Sorry some lens advice needed for a lumix gf6 Newbie

You could also consider the Sigma 19mm. Not as fast (aperture-wise) as the Oly 17mm or the Pana 20mm, but good value for money. Focussing is fast.

thanks for the advice guys

To add to the mix. the other half said to me why not wait until Christmas and birthday then you are less  budget restricted.

so I had a bit of a rethink ( just got me  a bit more confused really)

I thought I would do some tests on the 14-42 lens

looking purely at focal length

set the lens to 20mm and see what the shots look like

then again at  25mm and again at 35mm

my reasoning being that from that test I can see how I would get on with the focal length of the lens and then I can take it from there.

I am tempted by the C lens with the adaptor as is only £42 and its fast so I can practice my manual skills on it ( if that makes sense)  and I can play with it in the dark.

the 25mm 4/3  does seem like a compromise and I guess  for the £100 I spend on it I would be better off saving the money and waiting to buy a lumix 25mm ( my sister in law goes to hong kong lots!)

if the long term view is to buy a 25mm f1.4  would you then still consider the 20mm1.7 or then go for the 14mm 2.5  or just use the kit zoom I have.

sorry so many  questions

but I get so many great answers

thanks

aliasfox wrote:

No AF on the lens you linked to.

A 4/3 lens will work, but the adapter will set you back at least 50GBP, and focus will be very slow, even on 'optimized' lenses. My 14-54 mkII is one of those slow focusing options.

does it prevent you using it? I would be using it for more stills work in the dark  more than action shots

thanks

The Panasonic 20mm is a fine lens. The focus issues are in my opinion, overblown.

The Oly 17mm will autofocus, as will any native m4/3 lens from Panasonic and Olympus. If budget is a concern, I'd stick with the Panasonic 20mm, but both are fine lenses that should work wonderfully on your camera.

Andy Thomas wrote:

Hi all,

I have been lurking for a while and you guys helped me choose a Lumix GF6 which I love and am learing to use.

I have the 14-42 GX pancake zoom and the 45-200 zoom lens. I am after a buying a fast prime lens for low light use and it would be lovely if it could be used for views (as opposed to landscapes) and in room photography.

my first thought was the lumix 20mm 1.7 wich is about £180 on ebay so is really pushing my budget. But I have read bad things about the focus hunting.

So then I looked at the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17 mm F/1.8. Pushing the budget even more but is it a better low light lens and better for those living room shots?

Will the a/f etc still work on the lumix?

Then I started going down the "cheap" route

Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25 mm f/1.4. yes this is a 4/3 lens but am I correct in thinking that with an adaptor all the electronics will work? also its not really wide but it is fast so maybe it could be worth buying this for the low light stuff and waiting for a landscape lens?

Then going very cheap

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Michael-Lens-35mm-F1-6-Micro-4-3-Panasonic-G5-G6-GX7-GH1-GH2-GH3-GH4-GF3-GF5-GF6-/171475246532?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27ecb89dc4

A nice fast lens for £42 to play around with and to experiment.

the more I look the more I get confused so all help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Have you looked at the budget options, Panasonic 14mm and Sigma 19mm, there both good indoor lenses.

aliasfox wrote:

Andy Thomas wrote:

aliasfox wrote:

No AF on the lens you linked to.

A 4/3 lens will work, but the adapter will set you back at least 50GBP, and focus will be very slow, even on 'optimized' lenses. My 14-54 mkII is one of those slow focusing options.

does it prevent you using it? I would be using it for more stills work in the dark more than action shots

thanks

The Panasonic 20mm is a fine lens. The focus issues are in my opinion, overblown.

The Oly 17mm will autofocus, as will any native m4/3 lens from Panasonic and Olympus. If budget is a concern, I'd stick with the Panasonic 20mm, but both are fine lenses that should work wonderfully on your camera.

I wrote that on my iPad immediately after waking up and getting ready to go to the office, so allow me to elaborate:

To run a 4/3 lens on a m4/3 body, you'll need an adapter just to get it to fit. I got mine for about $60 USD, though recently I've seen Buy it Now auctions on ebay for as low as $25. My guess of 50 GBP for you was based off of those numbers.

After the lens is mounted, you'll realize focus is slow. Like really slow. This is because 4/3 lenses were designed with phase detect autofocus in mind (PDAF), which most m4/3 cameras don't have. Micro 4/3 relies on contrast detect autofocus (CDAF) instead. The short version of how they work is that PDAF can not only tell that a lens is out of focus before it even moves the lens, but it can tell the lens what direction it's out of focus (focused too near or too far), and by how much. CDAF, on the other hand, relies on moving the lens elements back and forth and finding the point where the contrast on the image sensor is the greatest - the thought being that the greater the contrast, the sharper the image.

What does this mean? It means that the camera body has to move the 4/3 lens back and forth a couple of times, something it wasn't designed to do. Focus might end up taking 2-3 seconds, and in low light, even longer.

Does this mean you can't manually focus? Not at all. Manual focusing is great! However, it will take some practice. I have an E-PM2, which is similar to your GF6, and I find it fairly hard to manually focus using my LCD. I've gotten an EVF and it makes focusing much easier, but I don't think that's an option on your body.

If you're ok with slow autofocus or manual focusing, then the 4/3 lens is fine - I break out my 4/3 lens whenever I'm expecting to shoot things that don't move - it's not only my most versatile zoom range, it's also incredibly sharp. However, the 4/3 25mm lens might become redundant if you're planning on getting the m4/3 PL25 - in which case, why not take a look into some good manual glass? Olympus OM and Minolta MD glass is quite cheap - 50mm f1.7 lenses run for <$30 in the US, and the requisite adapters usually go for about $10. I can't imagine you'd have to spend more than 50 GBP on the whole set. It might not be 25mm, but if you're shooting stills, maybe you have the opportunity to take a few steps back anyway?

Thanks for the detailed reply that makes it much clearer.

the 4/3 is now discounted from the list!!!

LMNCT wrote:

With lenses, you frequently get what you 'pay for'. That does not mean that there are not some less expensive lenses available which are perfectly fine. The 20 1.7 is an excellent lens...so is the 25 1.4. Either would make a fine addition to your arsenal. I bought the 20 first...then the 25 and have not parted with the 20. It is small and light and that is part of what the Micro Four Thirds is all about. Have you considered trying to find a used lens? KEH frequently has some decent prices and when they tell you that something is in near perfect condition, or perfect, you can trust them. The 14 2.5 is another great, small, light weight lens and a fine performer. Take a look around, I will bet that you will find something that you can afford.

All the lenses I am looking at are secondhand.  the crux of the matter really is as the budget is tight trying to find the best compromise lens in that I want a good low light lens for indoor work (so needs to be quite wide) and if it could do landscape work (of sorts) That would be great.

from lots of the reviews it would seem that the 14mm 2.5 isn't that much better than the 14-42 gx(which I have) apart from the speed so it would make sense to go for the 20mm or the 25mm

in the mean time whilst I consider and save up I have bought the c lens 35mm 1.6 to play with

dscottsatx wrote:

Andy Thomas wrote:

Hi all,

I have been lurking for a while and you guys helped me choose a Lumix GF6 which I love and am learing to use.

I have the 14-42 GX pancake zoom and the 45-200 zoom lens. I am after a buying a fast prime lens for low light use and it would be lovely if it could be used for views (as opposed to landscapes) and in room photography.

my first thought was the lumix 20mm 1.7 wich is about £180 on ebay so is really pushing my budget. But I have read bad things about the focus hunting.

So then I looked at the Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 17 mm F/1.8. Pushing the budget even more but is it a better low light lens and better for those living room shots?

Will the a/f etc still work on the lumix?

Then I started going down the "cheap" route

Panasonic Leica D Summilux 25 mm f/1.4. yes this is a 4/3 lens but am I correct in thinking that with an adaptor all the electronics will work? also its not really wide but it is fast so maybe it could be worth buying this for the low light stuff and waiting for a landscape lens?

Then going very cheap

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Michael-Lens-35mm-F1-6-Micro-4-3-Panasonic-G5-G6-GX7-GH1-GH2-GH3-GH4-GF3-GF5-GF6-/171475246532?pt=UK_Lenses_Filters_Lenses&hash=item27ecb89dc4

A nice fast lens for £42 to play around with and to experiment.

the more I look the more I get confused so all help would be appreciated.

Thanks

If you can afford the 20/1.7, go for it. I wouldn't part with mine for anything.
Shooting with it, I never, ever find myself saying, "it's a nice lens but it focuses too slow." Looking at the pictures afterwards I always find myself saying, "Damn, that's a great lens."
FWIW, I also have the P14/2.5, the O45/1.8, Sigma 60/2.8, along with various Oly zooms and if the 20/1.7 focuses slower than them, it isn't enough to call attention to itself or be burdernsome.

thanks for that.

I think that now I have ordered the Michael lens as a "fun" lens I shall see what happens but I will almost certainly go for the 20/1.7  My thinking being that although the 25/1.4 may be better its bigger and not as wide. the 14/2.5 seems to perform not much better than my 14-42GX so that really only leaves the 20/1.7

thanks for all your help.

if the prices have dropped in the USA maybe I will hang on for a while.