Which Lens?

I've added a GF-1 to my cameras and I purchased it with the EVF and the pancake lens (20mm 1.7). I would like to add another lens but I having difficulty deciding between the following two and would like some advise:

LEICA D VARIO-ELMAR 14-50mm, F3.8-5.6 Lens for select Panasonic LUMIX® Digital Cameras

or

LUMIX G VARIO 14-45mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. Lens for select Panasonic LUMIX® Digital Cameras

If I get the Leica I also have to add extra money for the mount. So the question becomes is this LEICA lens worth double the price I would pay for the LUMIX plus I would not need to buy the LECIA mount adapter, which ain't cheap either :-0.

Thank you in advance for your responses and help.

Since you have the 20mm, why would you not want another prime somewhere from 25 to 50mm?

I'd go for the 14-45. It's smaller, lighter, cheaper, quite sharp, and faster focusing on m4/3.

Charles2 said:

Since you have the 20mm, why would you not want another prime somewhere from 25 to 50mm?

Click to expand...

Charles2 Eh? the 20mm is a prime (fixed) lens, neither of the other two lenses are primes they are zoom lenses

Thx DElliott. I think you are correct I'm just not seeing the value at almost $400 or more when you include the Lumix/LEICA mount.

I think this is more about the fact that I for some reason really want a LEICA lens and this one seemed within reach. LOL

I'd get the 14-45 as it's faster to focus, very good quality, and reasonably priced. Then add the 45-200 later.

Another choice would be to get the 14-140. Although it's large on a GF1 it would cover more focal lengths than just the 14-45.

Dave

Thanks Dave. I believe the 14-140 and 14-150HD are probably geared more toward movie making, plus the 14-150 is out of the range I'm willing to spend.

I'd buy LUMIX 14-45.
This lens corresponds to your camera in terms of overall quality and price.
Another contender looks like overkill.
--
DSC-R1, DMC-G1(14-45)

nvarner said:

I think this is more about the fact that I for some reason really want a LEICA lens and this one seemed within reach. LOL

Click to expand...

Then be aware that any Leica-branded lens in Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds mount is manufactured by Panasonic (which is why they are often referred to as "Panaleica"). There is some level of design and/or quality control input from Leica, but how much is the subject of much debate.

Anyway, if you really want a Leica lens, the m43 45/2.8 seems to be well liked by everyone who's decided to pony up for it.

Or if all you really want is to be able to say you have a Leica in your kit, you could look for an old Leica Hektor 135mm/f4.5. They are fairly inexpensive (about $150-300) in good condition, and can be quite fun to use on m43, though personally I'd put the money towards the Panasonic 45-200.

Yes, my point was that you can get another prime or two with good quality, perhaps a legacy Zeiss, for example, and not need a zoom to meet your needs at various focal lengths.

nvarner said:

Charles2 said:

Since you have the 20mm, why would you not want another prime somewhere from 25 to 50mm?

Click to expand...

Charles2 Eh? the 20mm is a prime (fixed) lens, neither of the other two lenses are primes they are zoom lenses

Click to expand...

nvarner said:

I've added a GF-1 to my cameras and I purchased it with the EVF and the pancake lens (20mm 1.7). I would like to add another lens but I having difficulty deciding between the following two and would like some advise:

LEICA D VARIO-ELMAR 14-50mm, F3.8-5.6 Lens for select Panasonic LUMIX® Digital Cameras

or

LUMIX G VARIO 14-45mm / F3.5-5.6 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. Lens for select Panasonic LUMIX® Digital Cameras

If I get the Leica I also have to add extra money for the mount. So the question becomes is this LEICA lens worth double the price I would pay for the LUMIX plus I would not need to buy the LECIA mount adapter, which ain't cheap either :-0.

Thank you in advance for your responses and help.

Click to expand...

I understand your interest. If you go for the vario-elmar, you do indeed get very good optical performance from it. But if you're going to go with the heft & size (& price premium, and slower focusing on µ4/3) of 4/3 Leica D, the vario-elmarit is a better choice w/ its brighter f/2.8-3.5 aperture spec. HOWEVER, the vario-elmarit doesn't af on your body, so it is out of contention. Bummer. So, you are left with the less capable cousin, the vario-elmar vs. the lumix G Vario 14-45. IMO, the lumix G vario 14-45 is actually quite a capable lens, optically speaking. It might not be quite as good as the Vario-Elmar. But you do gain practicality (size), usability (faster, quieter zoom), convenience (weight).

A much more attractive Leica-specified lens for you would be the 45mm f/2.8. You gain a portrait lens w/ a moderately large aperture (as opposed to f/5.6) & a Macro lens, both of which would complement the 20 f/1.7 nicely. If you did not have the 20f/1.7 and really wanted to blow your money on a 4/3 Leica D...I'd have suggested the 25mm f/1.4, which is quite special. But since you have the 20mm f/1.7, it would be too redundant.

A 14-45mm zoom plus the 20mm f/1.7 and 45mm f/2.8 would be quite a nice all-purpose kit for every-day shots & portraits, & low-light candids. You can do alot very well with such a kit. The longer telephoto zooms I would consider if you were interested being very active with outdoors birding/wildlife or sports shots. Wider zooms if you wanted unusually dramatic landscapes. But the first three I always go for are my general purpose zoom (14-45), my low-light prime (20), and my portrait prime (45).

One day, get a manual focus Leica M Summicron for your camera, just for fun.

--
'I have no responsibilities here whatsoever'

Awesome advise RoyGBiv. You've given me something to think about, I really appreciate the detailed reply.