I know that you have stated "Prime" but you might want to take a look at the Panasonic 12-32 zoom. It would take care of the wide end and not cost a lot of cash. From there, you could move on to the "normal' lens of your choice and maybe a short telephoto (like the 45). BTW the 12-32 is a sharp lens and it weighs next to nothing.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Buying First Prime(s) Questions - 20mm + Sigma 30mm & 60mm later? Or Conventional 25mm?
- Thread starter brad1242
- Start date
RaymondR
Senior Member
the 20 and the 45 were my first two m4/3 primes (not counting the 4/3 35mm 3.5 macro) and those two paired with the 40-150 was a solid three lens kit for me for a while. I think a fast prime spread from efl 40mm to 90mm is more useful than spread from 40 to 60, so I too would counsel the Oly 45 over the Sigma 30. The 20 was my always on the camera lens for quite a while. The need for something wider than the 20 led me to spring last year for the Oly 12-40 and since then the 20 still sees use but the 45 has been unused and I just got the Panny 35-100 2.8 so the 45 may go on the market soon.
Mark Thornton
Veteran Member
A quick google suggests it was bundled with the GF2 and GF3.
I've tried all the options, and recommend you bite the bullet and purchase a 12-35/2.8 Panasonic or 12-40/2.8 Olympus, depending on how much you value compactness. You're just playing games collecting (and constantly swapping) several cheap and slow primes, and you'll end up spending more.
The 12-35 and 12-40 both have 'bag-of-primes' image quality, and in reality are not expensive these days. There are new 12-35's on ebay for $640 shipped, with the 12-40 actually being a few dollars less.
And as m43 lens failures are rare as hens' teeth, warranty coverage is no issue. Dropping them on a hard surface is what kills m43 lenses, and the reality is a factory warranty does not cover this abuse.
As you're new to interchangeable lens cameras, you may not appreciate what a hassle trying to use three primes in place of one zoom is. If you want to maintain your photographic ambition at a high level, get a good zoom, with both the 12-35 and 12-40 being about as good as they get.
And 12mm on the wide end is something you'll need the Oly 12/2.0 to achieve, and it's a fair bit of change. The cheap wide-angle is the 14/2.5 Panasonic, and 12mm is in practice much more useful.
The 12-35 and 12-40 both have 'bag-of-primes' image quality, and in reality are not expensive these days. There are new 12-35's on ebay for $640 shipped, with the 12-40 actually being a few dollars less.
And as m43 lens failures are rare as hens' teeth, warranty coverage is no issue. Dropping them on a hard surface is what kills m43 lenses, and the reality is a factory warranty does not cover this abuse.
As you're new to interchangeable lens cameras, you may not appreciate what a hassle trying to use three primes in place of one zoom is. If you want to maintain your photographic ambition at a high level, get a good zoom, with both the 12-35 and 12-40 being about as good as they get.
And 12mm on the wide end is something you'll need the Oly 12/2.0 to achieve, and it's a fair bit of change. The cheap wide-angle is the 14/2.5 Panasonic, and 12mm is in practice much more useful.
Last edited:
None what so ever. The Sigma primes perform better on Micro Four Thirds as you're using a center crop of the lens. You will get better performance than with a Sony E mount camera. The bigger impact is the slow speed. That's the difference between F/3.4 equivalent with the 20/1.7 and F/5.6 with the Sigma 19mm, which is about 1.5stops of light gather and background blue you're not receive.
I see the biggest difference with primes and the reason why you use them on this format is to achieve a decent amount of light gather and an out of focus background which is hard to achieve with lenses slower than F/4. That's why I shoot primes.
The 20mm F/1.7 is a great place to start, I have that lens and its one of my favorite lenses, it's bright, it's sharp and its easy to get the defocussed background look you're looking for in your shots. By the time you hit F/5.6 everything will be in focus from 2metres to infinity. That makes it hard to actually achieve a defocused background unless you're standing right in front of someones face.
The 20mm F/1.7 makes a great informal portrait lens when you want to get a whole bunch of people in a shot. Once you step down to a 60mm (120mm) lens you're really at the end of the focus limitations for Micro Four Thirds, your lens will start to hunt, and you can only fit one person in the frame at best. I find the 45mm F/1.8 to be a good compromise.
Last edited:
Mark Thornton
Veteran Member
The only flaw with the 45mm is its minimum focus distance of 50cm, whereas the Panasonic 42.5 f1.7 focusses down to 31cm. Doesn't matter much for people, but you may notice if you turn your attention to the family cat (I did).
Correct, that's how I got mine. The price of the GF3+14 was the same as the 14 alone.
Isabel Cutler
Forum Pro
The 20 was the first lens I bought for a micro43 camera (the e-pl1) and I loved it, except for the occasional hesitation in locking focus - there's just something about that focal length that makes it extremely useful. I think its image quality is stunning, as well.
Annoyed by the slow focusing in darker venues, I bought the 17mm oly and haven't fallen in love with it, despite the fact that it's a useful focal length and it's nice and fast, and snappy to focus. By the way, I think the 20mm focuses more quickly on my gx7.
The 45 is a stellar lens and very useful for portraiture - gets you far enough away from the subject, but close enough to communicate with it!
Isabel
Annoyed by the slow focusing in darker venues, I bought the 17mm oly and haven't fallen in love with it, despite the fact that it's a useful focal length and it's nice and fast, and snappy to focus. By the way, I think the 20mm focuses more quickly on my gx7.
The 45 is a stellar lens and very useful for portraiture - gets you far enough away from the subject, but close enough to communicate with it!
Isabel
The Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 will focus quicker on Panasonic bodies, the Olympus 17mm F/1.8 will focus quicker on Olympus bodies. Put the Olympus 17mm F/1.8 on a Panasonic body and it will slow down in terms of focus speed, it's one of the quirks in the system.
I can't recommend buying slow primes, however cheap.
The first prime you get should be the Olympus 45/1.8. As nice as the 60/2.8 is, you will find it long indoors and slow in low light.
Don't get the Panasonic 20/1.7 for an E-M10. You may end up with unpredictable banding in high DR conditions. It is otherwise an excellent lens on other bodies.
The first prime you get should be the Olympus 45/1.8. As nice as the 60/2.8 is, you will find it long indoors and slow in low light.
Don't get the Panasonic 20/1.7 for an E-M10. You may end up with unpredictable banding in high DR conditions. It is otherwise an excellent lens on other bodies.
I've shot with the 20mm F/1.7 on my E-M5 for about 2 years now and have never hand banding ruin a photo, it's one of those things that gets thrown about in forums all the time which doesn't match the reality of actually shooting with the lens. Not to say it wont happen, but that I've shot a lot of shots even some at ISO3200 and I've never had banding ruin a shot.
What you're more concerned about with Olympus bodies is having the patience to get the shot you wanted. The focus speed issue is a more significant issue, particularly in low light.
What you're more concerned about with Olympus bodies is having the patience to get the shot you wanted. The focus speed issue is a more significant issue, particularly in low light.
Last edited:
Isabel Cutler
Forum Pro
I will have to check that out, but since I have both Oly and Panasonic bodies, the answer is obvious - use same brand lenses on same brand bodies!
I truly love BOTH my Olys and Panasonics (also have the GH2 which still produces gorgeous images, but isn't quite as good at higher ISOs)
Isabel
Fredrik Glckner
Veteran Member
Why not? There is nothing inherently wrong with less fast prime lenses. For example, I think the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens, which is probably made possible by the not very large maximum aperture of f/2.8.
If they would have made it faster, it would have required a more complicated optical formula with more compromises, and, worse image quality.
Both of these lenses are good. The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is not very good wide open, in my experience. For the best image quality, I would stop it down to f/2.8.
The Sigma 60mm f/2.8, on the other hand, is very sharp already wide open. See, for example, this comparison:
Sigma 60mm long portrait lens
Both lenses used here are designed for a larger sensor than in the cameras pictured: The Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN used on the Olympus E-M5 ...
m43photo.blogspot.com
I would not be afraid at all to use the Sigma 60mm wide open at f/2.8.
I do agree that the Sigma lens is a tad long, though. But in many cases, it is just as usable as the Olympus 45mm.
The situation with banding is similar to the one with shutter shock, some just can't see it whether it's there or not.
Wrt focus speed, I've benchmarked the 20 against my Olympus 12-50 on my E-M5 both indoors and outdoors and found the difference to be insignificant or nonexistent.
Corkcampbell
Forum Pro
No text
--
"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber
--
"Knowledge is good." Emil Faber
Last edited:
Because light matters and buying once is cheaper than buying twice.Why not? There is nothing inherently wrong with less fast prime lenses. For example, I think the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 is a stellar lens, which is probably made possible by the not very large maximum aperture of f/2.8.
If they would have made it faster, it would have required a more complicated optical formula with more compromises, and, worse image quality.
Both of these lenses are good. The Olympus 45mm f/1.8 is not very good wide open, in my experience. For the best image quality, I would stop it down to f/2.8.
The Sigma 60mm f/2.8, on the other hand, is very sharp already wide open. See, for example, this comparison:
Sigma 60mm long portrait lens
Both lenses used here are designed for a larger sensor than in the cameras pictured: The Sigma 60mm f/2.8 DN used on the Olympus E-M5 ...
I would not be afraid at all to use the Sigma 60mm wide open at f/2.8.
I do agree that the Sigma lens is a tad long, though. But in many cases, it is just as usable as the Olympus 45mm.
The 45 can be used wide open. If not, there's something wrong with the copy. There have been threads about that.
Fredrik Glckner
Veteran Member
I don't agree about the Sigma 19mm and Lumix 20mm. I think the Lumix 20mm f/1.7 is way better in terms of sharpness, see, e.g., a test here:
Loading…
m43photo.blogspot.com
Also, the Lumix 20mm lens is way smaller and lighter.
Sure, the Sigma 19mm does focus slightly faster. But the difference is of no significance in most cases.
Skeeterbytes
Forum Pro
The 20 is "wide normal " rather than wide angle. I'm not enamored of the current mid-wide selection but would probably go with the 15/1.7 among them. My primes are the 75, 12, 25, 45 and 20, listed in order of preference.
Cheers,
Rick
Cheers,
Rick
Mark Thornton
Veteran Member
My copy of the 45 improves a lot just stopping down to f2. I only go further when I want more DOF, and use f1.8 when desperate for light.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum