Are pancake lenses good or bad?

I wish people would stop posting subject lines like this. It moves me to my puerile worst; I want to reply: depends whether you fry them in butter or oil.
Just because something tastes good doesn't mean it's not bad for you.
The other way 'round ... not so much.
Sorry folks, it just had to come out. :(
... no comment.
 
I wish people would stop posting subject lines like this. It moves me to my puerile worst..." blah blah blah...
Are you really that unstable?
From the perspective of experienced forum members here, the phrasing of the title assumes Olympus and Panasonic each have a line of bad lenses which is, on its face, a ridiculous idea. You can see from some of the replies that Hen3ry isn't alone in having had enough of that silly idea.
 
I wish people would stop posting subject lines like this. It moves me to my puerile worst..." blah blah blah...
Are you really that unstable?
Now, now, that's not a very nice thing to say to Geoff; he was just making a mild little joke. Keep in mind he lives in the jungles of New Guinea (seriously). There's probably not as much to do there for entertainment as there is in more metropolitan areas, so he has to find his amusement where he can. :)

Besides, he and Guy Parsons (the Australian chap who made the companion remark about syrup) are highly respected members of this forum, and contribute a LOT to it. They are good people.

Purely FYI
 
I wish people would stop posting subject lines like this. It moves me to my puerile worst..." blah blah blah...
Are you really that unstable?
Now, now, that's not a very nice thing to say to Geoff; he was just making a mild little joke. Keep in mind he lives in the jungles of New Guinea (seriously). There's probably not as much to do there for entertainment as there is in more metropolitan areas, so he has to find his amusement where he can. :)
He lives in a more civilised society than we in Sydney seem to live in.
Besides, he and Guy Parsons (the Australian chap who made the companion remark about syrup) are highly respected members of this forum, and contribute a LOT to it. They are good people.

Purely FYI

--
Tom
Thanks Tom, the check/cheque is in the mail! :-)

Regards.... Guy
 
I suppose there is a trade off or all lenses would be pancakes. Maybe my 20/1.7 would have great corners instead of merely good ones if it were not a pancake. (They are plenty good enough for me though). Those more versed in optics could give the why's and how's.
 
I've heard some sources saying they give inferior photo quality. Other sources saying they give good photo quality. Does it depend on the individual lens?
I have the Olympus 17mm 2.8 and it has good photo quality. I also have the two Olympus camera cap lenses, and they are 'interesting'. The neat thing about a pancake lens is that it enables me to slip my OM-D E-M5 into my jacket pocket and get good photos. I do not know about the pancake zooms, but the whole bit about the jacket pocket would still be true. I use my 17mm 2.8 frequently, and not just because it renders my gear more portable, and it is not technically a real good lens, just good enough.

The 17mm and fisheye camera cap are usually in my camera bag, they are so small.

enjoy!
 
Last edited:
If I had to pick just one I would go with "good".
 
I wish people would stop posting subject lines like this. It moves me to my puerile worst..." blah blah blah...
Are you really that unstable?
Yes, and happy in my rock-n-roll world! :)
Now, now, that's not a very nice thing to say to Geoff; he was just making a mild little joke. Keep in mind he lives in the jungles of New Guinea (seriously). There's probably not as much to do there for entertainment as there is in more metropolitan areas, so he has to find his amusement where he can. :)
He lives in a more civilised society than we in Sydney seem to live in.
Hmmm. Debatable, that. But at least the locally baked lamingtons are well up to the mark.
Besides, he and Guy Parsons (the Australian chap who made the companion remark about syrup) are highly respected members of this forum, and contribute a LOT to it. They are good people.

Purely FYI
 
My thanks too, Tom. my check's in the mail too, but I can say with fair confidence that by the time it arrives, it will be outdated! Mail around here is not speedy. I remember the days when the airlines gave mail absolute priority. Not any more; it is last on these days. :)
On the mail issue I can recall from my 9 months spent in London in 1965 that we 4 Aussies in the same rental used to keep an eye on the postal speed from Australia. Airmail letters from Sydney and Adelaide varied from 2 weeks worst to the best at 2 days to get to us.

Not sure that they could manage 2 days now from Sydney to London.

Faster planes have slowed down the mail?

Regards.... Guy
 
Charley --

i have both the 12-32 and 12-40 (and the Panny 14-45 and the Panny 14-42 and the Oly 14-42), with which i have shot quite a bit. I shoot the 12-32 on a PL7 and the 12-40 on an EM5 w/HLD6.

"No" the 12-32 does not equal the consistent corner-to-corner performance of the Oly or, obviously, the aperture. But for a take-anywhere kit the size of a digicam it yields stunning images and noticeably better than the run-of-the-mill m4/3 kit lenses, at least in my experience.

Understanding its limitations, i do not see how you can regret this lens. Get the flippy-auto-lensy-cappy thing; the best $15 you will ever spend.

All that said, the 12-40 is the best mid-zoom that i have shot in any format in 40 years of shooting, and a good excuse not use primes when weight isn't binding.

-- gary ray
Semi-professional in early 1970s; just a putzer since then. interests: historical sites, virginia, motorcycle racing. A nikon user more by habit than choice; still, nikon seems to work well for me.
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top