Reading mode: Light Dark

20mm or 14-45 for a long biking trip

Go to last post
Ann-

I have both the zoom and 20mm. I am just too lazy to sell the zoom, every time I use it to take pictures, I feel that I should just sell it, the pictures are not up to the standard of 20mm (and they should not be given the cost). It is also very liberating to have a single focal length and stop thinking about zooming. I took both lenses on a trip, have not used the zoom once. If I get a second m43 lens, it will be a 14mm, or better yet a prime in 10-12mm range if they eventually make one. The lens I really want to have is a 17mm/0.95, i.e. the m43 equivalent of a Leica Summicron 35/1.4.

I'd say the best thing about m43 is its small size and portability. The moment you slap on a zoom that does the sensor justice, you kill the potability. If you want to keep the portability, you end up with a crappy zoom. The solution is to use primes, and 20mm lens demonstrated it very clear.

Alex
 
I have both lenses. My choice would be the 20. In place of the 14-45 take an Ultrapod, the tiny 5 ounce mini tripod. Now you can put yourself in the picture. You can also shoot wide panoramas by stitching together multiple images. And I think you will appreciate the extra speed of the 20 for poor weather and dimly lit photos.

alan
--
http://www.MotoEuro.org
 
Every year I take a 10-12 day ride with some friends. For the past couple of years I've made a book of some of the pictures I took (usually 75-100 images) and given a copy to my riding partners.

This summer I took the GF1 along with the 20mm and the 14-45. I didn't take even one picture with the 14-45.

I took most of the pictures as we were riding. I would reach into my bag, turn on the camera, hold it up in the direction I wanted to shoot and press the button.

I shot in aperture priority at iso 100 in raw. Lots and lots of keepers and I even stitched together a three shot panorama overlooking Crater Lake in California.

The GF1 with the 20 is light and versatile. I'd recommend it.
 
ricko5 said:
2. presuming you are not cycling alone you may not be the master timekeeper!
Click to expand...
Actually I do plan to do the trip alone - a bit of solo time to get my head together. So I don't have to worry about wasting other's time "zooming with my feet".
ricko5 said:
lets face it, if the light isnt right then a lot of the Pennines can just look like dull moorland and sky without the golden hour, tripods, research, filters and taking time over your shots.
Click to expand...
Exactly, whilst I love being in the Pennines (I've spent tons of time in the Peak District) without golden hour light it can look pretty boring. I should concentrate on the details more.
ricko5 said:
I live in the North West and would love to do that trip some day, let us know what you decide and how you go on and don't forget to show us the pics. Enjoy it either way.
Click to expand...
Definitely!
ricko5 said:
PS. Stitching pano shots is relatively easy so long as there isnt lots of foreground subject or detail in them.
Click to expand...
Giving it a try as we speak!
ricko5 said:
PPS. Is your Hexanon the 50 1.4?
Click to expand...
No, the 50 1.7. Pretty happy with it, but a bit too heavy to take on the trip.
 
Lots of great advice as always, and it's given me the confidence to stick with my preferred choice (the 20mm only).

If I was doing more traditional bike touring with a handlebar bag, I would take both, but as I'm going to be doing technical off road riding I don't have a handlebar bar and the G1 + zoom on my chest would be very uncomfortable for eleven days.

Appreciated.
 
...its pretty clear to me you were seeking justification rather than advice, given that you discounted all of the recommendations to take both or the 14-45 and found every possible angle of agreement with the recommendations to just take the 20.

If it was me and I was bound and determined to ONLY take a prime, I'd pony up for the new 14mm, which is finally widely available or possibly the Oly 17. I'd be really frustrated with a narrower lens on a trip like that - even the 17 would be marginal. But, again, I'd just take an LX5, so don't listen to me...

But your mind has been made up for a while, so take the 20 and have a great trip already!

But if you find yourself wishing you had the wider or longer options for some shots, don't come here to complain! ;)

-Ray
 
Ray Sachs said:
...its pretty clear to me you were seeking justification rather than advice, given that you discounted all of the recommendations to take both or the 14-45 and found every possible angle of agreement with the recommendations to just take the 20.
Click to expand...
You're right of course, I now realise I was looking for justification for my instinct to just take the 20mm. And if funds permitted I would pony up for the 14mm (and ideally the GF-2 to go with it) as it'd probably be a better choice, and I can't really make excuses not to carry both pancakes they're so small.

But I do appreciate all the recommendations to take both or the 14-45 and if it was a more traditional bike tour (with a handlebar bag) I would.

Thanks again everyone, and I promise not to come back and complain if I miss the 14-45 :-)
 
Few months and a couple of hundred shots later and I would like to expand on my input earlier. In bright light there isnt much in it. If you want to take advantage of the wide aperture, you need to carry an ND filter.

I now have the 20mm and the 14mm primes and guess what I will be getting the 45mm too.

I'm going up Kilimanjaro and I will be taking these for their low light gathering - I will be taking the zoom with me for convenience during the bright daylight, but I very much doubt that I will take the Zoom up the last night's push, and just rely on the 2 primes and a film compact with a 35mm lens.

I have found that the wider apertures the primes offer create another dimension to photography. No they dont have the focal length versatility of a zoom, but the difference in the depth of focus opportunity is another element altogether.
 
Take the 14-45. I recently went to Europe with the EPL2 14-42 and the 20 1.7 and used the 20 1.7 once. The 14-42 was so much more useful and I didn't have to keep switching lenses.
 
old thread, never mind!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top