBW goes but that still isn't good enough in some situations.


    2) Micro-contrast (MC)
    Up there with focusing mechanisms MC is one of the more critical aspects when considering macro lenses. It's important in normal lenses too but much more-so in a macro. Why? Well, a couple of reasons:

    a) Framing doesn't happen in the same way with macro so to achieve aesthetic framing you usually need to crop.
    b) Working distance and magnification almost never come together ideally for the subject you wish to capture so you will be SEVERELY cropping most of your images.

    With so much cropping going on the MC details become hyper-critical even for many shots you will only post to the web - at web-sized scales. Of course just as it is with any non-macro lens MC becomes less and less important as one scales the images down in size. If I were to score MC across the various macro lenses I've tried the Oly 60/2.8 would get a 7.8 or 8 out of 10 which is pretty average-ish and nothing exceptional or spectacular.


    3) Working Distance (WD)
    Working Distance is different from Minimum Focusing Distance (MFD) in that WD is the distance from the tip of the lens (be it the front element or the filter thread ring) and the focus plane when the lens is set to it's MFD. MFD is the distance from the sensor plane to the focus plane at it's nearest setting. Subject Distance which Olympus marks on this lens's barrel, is also measured from the imaging (sensor or film) plane. WD is a critical factor for two primary reasons:
    a) The intrusion factor - where getting too close to your subjects upsets them or causes them to panic and leave the scene, and
    b) The Lighting triangle conspiracy - where it becomes increasingly difficult to properly light the subject the closer you get to it.
    The WD ranges for 1:1 captures work out to:

    • 0.1cm ~ 5cm: nearly impossible. You have to invent your own lighting system.
    • 5cm ~ 10cm: very difficult. Some specialized diffused ring flashes can work OK-ishly.
    • 10cm ~ 15cm: Almost comfortable. Commercial and DIY lighting is easy-ish and available$.
    • 15cm ~ 20cm: Yes! Nice. Even natural lighting can be used and diffused artificial lighting systems really shine (pun intended) at these distances!
    • 20cm ~ 30cm: Great for lighting but at these lengths camera stabilization begins to become quite a major issue (even with most tripods) - especially on the far end of that range.


    The WD for the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 Macro lens is 7.6cm by my crude measurement and 8.2cm according to Olympus. The discrepancy between us may be that they measured from somewhere on the front element and I measured from the edge of the filter thread ring. Unfortunately we can not believe any of the reviews we read for this measurement as it seems even some well established sites are publishing reviews from authors who don't know what WD is nor how to measure it - very discouraging - even more discouraging is that they also don't understand magnification ratios and how to measure them - lame!

    Either way 8.2cm or 7.6cm, you can see that it falls into the range of "very difficult" to light and too close for comfort to most of the living mobile subjects that are fun to shoot and who hang around in the likely locations. MFD is also somewhat important as that places our head&shoulders at a distance from the more aware insects and living creatures able to detect or assess our large body mass in proximity to themselves. A reasonable MFD for many critters starts right around 50cm. The Olympus 60/2.8 is around 20cm which again is too close for a lot of stuff.


    4) Lighting
    I've pretty much already said or at least inferred, the important bits about how the lens itself affects lighting or the lighting you're able to use with it. Lighting itself is a huge subject as I'm sure you know, and variables only multiply when we begin to discuss photomacography or photomicrography. I won't try rewriting or even paraphrasing any of the books out there on the subject but the gist of it is that a strong very diffuse light source radiating from the front/top onto the subject is the most desirable in achieving that gorgeous "macro look" we see so many images posted with. You can check out sites like www.photomacrography.net :: Index or threads like Post Your Set Up! - FM Forums in order to see and read about some of the solutions people far better than myself have come up with.


    I guess it's time to take numbers and name names - of lenses which performed better than the Olympus 60/2.8 or at least recommend some I've used so I'll do that bit now. In the list below all of the ones around the 100mm Fl have nice working distances at 1:1. The ones around 50 or 60mm have about the same as the Olympus 60/2.8 typically within a centimeter or two anyway. The top two in this are perfect lenses. Actually honestly perfect in almost each and every way. And I liked the Voigtlander better than the Leica between the two. With either lens you can actually display the images at 150% to 200% and they will look as good or better than most $500 to $800 dollar good lenses do at 100% - even on a sensor such as found in the older GH1. On a sensor without an AA filter or with milder AA filtering I can only imagine how good they would be. Lenses 3 through 13 all trounced the Olympus 60/2.8 in terms of both MC detail and MF smoothness. And Lens #14 I thought was pretty close to identical though still slightly better in performance both at 1:1 while on the PK-13 and at it's native 1:2 than the Olympus 60/2.8. All of these non-dedicated lenses can be mounted on extension tubes for higher magnifications yet however most of the ones designated 1:1 as their max magnification begin to rapidly lose resolution and detail at around 3:1 or 4:1 (3x or 4x) and the ones designated 1:2 begin to lose it at about 2:1 or so.


    1. Voigtlander Lanthar 125mm f/2.5 APO 1:1 Macro ($1800 ~ $2800 used depending on mount)
    2. Leica 120mm f/2.5 Summarit-S APO 1:2 Macro ($4500 ~$6500 depending on condition - $7k new)
    3. Canon MP-E 65mm f/2.8 Dedicated Macro 1:1 ~ 5:1 (5x) ($500 ~ $900 just depending.. $900 is new price $650 is like new no box)
    4. Olympus 38mm f/2.8 Bellows 1:3 - 8:1 (8x) ($350 ~ $750)
    5. Canon 100mm f/2.8 non-IS Macro 1:1 ($350 ~ $550)
    6. Sigma 150 f/2.8 Macro 1:1 (average price $550)
    7. Tamron SP 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 (average price $435)
    8. Tamron SP 90mm f/2.5 (MF and AF derivative) Macro 1:2 ($100 ~ $300)
    9. Nikkor 105mm f/2.8D Macro 1:1 (Don't get the newer 2.8G AF-S one - it's actually worse!) ($300 ~ $475)
    10. Contax Zeiss 100mm f/2.8 Makro Planar 1:1 (typically $800)
    11. Rodenstock Rodagon 105mm f/5.6 (Enlarger Lens on a Bellows) - Infinity focusing ~ 5:1
    12. Minolta AF 50mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 ($150 ~ $300)
    13. Tamron SP 60mm f/2 Di II Macro 1:1 (About $400)
    14. Nikkor 55mm f/2.8 Macro 1:2 (1:1 with PK-13) ($50 ~ $150(mint))


    There are many lenses from $50 on up which were not intended by the manufacturer to be used as macro lenses which perform magnificently and are as good or nearly as good, as any of the lenses 3 ~ 14, listed here. But in the same paragraph, they typically begin to lose resolution and detail much past 1.5:1 or sometimes 2:1 in really good cases. (that's 1.5x / 2x). Pretty much any 135mm lens known for it's sharpness will perform extremely well on a bellows or extension tubes. Which brings me to your new Olympus 75mm f/1.8 acquisition.

    Kenko has released a set of extension tubes with 4/3 signal pass-thru which ought to bring your 75/1.8 really really close to 1:1 (or maybe even a little past 1:1) and the 75/1.8 exhibits better MC detail than the 60/2.8 does.

    Kenko DG Extension Tube Set for Micro Four Thirds - YouTube

    This guy introduces the Kenko tubes but demonstrates them by using the 20mm pancake which is a pretty ridiculous thing to do! One of your zooms that clear 100mm or that 75/1.8 you got, will give you a longer working distance than the 60/2.8 and probably the same or better IQ too. Remember again that AF isn't needed or really even useful for macro so another consideration are extension tubes that don't have an electrical pass-thru used with inexpensive legacy lenses. While these Kenko tubes go for about $150 the connectionless ones sell for about $25 or $30 on ebay. With either one the money you save over the $500 60/2.8 could be put toward some nice macro lighting, macro focusing rails, or etc. Something to think about anyway.

    OK, I'm tired of typing. I hope this helped more than confused you - or anyone reading on.
    Last edited by Tesselator; 5th January 2013 at 18:06.
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  10. #10
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    k-hawinkler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    The "Land of Enchantment"
    Posts
    3,298
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Hi Tesselator,

    WOW! What a write up! Many thanks!
    I wish there was a similar analyses about tele lenses.

    With best regards, K-H.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Subscriber Member Chuck Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Studio City, CA
    Posts
    700
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    18

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Lorne, I went through a pretty decent evaluation of several of these wide lenses myself. It's not an easy choice either, as there is a decent selection available to choose from. I'm using a new GH3 and needed something with excellent wide coverage and decent speed for low light conditions.

    You mite be interested in a test report I put together of my actual test images. It's here: https://vimeo.com/56071121
    TheCameraForum.Com
    ChuckJonesPhotography.Com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Quote Originally Posted by k-hawinkler View Post
    Hi Tesselator,

    WOW! What a write up! Many thanks!
    I wish there was a similar analyses about tele lenses.

    With best regards, K-H.
    Sure NP!

    For telephoto lenses (300mm and over) the solution is much simpler tho. Sell the car, mortgage that house, and buy Canon L lenses. And if you get them in FD mounts you can even control their apertures. Some of the Minolta APO lenses are pretty awesome too.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    3,186
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    When I was using M 4/3 as my primary system I had the 7-14, 14-45, 45-200, 20, and 45 Macro. I can hands down recommend the 7-14, 20 or 25 (if the 25 is near the same level as the 4/3 version) and the 45 Macro. I haven't used the Olympus 45 so I won't comment on the quality of it but I can say the 45 Macro is good for macro work and focused very fast as a regular lens with the limit switch. The 7-14 is the best option for native wide angle even if slightly pricy for what it is. Another option would be to sell your lenses you don't use much and go with the 12-35 and 35-100 X lenses then add the primes you want.
    Sony Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    7
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Thank you for all your input. After spending literally hours going through various reviews and tests, and a thorough search of the most common types of photography that I've done since switching to digital, I've come to a conclusion that will work for the present time being. I was looking seriously at the PL 12-35 but have been hearing about the possibility of a similar mFT offering from Olympus, so I will hang on to my money and wait to see what may be announced. I considered the Oly 17f1.8 but will wait and cover that focal length with the above mentioned lens when it arrives. That left me with the other two considerations, I played with an Oly 45f1.8 in the store and this lens may still find it's way into my case at some point in the future, but the lens that did follow me home this time was the 60f2.8 Macro. I truly appreciate all the advice from Tesselator, WOW, lots of very interesting info! For the way I've been using Macro, or close up photography, the Oly 60mm should work just fine. I don't take pictures of bugs or anything similar but do take a lot of close up pictures of mineral specimens and a wide variety of plant life. I also do a lot of what I refer to as abstract art photography, close ups of ordinary every day objects that, when viewed from that perspective, become mysterious abstract subject matter.

    It will be interesting to see what new developments are forthcoming in the way of longer zooms in mFT, evidently the Oly 75-300 is rumored to be discontinued, which causes one to ponder just what may be replacing it.
    I may seriously consider selling my gorgeous, but incredibly large and heavy by comparison, FT 50-200 and 35-100f2.0 as they just aren't seeing that much use anymore. After my fairly thorough survey of work done over the years it becomes obvious that I enjoy the longer focal lengths, this is an area where mFT still needs to step up and deliver some higher quality lenses, in my humble opinion. Again, thanks to all for your time and great input.
    If you want to see just what I spend my time doing, take a perusal of my work at: Lorne Miller (lornemiller)'s Photos

    cheers,

    Lorne Miller

  15. #15
    Workshop Member kuau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Park City, UT
    Posts
    1,071
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    34

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    I am currently testing out an OM-D but for a small landscape kit. I don't need shallow DOF.
    I have tried the Panasonic 25/1.4, shot at F4 very good, corners pretty good, Olympus 17/1.8 not happy with bad corner performance so I sent that back. Olympus 45/1.8 stellar lens, very sharp across the frame.
    Still not sold on the Olympus 12/2 have not tried it yet, worried about corner performance.
    I am really tempted by the Olympus 75/1.8 on my wish list.
    I also hope someone else comes out with a 17,18mm prime that is better than the Olympus.
    Steven Kornreich
    www.kuau.com

  16. #16
    Senior Member Tesselator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Japan
    Posts
    695
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: lens choices - opinions please

    Quote Originally Posted by Lorne Miller View Post
    I truly appreciate all the advice from Tesselator, WOW, lots of very interesting info! For the way I've been using Macro, or close up photography, the Oly 60mm should work just fine. I don't take pictures of bugs or anything similar but do take a lot of close up pictures of mineral specimens and a wide variety of plant life. I also do a lot of what I refer to as abstract art photography, close ups of ordinary every day objects that, when viewed from that perspective, become mysterious abstract subject matter.

    If you want to see just what I spend my time doing, take a perusal of my work at: Lorne Miller (lornemiller)'s Photos

    cheers,

    Lorne Miller
    OK, I see. I think unless you're collecting lenses more than fleshing out a kit that fits your needs, the 60/2.8 will just be more redundancy - short of maybe acquiring a short extension tube or a #2 achromatic close-up filter. I'm definitely the curious collector type myself. I buy lenses by the bushel, try them out for a few weeks or months, and then sell them off for the same like so... But that's the deal with older glass too; one can almost always sell them for the same as they paid losing nothing in the process - and sometimes even gaining a little. With new native 4/3 lenses the prices more often take a dive. And the depreciation begins the moment you open the box. So if you're not careful you end up with a system suffering from collection bloat which you're afraid to slim down because of the loss you'll take. Of course if you're rich it doesn't matter - but I guess if that were the case you wouldn't be playing in the budget corner with all of us other 4/3 users.


    EDIT:
    Rereading, I hope that doesn't come across as sharp and biting.
    Last edited by Tesselator; 11th January 2013 at 13:28.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •