What small lenses?

gary0319 · Aug 4, 2024

g7_chord said:
gary0319 said:

OM-5 and14-42EZ in Hand Held Hi Rez mode.

Click to expand...

Doesn't Hi-Rez mode take multiple exposures? How did that work with the moving water? Or maybe the effect was beneficial, equivalent to the long exposure that is usually used with moving water?

Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

MJ_Photo38 · Aug 4, 2024

Bassam Guy said:
IMHO: Personally, I prefer a better sensor, more features, better AF (PDAF!) using the strap lugs for carrying vs worse sensor, fewer features, worse AF using a PD clip for carrying. I upgraded from the II to the III and, except to swap in fresh batteries, I have only used my E-M5 II once since 2019. I have the same opinion regarding how the body feels.

On one hand : I agree with you.

On the other : I don't much care about absolute image quality. I also don't much care about autofocus performance, my style of shooting is generally not requiring fast AF (or even C-AF at all) when I'm travelling. For a while, my travel camera was a Fujifilm X100 original, which has an older 12MP APS-C, no PDAF at all and no C-AF to speak of. This was absolutely fine by me. I wanted an ILC, because the 23mm fixed lens ended up being a little restrictive, and I didn't like the bulk of the conversion lenses so I added an X-T camera, but then I realized that besides a couple of options, Fujifilm really don't have a pancake lens lineup. Which aimed me to Micro Four Thirds.

The features I'm interested in are the Live composite and Live bulb mode, as well as pixel shift super resolution, to an extend (As well as all the goodies of MFT that are also included in other cameras : IBIS, nice lenses ect). All of which are included in the E-M5ii.

If I want a better sensor and PDAF... well I have my Fuji X-T2 ans Nikon Z6 for that. Same goes regarding the better sensor. I already looked at this in detail, and I really don't need more than what the older 16MP sensor is providing me. I tried using both my Fuji kit and my Nikon Z6 (cameras that I generally use for gigs and event photography, less and less for my personal worh where I tend to downsize my gear as much as possible : currently using an X100S paired with an LX5. A bit too many compromises, especially regarding the chargers and battery types I have to carry with me).

I use smaller sensor cameras, as well as much older cameras on the side (Lumix LX5, Nikon D2X / D300,...) and those cameras have much worse sensors than this 16MP MFT when it comes to noise, dynamic range,... I think I'll be alright.

Not using your E-M5ii when yhou have the E-M5iii is absolutely normal. The same thing happened to me when I upgraded my Fujifilmn X-T1 to a Fujifilm X-T2... you have in your hands basically the same camera but better in almost every way, there isn't any point in using the older one, and keeping it as a backup or a second body when you need one are generally the only reasons why it's not sold already.

Photongraphy · Aug 4, 2024

MJ_Photo38 said:
Hi everyone, so basically I am planning on getting a micro four third kit in the coming months.

Lokking at the kind of money that I allow myself on dropping on such a kit, I have decided I wanted to go with the E-M5 mark II as it seems pretty well ballanced feature wise, has the characteristics I want and it fits within my budget.

My plan was to "get a couple of pancake lenses" but now that I'm looking a little bit more in the MFT system I realize that it's not that simple and that small lens options are numerous, enough for you to get lost in it and not knowing what you want to buy anymore.

Lenses I plan on (maybe) getting :

- Olympus 12mm f/2

- Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (love the focus clutch feature and they stay relatively compact_

- Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake (I'll only get one 17mm though)

- Lumix 14mm f/2.5

- Lumix 20mm f/1.7

- Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (I want a small portrait lens in my kit, this seems like the best option)

- Lumix 12-32 or Olympus 14-42 pancake

- maybe the Lumix 35-100 if I want a little bit more reach, but the goal is really to keep it as small as possible.

- maybe the small body cap f/8 lenses (both the 9mm and 15mm seem fun to use)

Are there other small lens options that are really worth considering?

Photongraphy · Aug 4, 2024

Danielvr said:
Danielvr said:

Lokking at the kind of money that I allow myself on dropping on such a kit, I have decided I wanted to go with the E-M5 mark II as it seems pretty well ballanced feature wise, has the characteristics I want and it fits within my budget.

Click to expand...

I usually favor glass over electronics, but in this case I'd recommend that you get one less lens and apply the savings towards a body that has phase-detection autofocus, e.g. the E-M5 III or, for even better overall performance and longevity, the E-M1 II.

If you still get the E-M5 II, you may want to rethink getting the Panny 20mm f/1.7 because its focusing will be very slow (and if I remember correctly, C-AF won't even work on CDAF-only bodies).

This may be true for your kind of shooting, but remember CDAF is not blistering fast but quick and accurate and people exist who just don't need PDAF.

Barry Twycross · Aug 4, 2024

Of those I always take the 12-32, and 20/1.7. They're small enough to always have with you.

I never got the 12/2, it doesn't look particularly small, the 12-32 works really well as a 12mm lens.

I never liked the 14/2.5, despite being tiny. It never seemed to render as good as the 12-32.

The 35-100 (the f4-5.6 version, not any other) is a marvelous small lens, but I've started carrying the 45-150 instead, for a little more reach. The 45-150 is a good compromise.

The 9/8 bodycap is an amusing lens, but these days I take the PL 9/1.7. The 9/1.7 is a bit on the big side for a "small" lens, but is very light, takes excellent pictures, and is fast. It's a great lens for museums, or other dim, confined spaces. Goes great with the 20/1.7.

My standard kit these days is

12-32, 9/1.7, 20/1.7, 45-150.

On the longer side, the Oly 75/1.8 is surprisingly compact for a longish, fast lens, but I need a good reason to take it with me.

cameron2 · Aug 4, 2024

MJ_Photo38 said:
Hi everyone, so basically I am planning on getting a micro four third kit in the coming months.

Lokking at the kind of money that I allow myself on dropping on such a kit, I have decided I wanted to go with the E-M5 mark II as it seems pretty well ballanced feature wise, has the characteristics I want and it fits within my budget.

The mark iii has PDAF, which makes a substantial difference (IMHO). Should be able to pick one up relatively cheap these days ... maybe wait for "black friday"?

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 12mm f/2

Compact well regarded.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (love the focus clutch feature and they stay relatively compact_

Compact but just OK lens. I don't have it.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake (I'll only get one 17mm though)

Not a great lens.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Lumix 14mm f/2.5

Compact but not high IQ. I actually love the lens (some GREAT photos with this one), but it's not a great lens from a technical POV.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Lumix 20mm f/1.7

Compact well regarded.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (I want a small portrait lens in my kit, this seems like the best option)

Compact well regarded.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Lumix 12-32 or Olympus 14-42 pancake

The Lumix is amazing for a kit lens. Highly suggest the auto-cap for it (I have one but don't remember the brand or make).

I don't know the Oly 14-42; I've seen it on friends' cameras but no one every bragged or complained.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- maybe the Lumix 35-100 if I want a little bit more reach, but the goal is really to keep it as small as possible.

Compact well regarded.

MJ_Photo38 said:
Are there other small lens options that are really worth considering?

* Laowa 4mm f/2.8 Fisheye

And in the "relatively small" category:

* Pany 7-14

* Oly 75 f1.8

Macros are their own subject. Lots of good choices there.

Bassam Guy · Aug 4, 2024

MJ_Photo38 said:
Bassam Guy said:

IMHO: Personally, I prefer a better sensor, more features, better AF (PDAF!) using the strap lugs for carrying vs worse sensor, fewer features, worse AF using a PD clip for carrying. I upgraded from the II to the III and, except to swap in fresh batteries, I have only used my E-M5 II once since 2019. I have the same opinion regarding how the body feels.

Click to expand...

On one hand : I agree with you.

On the other : I don't much care about absolute image quality. I also don't much care about autofocus performance, my style of shooting is generally not requiring fast AF (or even C-AF at all) when I'm travelling. For a while, my travel camera was a Fujifilm X100 original, which has an older 12MP APS-C, no PDAF at all and no C-AF to speak of. This was absolutely fine by me. I wanted an ILC, because the 23mm fixed lens ended up being a little restrictive, and I didn't like the bulk of the conversion lenses so I added an X-T camera, but then I realized that besides a couple of options, Fujifilm really don't have a pancake lens lineup. Which aimed me to Micro Four Thirds.

Most of the so-called pancakes are not pancakes but poori because they puff up when in use.

Poori, all air & steam inside

MJ_Photo38 said:
The features I'm interested in are the Live composite and Live bulb mode, as well as pixel shift super resolution, to an extend (As well as all the goodies of MFT that are also included in other cameras : IBIS, nice lenses ect). All of which are included in the E-M5ii.

Only downside here is the awkwardness of reaching Live Composite by going to Manual & setting the exposure past 60 secs... but that's not life threatening. IDK if other companies have Live Composite or similar but it is a lot of fun. LC Fireworks are my favorite.

Except for a moderate cropping advantage, the 5.3 has only some but not a lot of IQ advantage.

MJ_Photo38 said:
If I want a better sensor and PDAF... well I have my Fuji X-T2 ans Nikon Z6 for that. Same goes regarding the better sensor. I already looked at this in detail, and I really don't need more than what the older 16MP sensor is providing me. I tried using both my Fuji kit and my Nikon Z6 (cameras that I generally use for gigs and event photography, less and less for my personal worh where I tend to downsize my gear as much as possible : currently using an X100S paired with an LX5. A bit too many compromises, especially regarding the chargers and battery types I have to carry with me).

I use smaller sensor cameras, as well as much older cameras on the side (Lumix LX5, Nikon D2X / D300,...) and those cameras have much worse sensors than this 16MP MFT when it comes to noise, dynamic range,... I think I'll be alright.

MJ_Photo38 said:
Not using your E-M5ii when yhou have the E-M5iii is absolutely normal. The same thing happened to me when I upgraded my Fujifilmn X-T1 to a Fujifilm X-T2... you have in your hands basically the same camera but better in almost every way, there isn't any point in using the older one, and keeping it as a backup or a second body when you need one are generally the only reasons why it's not sold already.

I end up in dual camera situations about once a month on average (DC events w/press pass) but I bought an E-M1 III from a friend and use it and the 5.3.

The "once" I mentioned happened to be yesterday where I attached the 5.2 to a tripod mount on the handlebars of my bicycle for mountain biking. I doubt that the 5.3 would have been rugged enough.

Unlike the 5.2 to 5.3 upgrade, and not including the dual camera events, after the 5.3 to 1.3 upgrade I still use the 5.3 frequently because of its small size & light weight, and nearly identical feature set.

MJ_Photo38 · Aug 5, 2024

Bassam Guy said:
Most of the so-called pancakes are not pancakes but poori because they puff up when in use.

The size of the lens when it use is not that important, what's important to me is how small it gets once it turned off and in the bag

Bassam Guy said:
Unlike the 5.2 to 5.3 upgrade, and not including the dual camera events, after the 5.3 to 1.3 upgrade I still use the 5.3 frequently because of its small size & light weight, and nearly identical feature set.

The same happened to me as well, after getting an X-T2, I got an X-H1 (which is the same camera with IBIS, pretty much), and I still used the H1 and T2 about equally, simply because the more compact nature of the T2 made it the better camera in some situations.

(later sold the H1 for a Nikon Z6, but the situation hasn't changed)

The goal of this whole setup is really to try micro four thirds (I've never done it), see if I like it and if it can replace my Fujifilm kit (which is really nice, but not especially for travel because of the large lenses)

jeffharris · Aug 5, 2024

JosephScha said:
Panasonic 9mm/f1.7 rectilinear (not fisheye), 15mm f/1.7, and 42.5mm f/1.7 are all small and the 42.5 f/1.7 is small and cute and an excellent portrait lens.

Perfect little set, although, I’d be tempted to add a 75mm for reach.

That’s essentially what I carry as my prime set. Three Voigtländers: 17.5mm, 42.5mm and 75mm f1.5 (adapted M mount). Not small or light, but my favorite and best lenses. I’ve been eyeing the 9mm.

ahaslett · Aug 5, 2024

jeffharris said:
JosephScha said:

Panasonic 9mm/f1.7 rectilinear (not fisheye), 15mm f/1.7, and 42.5mm f/1.7 are all small and the 42.5 f/1.7 is small and cute and an excellent portrait lens.

Click to expand...

Perfect little set, although, I’d be tempted to add a 75mm for reach.

That’s essentially what I carry as my prime set. Three Voigtländers: 17.5mm, 42.5mm and 75mm f1.5 (adapted M mount). Not small or light, but my favorite and best lenses. I’ve been eyeing the 9mm.

You might like to compare the P 9mm with the Laowa 10/2. Some copies of the 9mm have weak edges, may be an issue with buildings.

The Laowa looks a bit like my CV 15/4.5 Super Heliar in its rendering. It lives up to the Zero-D but can have veiling in strong backlight. I can share examples.

Andrew

g7_chord · Aug 5, 2024

gary0319 said:
Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

Very interesting. I have one camera that has a hi-rez mode. I never thought of this method when I don't have my ND filter with me. I think you need a tripod, right?

gary0319 · Aug 5, 2024

g7_chord said:
gary0319 said:

Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I have one camera that has a hi-rez mode. I never thought of this method when I don't have my ND filter with me. I think you need a tripod, right?

This only works for hand held hi res, not pixel shift hi Rez…. two entirely different processes.

Allan Brown · Aug 5, 2024

MJ_Photo38 said:
Hi everyone, so basically I am planning on getting a micro four third kit in the coming months.

Lokking at the kind of money that I allow myself on dropping on such a kit, I have decided I wanted to go with the E-M5 mark II as it seems pretty well ballanced feature wise, has the characteristics I want and it fits within my budget.

My plan was to "get a couple of pancake lenses" but now that I'm looking a little bit more in the MFT system I realize that it's not that simple and that small lens options are numerous, enough for you to get lost in it and not knowing what you want to buy anymore.

By now you have had many replies. Looking at them, some people's idea of a small kit leaves a lot to be desired.

I have two EM5 II bodies and never felt the need to replace them with the later versions. They are very capable cameras and strongly built. I did buy an EM1 III but that is not what you are after.

So, with my EM5 II bodies, my typical travel kit is the P12-32 and P35-100 f4-5.6 pair along with my O9-18. I sometimes take the P20mm f1.7. I get very good images with this kit.

Don't get misdirected by reports of the 20 being "very slow" to focus. That is nonsense. While it is a bit slower than other M4/3 lenses for AF, it is faster than some other makes - E.G. my older Nikon AF lenses - and far faster than manual focus.

One downside with M4/3 is - while the EM5II is weather sealed, almost all the small lenses are not.

My thoughts on your lens list

MJ_Photo38 said:
Lenses I plan on (maybe) getting :

- Olympus 12mm f/2

Variable and expensive for what it is. I opted for the P12mm f1.4 - bigger, more expensive but better.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 17mm f/1.8 (love the focus clutch feature and they stay relatively compact_

I have used this and it is good. Designed for the street, it has a bit of a curved field. I opted for the P15mm f1.7 instead (got it at a good price)

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 17mm f/2.8 pancake (I'll only get one 17mm though)

Some say that this has nice rendering but AF is slower than the P20. I never did get one.

Note, you mention 17mm. Don't forget to take into account the difference in aspect ratio. A 17mm 4/3 is not a 17mm apsc.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Lumix 14mm f/2.5

Good lens, I have one. However, I prefer the P12-32

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Lumix 20mm f/1.7

A good lens that gives very good results. Its size is the advantage over other lenses in the range.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Olympus 45mm f/1.8 (I want a small portrait lens in my kit, this seems like the best option)

I have this but seldom use it. A while back it was voted the least used lens on this forum. I find the AF to be hit and miss. It can give very good results though.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- Lumix 12-32 or Olympus 14-42 pancake

Go for the P12-32. 12mm is more useful. Also, the O14-42 does not have good reviews and is a bit inconsistent.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- maybe the Lumix 35-100 if I want a little bit more reach, but the goal is really to keep it as small as possible.

This lens is very small for its range and well worth having it with you. I get very good results from both of mine.

MJ_Photo38 said:
- maybe the small body cap f/8 lenses (both the 9mm and 15mm seem fun to use)

The O9mm f8 body cap is actually very good. The 15mm body cap is not as good and the P14mm f2.5 will be far better and not much bigger.

MJ_Photo38 said:
Are there other small lens options that are really worth considering?

The Olympus 9-18 is a small but very good lens. I have had mine for years and get very good results from it.

There are several Chinese lenses worth looking at but I don't have any to comment on.

Check out these videos by the Late David Thorpe

Allan

g7_chord · Aug 5, 2024

gary0319 said:
This only works for hand held hi res, not pixel shift hi Rez…. two entirely different processes.

OK... thanks for the clarification. I didn't get that right away.

David5833 · Aug 12, 2024

gary0319 said:
g7_chord said:

gary0319 said:

Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I have one camera that has a hi-rez mode. I never thought of this method when I don't have my ND filter with me. I think you need a tripod, right?

Click to expand...

This only works for hand held hi res, not pixel shift hi Rez…. two entirely different processes.

Gary, I almost never use HiRes, but it seems like blurring of moving water ought to work just as well with tripod HiRes. Why is it different? (I realize it is is pixel shift vs camera movement, but shouldn't the result be the same with moving water?).

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/143821723@N06/

gary0319 · Aug 12, 2024

David5833 said:
gary0319 said:

g7_chord said:

gary0319 said:

Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I have one camera that has a hi-rez mode. I never thought of this method when I don't have my ND filter with me. I think you need a tripod, right?

Click to expand...

This only works for hand held hi res, not pixel shift hi Rez…. two entirely different processes.

Click to expand...

Gary, I almost never use HiRes, but it seems like blurring of moving water ought to work just as well with tripod HiRes. Why is it different? (I realize it is is pixel shift vs camera movement, but shouldn't the result be the same with moving water?).

Perhaps. To be honest I have never tried moving water with anything other than HHHR. It just seems the multiple, aligned, stacked images concept of HHHR would lend itself better to the moving water. But, I could be wrong and should not posted the assumption above, sorry.

Bassam Guy · Aug 12, 2024

gary0319 said:
David5833 said:

gary0319 said:

g7_chord said:

gary0319 said:

Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I have one camera that has a hi-rez mode. I never thought of this method when I don't have my ND filter with me. I think you need a tripod, right?

Click to expand...

This only works for hand held hi res, not pixel shift hi Rez…. two entirely different processes.

Click to expand...

Gary, I almost never use HiRes, but it seems like blurring of moving water ought to work just as well with tripod HiRes. Why is it different? (I realize it is is pixel shift vs camera movement, but shouldn't the result be the same with moving water?).

Click to expand...

Perhaps. To be honest I have never tried moving water with anything other than HHHR. It just seems the multiple, aligned, stacked images concept of HHHR would lend itself better to the moving water. But, I could be wrong and should not posted the assumption above, sorry.

I live near Great Falls, VA USA (where Rob Trek frequents, so you may have heard of it) and innumerable smaller waterfalls in the area and along the Potomac that I live beside, so I bore myself quite frequently with blurry waterfall shots. I've never thought of using [HH]HDR, so I'll give it a try. Good idea.

I usually use Live Time/Bulb (Oly/OMDS) with a real ND filter, so I can watch the exposure build without having to think (one of my weaknesses) a priori. I tried Live Composite once, as someone else had suggested, but the water itself looked jagged and would have been blurred in post had I chosen to use them for anything.

gary0319 · Aug 12, 2024

Bassam Guy said:
gary0319 said:

David5833 said:

gary0319 said:

g7_chord said:

gary0319 said:

Exactly correct, 16 exposures stacked. The blurred movement of the water is a product of the stacking. The advantage is that one can use the normal exposure settings instead of a long exposure so hand holding is easier. And, you get a 50mpx file as well.

Click to expand...

Very interesting. I have one camera that has a hi-rez mode. I never thought of this method when I don't have my ND filter with me. I think you need a tripod, right?

Click to expand...

This only works for hand held hi res, not pixel shift hi Rez…. two entirely different processes.

Click to expand...

Gary, I almost never use HiRes, but it seems like blurring of moving water ought to work just as well with tripod HiRes. Why is it different? (I realize it is is pixel shift vs camera movement, but shouldn't the result be the same with moving water?).

Click to expand...

Perhaps. To be honest I have never tried moving water with anything other than HHHR. It just seems the multiple, aligned, stacked images concept of HHHR would lend itself better to the moving water. But, I could be wrong and should not posted the assumption above, sorry.

Click to expand...

I live near Great Falls, VA USA (where Rob Trek frequents, so you may have heard of it) and innumerable smaller waterfalls in the area and along the Potomac that I live beside, so I bore myself quite frequently with blurry waterfall shots. I've never thought of using [HH]HDR, so I'll give it a try. Good idea.

I usually use Live Time/Bulb (Oly/OMDS) with a real ND filter, so I can watch the exposure build without having to think (one of my weaknesses) a priori. I tried Live Composite once, as someone else had suggested, but the water itself looked jagged and would have been blurred in post had I chosen to use them for anything.

Getting the right shutter speed to create the blur is a bit of trial and error. Too fast and the water is jaggy, too slow and the water is mushy.

Fotoland · Aug 14, 2024

EPL8, 14-42mm EZ, 12mm f2, Panasonic 35-100mm f4-5.6.

Another set is Leica 12-60mm with Olympus 40-150mm R.

Isola Verde · Aug 14, 2024

Fotoland said:
EPL8, 14-42mm EZ, 12mm f2, Panasonic 35-100mm f4-5.6.

Another set is Leica 12-60mm with Olympus 40-150mm R.

I've been looking back at my old stuff recently, and have been surprised at how particularly nicely the E-PL8 performs with the little 14-42EZ... giving me some properly "rich" images.

May have been the light, the weather or just good luck, but most pleasing whatever the reason!

Peter

What small lenses?

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts