Canon DSLR to Micro-Four-Thirds Lens "equivalents"

Hello,

I'm in the transition from going from my heavy Canon DSLR + lens collection to micro four thirds, and I'm actually thinking of replacing some of my DSLR lenses with micro four thirds "equivalents" (in performance, focal length range, etc.), however, I haven't found direct comparable lenses for some, so I'd like your input/tips on this. I'm currently still on an E-PL3 (bought refurbished for testing, but liked it so much that I'm now thinking of switching entirely to m43), but thinking of buying either a OM-D or E-P5, or, if funds don't suffice, at least an E-PL5.

One lens I'm trying to replace is my very much beloved EF-S 15-85mm which is optically excellent with great IS. Are there any m43 lenses that start at 24mm (eq), and have a longer reach than the 14-42mm kit lenses aside from the 12-50mm kit lens? How does the 12-50mm compare to the EF-S 15-85mm?

Also, is the Oly 60mm Macro comparable in performance to the EF 100mm F2.8L IS macro in terms of sharpness?

There are the two lenses that I'd replace first (they are also my most expensive and heaviest Canon lenses I have thus far). If there are decent replacement for those lenses, going all m43 would be a viable option for me.

Thanks in advance for any tips on this!

For more reach, the 14-140 is probably about as good as youll get

I wouldn't buy an OM-D or E-P5 right now. There are strong rumours that new ones are coming out in two months time (Sept'). So either wait for prices to drop on the existing kit or wait and see what they release at that point.

The rumours are they might release a "low end" OM-D and a "high end" OM-D while leaving the existing one in production. However this won't stop the existing one's price from coming down a little.

As far as your 15-85 goes, you'll want the 12-50mm. 15-85mm in full frame equivalent is 24-136, the 12-50mm is 24-100mm in full frame equivalent. So you'll loose a little at the high end but still get to keep your wide-angle. You could go with something with a little more reach, but the joy of owning a 15-85 is the wide-angle.

Plus if you up the megapixels from whatever you own now, you could always simulate the additional reach using crop (aka "digital zoom").

tokugawa said:

tokugawa wrote:

Hello,

I'm in the transition from going from my heavy Canon DSLR + lens collection to micro four thirds, and I'm actually thinking of replacing some of my DSLR lenses with micro four thirds "equivalents" (in performance, focal length range, etc.), however, I haven't found direct comparable lenses for some, so I'd like your input/tips on this. I'm currently still on an E-PL3 (bought refurbished for testing, but liked it so much that I'm now thinking of switching entirely to m43), but thinking of buying either a OM-D or E-P5, or, if funds don't suffice, at least an E-PL5.

One lens I'm trying to replace is my very much beloved EF-S 15-85mm which is optically excellent with great IS. Are there any m43 lenses that start at 24mm (eq), and have a longer reach than the 14-42mm kit lenses aside from the 12-50mm kit lens? How does the 12-50mm compare to the EF-S 15-85mm?

Also, is the Oly 60mm Macro comparable in performance to the EF 100mm F2.8L IS macro in terms of sharpness?

There are the two lenses that I'd replace first (they are also my most expensive and heaviest Canon lenses I have thus far). If there are decent replacement for those lenses, going all m43 would be a viable option for me.

Thanks in advance for any tips on this!

Click to expand...

Hi,

I have a Canon 50D with 17-85 which is somewhat inferior to its successor the 15-85 that you have. I think the 12-50 is a much better lens than the 17-85 and is also better sealed against the elements, I'm not sure how it compares to the 15-85, but I never felt the advantages of the 15-85 were worth the upgrade cost from the 17-85 after reading the reviews.

I have to say I'm very impressed with the quality of 12-50, considering its cost, I think it's a bargain especially if you get it as a kit with the OMD. Incidentally there's a good macro option on the 12-50. It's not quite one-to-one but it has proven very useful for me when just mozying about with the OMD and one lens.

The 60mm lens (120mm equiv) is every bit as good as my Sigma 150EX Macro and a darned site lighter. I know which I prefer to carry around. Focuses quick for a macro too.

Like another poster mentioned there are a few rumours about an imminent(ish) replacement of the OMD. It might serve to hold off a while on the camera itself and see what comes up in the autumn.

Greg

I made the move from Canon dslr + lenses to m43 just over a year ago.

The E-M5 was what made me switch. For years I didn't like the large size and weight of my Canon gear but nothing smaller was really of acceptable (image) quality.

I never had the 15-85IS. I did have the 17-85IS which wasn't great. I replaced it with the 17-55IS which was phenomenal. Best lens I have ever seen. I also had the 18-200IS for travel and that was not nearly as bad as its reputation. I've had my share of EF-S and third-party lenses and the m43 offerings are not really comparable: some better, some worse.

Replacing the 15-85IS by the 12-50 makes perfect sense. My 12-50 isn't excellent at 12mm but longer focal lengths are pretty good. Nothing I would describe as optically excellent but maybe we have different standards. The best part about the 12-50 is its macro setting. Of course it is not a dedicated macro lens (which I wouldn't want anyway) but it does surprisingly well there.

I do value balance and to some extent pocketability also. The 12-50 isn't large by any standard yet it does make the E-M5 look bigger than I like. I got the 14-42X collapsible lens and really like that. Not as wide and no macro but the E-M5 with 14-42X is a very handy small package.

If you must have excellence and 12mm at the wide end the Panasonic 12-35 is currently the only option. But rumors have it Olympus may be coming out with a fast 12-40 zoom (they have filed a patent at least) and I'm waiting for that.

There are excellent lenses for m43. I have the 20mm f/1.7 and that is simply razor sharp and a joy to use (when the light is low and 20mm is the focal length you want).

So if you just want to make the final move when the right lenses appear I would hold on to your 15-85IS and body for now until Olympus makes a move.

--

Slowly learning to use the Olympus OM-D E-M5.
Public pictures at http://debra.zenfolio.com/.

Having used both I can confirm that the Olympus 12-50mm is not as good optically as the Canon EF-S 15-85. However it is much smaller, lighter, less expensive and comes with a good macro setting which could eliminate the need for a separate macro lens for many users. The top zoom lens combination for M43 at the moment is the Lumix pair of 12-35 and 35-100mm both f2.8. Not cheap but they are very good. I rate the 12-35mm on GH3 as slightly better than the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 on Canon APS-C (60D) due to the built in correction for distortion and CA with the Lumix system. I also rate the 35-100 f2.8 on GH3 as slightly better than the EF 70-200mm f4 IS on EOS 60D. You get a lot of choice with M43 but you might have to consider some slightly different combinations of focal length equivalents. By the way the Lumix 14-45mm is a very good (optically better than the Olympus 12-50mm) general purpose standard zoom at a sensible price.

axlotl said:

axlotl wrote:

Having used both I can confirm that the Olympus 12-50mm is not as good optically as the Canon EF-S 15-85. However it is much smaller, lighter, less expensive and comes with a good macro setting which could eliminate the need for a separate macro lens for many users. The top zoom lens combination for M43 at the moment is the Lumix pair of 12-35 and 35-100mm both f2.8. Not cheap but they are very good. I rate the 12-35mm on GH3 as slightly better than the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 on Canon APS-C (60D) due to the built in correction for distortion and CA with the Lumix system. I also rate the 35-100 f2.8 on GH3 as slightly better than the EF 70-200mm f4 IS on EOS 60D. You get a lot of choice with M43 but you might have to consider some slightly different combinations of focal length equivalents. By the way the Lumix 14-45mm is a very good (optically better than the Olympus 12-50mm) general purpose standard zoom at a sensible price.

Click to expand...

That's kind of depressing.

I mean the 15-85 is a really sharp lens in my opinion, so getting up to that level of sharpness can be tricky, but the fact that the only things that do cost 50% more than the 15-85 is depressing.

The 15-85 is $699.00. The 12-35 is $1,139. So 50%+ markup, and you lose range in the process (but, yes, gain speed).

Really does make me stop and think if I want to get into m43 right now if the 12-50 is so far behind where I thought it was. I mean nobody ever claimed it was a fast lens, but I was hoping for 15-85 levels of sharpness...

It's about this sharp.

Leaving sharpness and "fast-glass" out of the discussion for the moment... (though the limited m43 fast glass options could be swapped in)

M43 has let me put a very versatile super lightweight collection of lenses into a startlingly small bag.

My bag (a small Lowepro Fastpack 100) contains:

Olympus PL5;

Battery charger and ducks-head plug + spare battery;

Metz 50 AF-1 flash; 4 extra AA batteries + charger;

Oly 14-42 kit lens (28-84mm FF equiv fov)

Oly 14-150 travel zoom (28-300 FF equiv fov)

Oly 45mm 1.8 prime (90 mm FFeqFov)

Panasonic 20mm 1.7 (40mm FFeqFov)

Step rings to and a variable ND that fit all of the above lenses;

37mm CP filter

Olympus "macro" (close up really) converter lens that fit the 14-42, 14-150 and 45mm lenses

Olympus wide converter lens for the 14-42 (takes it from 14 (28)mm wide to 11 (22) mm wide)

Camera USB cables, extra card, earbuds, lens wipes

I haven't really had any experience with macro or wide angle photography before, so I figure the converter filter lenses will let me dabble, and provides my bag with some additional options for the rare occasion when a little more closeup or wideness would be handy.

Manip16 said:

Manip16 wrote:

Manip16 said:

axlotl wrote:

Having used both I can confirm that the Olympus 12-50mm is not as good optically as the Canon EF-S 15-85. However it is much smaller, lighter, less expensive and comes with a good macro setting which could eliminate the need for a separate macro lens for many users. The top zoom lens combination for M43 at the moment is the Lumix pair of 12-35 and 35-100mm both f2.8. Not cheap but they are very good. I rate the 12-35mm on GH3 as slightly better than the EF-S 17-55 f2.8 on Canon APS-C (60D) due to the built in correction for distortion and CA with the Lumix system. I also rate the 35-100 f2.8 on GH3 as slightly better than the EF 70-200mm f4 IS on EOS 60D. You get a lot of choice with M43 but you might have to consider some slightly different combinations of focal length equivalents. By the way the Lumix 14-45mm is a very good (optically better than the Olympus 12-50mm) general purpose standard zoom at a sensible price.

Click to expand...

That's kind of depressing.

I mean the 15-85 is a really sharp lens in my opinion, so getting up to that level of sharpness can be tricky, but the fact that the only things that do cost 50% more than the 15-85 is depressing.

The 15-85 is $699.00. The 12-35 is $1,139. So 50%+ markup, and you lose range in the process (but, yes, gain speed).

Really does make me stop and think if I want to get into m43 right now if the 12-50 is so far behind where I thought it was. I mean nobody ever claimed it was a fast lens, but I was hoping for 15-85 levels of sharpness...

Click to expand...

If you ever fancied the Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L the Panasonic 12-35mm f2.8 is the equivalent of that, but its half the cost, half the size and half the weight

The Olympus 12-50mm will come close to your canon lens and it really isn`t as bad as some people make out.

Thanks. Bit of a mixed bag there in terms of sharpness, I can definitely see what you mean about 12mm on that lens. Definitely not up to 15mm on the 15-85.

Member said:

Manip16 wrote:

Thanks. Bit of a mixed bag there in terms of sharpness, I can definitely see what you mean about 12mm on that lens. Definitely not up to 15mm on the 15-85.

Click to expand...

These were all taken at the 12mm end of the 12-50mm, I don`t find it all that bad as kit lenses go.

I had the 15-85. It is an excellent lens, perhaps Canon's best non-L zoom.

Now I have the Olympus 12-50 and 14-150 lenses, neither of which is anywhere near as good optically as the EFS 15-85.

That being said, unless you are a pixel peeper or plan to make cropped 16x20 or larger prints it doesn't matter. Both are good lenses for general use if not as good as the Canon. I switched to M43 for the size and weight advantage. The 12-50 and 14-150 together weigh little more than the 15-85 alone.

Bear in mind that images in these threads are rendered in mid-definition. You have to click on "see original size" or "see my gallery page" to get a sense of sharpness and detail.

I made that change so can offer my experience (sample of one in each case)

For me, yes, it is as sharp on the EM-5 compared with the 100mm on 5Dmk2 and 7D.

Bokeh is not quite as creamy as it was with the 5Dmk2 but I would rate it at least as good (if not better than with my 7D (remember - its a sample of one, others may see it differently)

For me its significantly better hand-holding when macro shooting and with the EM-5 IBIS its at least a match for the stabilisation in the 100LIS on the 7D (which was my "Gold Standard" before)

It is ideal for the combined "Acquire the subject with AF, then lock by half-shutter press and rock to final focus" technique)

Its my favourite tool in the M4/3rds line-up

If you are interested, here are some recent macro-shots using this combo for a project of photographing the proboscis of feeding bees

http://imagesfromnature.foliopic.com/gallery/bumble-bees-feeding-18693

I agree that the oly 12-50 is better than the ef-s 17-85, but the ef-s 15-85 is better than the 12-50.

MatsP said:

MatsP wrote:

I agree that the oly 12-50 is better than the ef-s 17-85, but the ef-s 15-85 is better than the 12-50.

Click to expand...

I can`t really speak of Canon, I switched from Canon to 4/3 then to M4/3.

MatsP said:

MatsP wrote:

I agree that the oly 12-50 is better than the ef-s 17-85, but the ef-s 15-85 is better than the 12-50.

Click to expand...

I agree that the 15-85 is better than the 17-85, I think I said that? Although I'd like to test them both between 50mm and 85mm. The 17-85 is yuk from 17 to okay at 24 but from 24mm to about 80mm it's not that bad a lens.

The 12-50 is not so brilliant at 12 but from 14/15 on-wards it's pretty good, for a slow kit zoom on an OMD with ibis. From reviews the 15-85 is best between 15-30mm i.e: the opposite of the 17-85 that I own and use, but not so good from 30mm on. (My 17-85 is about as sharp at 50mm f5.6 as my 50mm f1.4 at f5.6). The 15-85 is still a better lens though - no argument. The 12-50mm Oly is not that well received but I suspect some of that has to do with with comparisons to the stellar full 4/3 lenses of similar focal length.

If the 17-85 is a bit worse than the 12-50 but the 15-85 is a bit better. How much better is the 15-85 to make me think. Oh! no, I need throw away my 17-85 get the 15-85 and then be disappointed with my OMD 12-50 combo because now that's junk too

I guess what I'm trying to illustrate is that no-one interested in the pictures you shoot is really that interested in the minutia of lens specifics and going to ask "Which lens were you using?" The fact is the difference between a 15-85 / 17-85 / 18-55 EF-S Canons and a 12-50 / 14-45 m4/3s etc etc. is more or less semantics. They are all consumer grade compromises. (Horses for courses)

So if this consumer grade 15-85 EF-S APS-C kit lens is so much better than the 12-50mm Olympus kit - and to help the OP with his original questions: Which walk-around zoom lens in the M4/3 line up can he get to help him contend with his excellent 15-85 EF-S lens or is he doomed to misery in the m4/3 arena with such aspirations?.

Maybe you could help?

Regards

Greg

The 60 / 2.8 I think you be fine with as a replacement. It's super sharp and has a proper focus limiter.

The 12-50 is a mixed bag. It's strong point is probably the macro setting, otherwise I find it sharpest at the wide end and quite soft at the long end. I've held onto it for macro and for times when I need weather sealing or zoom, but it's not the greatest. If you can get it cheap as part of a kit it's worth having, though.

I think M43 is still very much a system for prime shooters unless you want to shell out for the F2.8 zooms.