But for portraits I have come to prefer the "lowly" 45/1.8, which is not as uniformly sharp and balanced as the ft lens, but near eye detect works 100 per cent reliable with the mft lens, which it does not on the ft 50mm. I am getting much better results with the mft for portraits because I can shoot just using the screen for framing and every time I release the shutter I know that the eyes are tack sharp regardless of how I have composed the shot on the fly.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
43 lenses on EM1 - A Siren Song?
- Thread starter photofisher
- Start date
DonParrot
Senior Member
That's all history. Like the early display failures at the E-3. I have been using the 12-60 since 2009 and it has been working flawlessly throughout these years.
Well, the 12-60 focuses faster, clearly sharper, it produces a nicer bokeh and the two millimetres at the wide end are - as you say - vital. Incidentally, I'm hearing for the first time that the 14-54 is wide open at f2.4.
You can get a 12-60mm AND 50-200mm D.Zuiko for less than the price of a M43 2.8 zoom even at refurb price. No other system will offer you this much quality and this much range at such a low price.
Many people complain about the price of M43 2.8 lenses, in spite of their unique perks (e.g. the 12-35mm emulates a parfocal when refocusing during video, and the 12-40mm's excellent magnification). They counter with examples of how cheap a Sigma or Tamron F/2.8 zoom is for their system. But even those lenses, great value as they are, don't even come close to the iQ, build and value of a 4/3 zoom.
Many people complain about the price of M43 2.8 lenses, in spite of their unique perks (e.g. the 12-35mm emulates a parfocal when refocusing during video, and the 12-40mm's excellent magnification). They counter with examples of how cheap a Sigma or Tamron F/2.8 zoom is for their system. But even those lenses, great value as they are, don't even come close to the iQ, build and value of a 4/3 zoom.
Last edited:
No you can't really. Just make sure you stay within the hg/shg line of ft zooms. HG for the sweet spot as far as optical performance, build quality and size are concerned. SHG have the edge optically between f2.0-4.0 - at f5.6 I doubt you will see any difference in IQ vs the HG lenses. Especially the hg zooms are insanely cheap used. If your shooting does not depend on face detect and super fast af, ft zooms on the em1 are fantastic
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
photofisher
Senior Member
Not to belabor things but does the CDAF support of the 14-54 offer any real world m43 advantages like being able to use it on my GX7 or use CDAF features like face detection compared to the 12-60?
Family Man/Amateur Photographer
Family Man/Amateur Photographer
DonParrot
Senior Member
Let's put it this way: it will AF at about the same speed as the Lumix 20 1.7.
photofisher
Senior Member
Which one or both?
John King
Forum Pro
For goodness' sake, don't get both!
Buy one or the other and get a FT 9-18 with the balance!
Both 14-54 and 12-60 are excellent lenses optically. I understand that the latter edges out the former in some areas, and vice versa. The 14-54 is more robust, and is smaller and lighter. It is a nice match on my E-M1, not too big. As it is my walk around lens, this is important to me.
I got the mFT 12-50 with the E-M1, and it is smaller and lighter, but not as good optically as the 14-54 MkII, which is hardly surprising. It has faster AF, but not quite as accurate IMO.
Buy one or the other and get a FT 9-18 with the balance!
Both 14-54 and 12-60 are excellent lenses optically. I understand that the latter edges out the former in some areas, and vice versa. The 14-54 is more robust, and is smaller and lighter. It is a nice match on my E-M1, not too big. As it is my walk around lens, this is important to me.
I got the mFT 12-50 with the E-M1, and it is smaller and lighter, but not as good optically as the 14-54 MkII, which is hardly surprising. It has faster AF, but not quite as accurate IMO.
photofisher
Senior Member
John - I will only be getting one....I'm just wondering if the CDAF support of the 14-54 allows some of the CDAF features such as face detect or better focusing on CDAF bodies (like my GX7) versus the 12-60.
lambert4
Senior Member
Having had the SWD 50-200 on my EM-1 for a season of outdoor sports it is an excellent combination with or without the tele-converter and a recent acquisition of a used 75mm/1.8 I actually prefer the 4/3 lens. Now obviously in low light or specific conditions the f/1.8 will be far superior but to my eye and in use the SWD 50-200 in moderate to good light is very accurate very fast and has great IQ. The same is true of the newer PRO lens I am sure but at today's price you could almost get both the lens you referred to for the price of the PRO 40_150 and tele-converter and still not cover the same FL.
photofisher
Senior Member
Yep, these will mainly be outdoor in good light lenses. Thanks for the report......definitely going to get the 50-200 with one of the 43 zooms.
John King
Forum Pro
Gidday PF
Neither of the lenses nor the camera would reliably recognise this as a "face":
Having no one else here ATM, I had to make do with a ceramic sculptural head. Both the 14-54 MkII and the µFT 12-50 seemed able to detect this as a face, and focus on it. Please bear in mind that I had to work out how to set up FACE DETECT, and then see how it worked before trying this!!
With ALL the above caveats in mind, the 14-54 did track the face within its more limited focusing points range (81 vs whatever with the µFT lens) - i.e. it displayed a white square outlining the "face", and focused on that, just the same as did the 12-50.
12-50:
14-54 MkII:
EXIF data should be intact in all 3 images.
For a real life face, I can only hope it works better, because that is really what any camera that has this feature is designed to detect! Not that it worked at all badly with either lens. The fact that it worked at all with a 3D sculptured head and somewhat abstract 'face' amazes me.
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/
Bird Control Officers on active service.
I cannot under any circumstances speak for the lens behaviour on your GX7!
Neither of the lenses nor the camera would reliably recognise this as a "face":
Having no one else here ATM, I had to make do with a ceramic sculptural head. Both the 14-54 MkII and the µFT 12-50 seemed able to detect this as a face, and focus on it. Please bear in mind that I had to work out how to set up FACE DETECT, and then see how it worked before trying this!!
With ALL the above caveats in mind, the 14-54 did track the face within its more limited focusing points range (81 vs whatever with the µFT lens) - i.e. it displayed a white square outlining the "face", and focused on that, just the same as did the 12-50.
12-50:
14-54 MkII:
EXIF data should be intact in all 3 images.
For a real life face, I can only hope it works better, because that is really what any camera that has this feature is designed to detect! Not that it worked at all badly with either lens. The fact that it worked at all with a 3D sculptured head and somewhat abstract 'face' amazes me.
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/
Bird Control Officers on active service.
photofisher
Senior Member
Very cool, John. Thanks for doing that. No need to take more pictures but would face detection work with your other 43 lenses like your 50mm f2?
John King
Forum Pro
It surely does! Just tried some of them.
The f2/50 is actually less hesitant than either the FT 14-54 MkII or the µFT 12-50!
Even my venerable FT f/3.5-5.6 40-150 MkI works at 150 mm, albeit with a bit of hesitancy. After all, "face detect" wasn't even invented when it was made back in around 2003 ... ;-)
Just took a shot with each of them with much the same framing as the shots above.
Another thing that surprises me is that none of the lenses seemed to have the slightest inclination to lock onto the crowbar in the left part of the frame.
--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
(see profile for current gear)
Please do not embed images from my web site without prior permission
I consider this to be a breach of my copyright.
-- -- --
.
The Camera doth not make the Man (nor Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...
.
I am a Photography Aficionado ... and ...
"I don't have any problems with John. He is a crotchety old Aussie. He will smack you if you behave like a {deleted}. Goes with the territory." boggis the cat
.
Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/
Bird Control Officers on active service.
Parasin
Forum Enthusiast
Face detection works with 50mm f/2 on E-M1.
--
Nature produces the most beautiful Art.
--
Nature produces the most beautiful Art.
Face detect does work in principle also with ft lenses on the em1, but it will only focus as intended if the face/eye happens to be placed beneath one of the fewer phase detect af points! With mft lenses and contrast detect af this restriction does not exist (within the contrast af area). So in effect you can use face detect with ft lenses, but you cannot fully relie on it and it will also misfocus.
K
John King
Forum Pro
Not my experience, Klauser - very small at this point.
All 4 FT lenses were as good at face detect focus as my only mFT lens, the 12-50. Actually, most of them were better and more accurate than the 12-50!
The 12-50 routinely missed both the face detection, and focus when the subject was towards the corners. In fact, it was nearly as bad as my FT 14-42 was when the subject was towards the centre of the frame.
I will have to re-do this testing after I upgrade the E-M1 f/w from v.1.0 to v.3.0
All 4 FT lenses were as good at face detect focus as my only mFT lens, the 12-50. Actually, most of them were better and more accurate than the 12-50!
The 12-50 routinely missed both the face detection, and focus when the subject was towards the corners. In fact, it was nearly as bad as my FT 14-42 was when the subject was towards the centre of the frame.
I will have to re-do this testing after I upgrade the E-M1 f/w from v.1.0 to v.3.0
AF better than on the EP1/3, but still slowish. Rendering is excellent, so I keep using it
https://plus.google.com/photos/1109...6115416483644686018&oid=110955796927925538104
https://plus.google.com/photos/1109...6090551548134068818&oid=110955796927925538104
https://plus.google.com/photos/1109...6115416483644686018&oid=110955796927925538104
https://plus.google.com/photos/1109...6090551548134068818&oid=110955796927925538104
Last edited:
Parasin
Forum Enthusiast
klauser, I agree that face detect doesn't work outside the phase detection ; but how often would you compose a shot with the main subject being face (aka portrait) placed outside that area? I don't but if I did I'd probably compose so the subject was in phase detect area & it's focused, then simply re-compose.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum