Four Thirds lenses vs Micro Four Thirds lenses IQ

L0n3Gr3yW0lf wrote:

Hi, I am becoming more and more interested in trying Four Thirds lenses on my Panasonic GX7. Mainly because of price at the given image quality, I found, up for sale, an Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro for 60 Euros and an Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 I at 100 Euros,

Optically, the 35/3.5 macro is excellent and gives a true 1:1 (the 50/2 is 1:2). As noted by others focus is slow but it's a heck of a bargain for what it delivers. FWIW it is one of a handful of Oly 4/3 lenses that are CDAF-enabled, meaning you don't necessarily need an E-M1. Same goes for the Mkii edition of the 14-54. Either version is a good, fast standard zoom but only the Mkii will focus decently on all m4/3 bodies.

I found, up for sale, an Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro for 60 Euros and an Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm f 2.8-3.5 I at 100 Euros, and from what I have read they offer very good image quality. Also, an Olympus MMF-2 at 50 Euros (alternatively, if it's sold off before I can buy it, there's a Chinese made Four Thirds to Micro Four Thirds for 60 Euros) is up for sale.

Stick with either an Oly or Panny adapter. I've read too many issues with the knock-offs to trust they are made to spec, which is doubly important with wide angle lenses.

I know it's going to focus slow (very slow in low light) and it's going to be noisy too and I think I can live with that, for now, since I shoot mostly landscape at wider than 100mm and I will keep my Sigma 60mm f 2.8. I wonder, in terms if image quality, if Panasonic 12-32mm f 3.5-5.6 does offer better image quality (or the like of Panasonic 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 II / Panasonic X 14-42mm f 3.5-5.6 PZ / Olympus 12-50mm f 3.5-5.6, though these are more expensive).

The 14-54 is better than the lenses you list, but of course is somewhat limited versus a 12mm zoom. For 100 Euros it's not much of a risk to try it out. It originally came with pouch and hood, hopefully they're included. It's also weatherproof.

Oh, and should I try to go to a legacy 50/100mm f 3.5 macro lenses instead of the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 Macro ? From what I understand the wider angle gives more DOF and it would make it a bit easier to get the subject in focus, though the small working distance will make it hard for sensitive subjects not to be scared and fly away. And if a lens is 1:2 macro (when used in FF) shouldn't the magnification double when mounted on a Micro Four Thirds camera because of the 2x crop factor, making pseudo macro lenses into half macro and half macro lenses in full macro lenses and, subsequently, full macro lenses in 2:1 (like the Olympus Zuiko Digital 35mm f 3.5 ?

Generally speaking, macros are used in manual focus so AF isn't a big issue at least when shooting "true" macro. Longer macros are helpful in keeping your distance from the subject. My 35 has me so close I'm often throwing a shadow, which can be annoying.

Cheers,

Rick