Reading mode: Light Dark

Keep my 20mm f1.7 with this gear...?

Go to last post
M

mr pina

Well-known member
Messages
170
Solutions
1
Reaction score
5
Location
BE
For one year, I have been using my 20mm F1.7 lens and was very pleased with this little pancake. The last few weeks, I have been updating my gear resulting in an E-M5 with 12-50 kitlens. Then I bought the 25mm F1.4 and the Olympus 12mm F2.0

I was planning to return my 25mm F1.4 because beside its faster AF, I don't see any reason why I should keep that lens since it's so expensive and very similar to the 20mm. And even more important: it can not replace my 20mm as primary lens because it does perform very poor in video. That's the reason why I finally bought the 12mm F2.0: it's still pretty (very)decent in low light and is excellent als video shooting lens. Resulting in a very well performing all round lens for both video and stills.

Now I'm wondering: am I right that it's better to sell my 20mm to have a gear consisting of the 12mm f2.0 and the 25mm f1.4 s primary lenses? Instead of a 20mm f1.7 with a 12mm f.20? Since the differences between the 12mm and 25mm is greater than the 12mm compared to the 20mm?

I hope you understand what I'm talking about since my english is not my native language...
 
I'd keep the 12 and the 25.

Why do you think the 20mm is better for video? I've never thought of the 20mm 1.7 as a video lens.
 
no, the 1.7 is also terrible for movie recording. I'm going to abandon my 20mm as primary lens for my 12mm due to the lack of good videorecording. The 12mm can do both well, that's why. But my second lens, video recording is not important. That's why I'm doubting whether I should keep the 20mm or the 25mm. Keeping both is imo useless considering I have the 12mm too.

I'm thinking that the lens combination of 12mm f2.0 with the 25mm f1.4 is a better gear for more purposes than the 12mm f2.0 with the 20mm f1.7. But I'm wondering whether I'm thinking right
markintosh13 said:
I'd keep the 12 and the 25.

Why do you think the 20mm is better for video? I've never thought of the 20mm 1.7 as a video lens.
Click to expand...
 
Hi Mr Pina. English isn´t also my native languaje is spanish so excuses for my bad english inglish in first place.

I owned the 20mm, 12mm Zuiko and 45mm panaleica. I sell my 20mm 6 month ago when I´m planning to buy the new omd. I think it was a mistake.....I mean the 25mm is great but the differences in IQ are minimal, in the other hand the 20mm is half of the size and wheigt of the 25mm panaleica, and the in my case I prefer the 20mm perpective and , for me it is a better lenses for street shooting. Only if you are waiting for an update of the 17mm Oly , like me you would consider to sell the 20mm pana. I think the perspective of the 17mm lenses is better also than the 20mm and for street shooting would be great.
I hope this help you,
Best wishes,
Enrique
--
All we need is love
http://www.flickr.com/photos/montoablasa1/
 
Those are very subtle gear choices you are discussing here : 5mm and 1 stop or less aperture differences. It takes hands-on experience to distinguish.
You have the benefit of having all those lenses right now.
Just keep those that you like working with (ergonomics, quality, ...).
--
Roel Hendrickx

lots of images : http://www.roelh.zenfolio.com

my E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html
 
I had the 25 on my OMD for a week, but found the field of view too narrow for general street photography, which was my primary purpose for buying it. I returned that lens for the 20 which is just as fast in real life, cheaper, and now I can carry the body/lens easily in a jacket pocket. Size is important to me as I do a lot of hiking and climbing.

I also shoot a lot of video and find it essential to have a silent zoom lens. For that reason I have the 12-50 and 14-150 which I alternate between depending on the venue. The 75-300 I reserve for special occasions in the field or at events where I'm high up in the stands.

I also love the perspective of UWA which the 9-18 handles very nicely.

Dave
 
If it were me, I'd keep the 20mm because it's wider angle, but lighter/smaller, It can go in a pocket as an extra lens when I go out. In the days of film, most small rangefinder cameras with a fixed lens were in what would be 17mm to 20 mm today in m43 terms.

If the rumors are true about Olympus releasing a lower priced 25mm lens, you can have
that in the future.
 
Don't know why the pl25 performs poorly in video. In my experience with the GH1 the pl25 is amazing in video and still mode. The 20mm on the other hand is really bad for video, very noisy focusing when using the onboard mics. Since buying the PL25 I can't remember when I used the 20mm.
 
I have the 20 because it is light. I have the 25 because it separates the subject from the background better at larger apertures. They are both excellent. I believe that the 25 is actually a little better for video, but I am not a fan of video in still cameras...for that, I would want a dedicated video camera.
 
Jim T said:
The 20mm on the other hand is really bad for video, very noisy focusing when using the onboard mics.
Click to expand...
My appreciation of the Lumix 20mm for video was different before and after I have changed the settings of my OM-D from continuous auto-focus to single auto-focus (only when the shutter button is half-pressed).

Before, I was quite annoyed when the lenses would tried (sometimes in vain) to autofocus during shooting. Now, since the camera is autofocussing only before a series of videos, I don't have any problem. For example :

http://jpmartel.wordpress.com/2012/07/18/les-feux-dartifice-de-la-grece-a-montreal-le-17-juillet-2012/
 
I would spend the $600 or so return the 25 1.4 which is a great lens. If video is really important to you buy a video camera. They are not big and for video its the absolute best way to get crystal clear images and you have audio accessory options you do not have with a digital still camera in this price range.

The video cameras use the same type of memory card, SDHC. I shoot MFT's and have many years of video experience and it is always better to use the device for what it was made to do.

A digital camera uses video as a gimmick and for fun, nothing serious. You can take digital stills with a video camera. These cameras are maybe a 8 or 10 megapixel, very close to a digital camera, but I would not rely on a video camera to take digital stills.

Even if you bought one and returned it you would see a difference of why a dedicated video camera for video is a better use if you do not like what a $600 lens can do.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
mr pina said:
For one year, I have been using my 20mm F1.7 lens and was very pleased with this little pancake. The last few weeks, I have been updating my gear resulting in an E-M5 with 12-50 kitlens. Then I bought the 25mm F1.4 and the Olympus 12mm F2.0

I was planning to return my 25mm F1.4 because beside its faster AF, I don't see any reason why I should keep that lens since it's so expensive and very similar to the 20mm. And even more important: it can not replace my 20mm as primary lens because it does perform very poor in video. That's the reason why I finally bought the 12mm F2.0: it's still pretty (very)decent in low light and is excellent als video shooting lens. Resulting in a very well performing all round lens for both video and stills.

Now I'm wondering: am I right that it's better to sell my 20mm to have a gear consisting of the 12mm f2.0 and the 25mm f1.4 s primary lenses? Instead of a 20mm f1.7 with a 12mm f.20? Since the differences between the 12mm and 25mm is greater than the 12mm compared to the 20mm?

I hope you understand what I'm talking about since my english is not my native language...
Click to expand...
 
I had the PL 25mm for a few weeks and just didn't like the focal length and size. Sold it and went with a 20mm instead. IMO both are great lenses, but 20mm is just right for me (sharp, fast enough, and also a pancake!). I was surprised to also see that the 20mm I have is just as sharp as the 25, although with a bit less microcontrast. IQ on the 20mm is very good for the price. I plan on using the extra money from the sale of my 25mm for an Olympus 45mm, and maybe also get an eBay 14mm f/2.5.
 
Ummm ... no.

Most videocameras today can not keep up with a m4/3 body -- and definitely not a EM5 or GH2. I recently sold off my prosumer video gear and moved exclusively to m4/3 with no regrets. Better lens, better resolution, steady cam IBIS on the EM5. You need to spend significantly more more to get a better image.

And you'll be happy with the 12mm and 20mm. The 20mm is not perfect for video, but as long as you lock focus before shooting, it can be a great tool. I love look and use it often for video.
 
ryan2007 said:
A digital camera uses video as a gimmick and for fun, nothing serious. You can take digital stills with a video camera. These cameras are maybe a 8 or 10 megapixel, very close to a digital camera, but I would not rely on a video camera to take digital stills.
Click to expand...
Does GH1/GH2 ring a bell? They are favored for serious work by pros as professional video cameras, of course with additional attachments. Francis Ford Coppola just selected the GH2 as his favorite video camera. Pros usually don't use auto focus for video. This forum is mainly for M4/3 still shooting, but don't exclude some of them as serious video cameras. For recreational use it would be apparent to have AF with video.

To the OP: only you can decide which of the 2 lenses to use as both are great but with different FOV. You have to pict the FOV you are happy with and go with that.
 
When I say that video is important to me, than I don't mean that I want to produce professional video's. I just want to shoot casual video's of my family without constant blurring video's, that's all. When filming with the 20mm, the video is often blurred because it's focus hunting. Now that I'm using the 12mm, it doesn't occur anymore.
 
...just addressing the statement below that was made by another poster. Good luck with your decision.

"A digital camera uses video as a gimmick and for fun, nothing serious. You can take digital stills with a video camera. These cameras are maybe a 8 or 10 megapixel, very close to a digital camera, but I would not rely on a video camera to take digital stills."
 
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