Thinking of something narrower: Panasonic 42.5 F/1.7, Olympus 45mm F/1.8 or Sigma 30mm F/2.8

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide. I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option. I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

I haven't owned the Sigma 30, but it seems not to be as highly regarded as the Sigma 60, and f/2.8 is not as useful indoors. I had the Oly 45 and loved it, sold it when I got a good deal on the Pana 42.5 f/1.7, mostly for the OIS since I have Pana bodies. the Pana has a bit closer focus distance and comes with a lens hood and pouch. IQ of the Oly and Pana are pretty close IMO.  I can't say that the Pana is any better.

Unless you think you might get a Pana body in the future, you can probably buy the Oly for significantly less than the Pana.  That's what I would do if I were you and deciding between these three lenses.

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide. I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option. I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

I would get the 45mm f1.8.  If you're in the US, the follow-on question is whether to get the Int'l version(no warranty) for $245(from ebay and amazon) or get a full warranty for $350.  I chose the former when I bought mine (from amazon).

The Sigma 30mm is cheaper but you lose 1-1/3 stop.  However, 45mm is pretty long for me and I use it to shoot stage shows and portraits.  The bokeh at that focal length is much better than 25mm(and probably 30mm).  I like mine a lot but I find my 25mm f1.8 is more versatile.

Maybe get the 45mm first and the 30mm later (unless you're planning a 25mm) as I believe they complement your 20mm.  i.e. 20mm + 30mm + 45mm

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

The mixing of actual focal lengths...

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide.

...with 35mm sensor effective focal lengths...

I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option.

...is making my brain hurt.

I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

Question: As you already have zooms covering these focal lengths, are you looking at primes for a) better image quality, b) more light gathering, or c) both?

neil holmes wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide. I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option. I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

Don't discount the Canon EF 40 2.8 STM with Kipon AF adapter.

No AF-C but in that regard it is just like an 20 1.7 on a GX7.

But not at all like the Oly 45 or Pan 42.5 - the lenses Hithertoo is asking about.

The adapter will cost twice as much as the lens but together is still not THAT expensive and the lens is VERY sharp at 2.8 and makes a nice portrait lens on M4/3

The Pan/Oly lenses also are very sharp wide open while also being 1.5 stops brighter. No compelling reason for this combo unless...

I think while still being useful on both FF and APSC cameras.

...you also have Canon cameras...

The Kipon adapter with this lens is now quite useful with firmware 2.5 as there was a distortion issue that has gone and AF (AFS) is quite fast ....at least with a GX7.

...which Hitherto's gear list shows is not the case.

The Canon/Kipon combo is bigger, heavier, more expensive, and lacks C-AF. Is there some other reason to consider it?

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

The mixing of actual focal lengths...

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide.

...with 35mm sensor effective focal lengths...

I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option.

...is making my brain hurt.

I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

Question: As you already have zooms covering these focal lengths, are you looking at primes for a) better image quality, b) more light gathering, or c) both?

While I have zooms that cover that distance, and the 14-42 is OK while the 40-150 is passable. I have primes for a number of reasons including:

• More depth of field control.
• Better image quality.
• More light gather

I do a lot of available light photography or if I use a flash I tend to use flash only for a little bit of fill in certain situations usually +1 or +2 exposure compensation.

With regard to the 30mm in specific, I'm just looking at it on the basis of its low cost and that it is enough of a gap between my 20mm lens and it, I may discount it yet if people can't sell me a good reason why I should be looking at it and not something else. I do think 30mm may compliment my 20mm lens.

With regard to the Panasonic lens, I may yet upgrade to the GX8 in the near future also, so some Panasonic lenses may well be in order to take advantage of its dual IBIS system. I am leaning towards the Olympus 45mm but I'm not 100% sold on that either.

If I got an EF adapter I have a bunch of lenses that I can borrow. I would suspect the issue with the EF adapter is the slow AF speed. People say the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 is slow because of its focus motor, and it is to a point, but on top of the fact that EF lenses generally require a PDAF sensor (excepting the EOS M), most Canon lenses have the same sort of focus motor as the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. That is slow and noisy screw drive lenses.

It's an interesting prospect but I would have to at least own an E-M1 first and then I may think twice about it. Adapted lenses no matter on the format including Sony E mount (where there are numerous AF adapters) or Canon EF mount, are always slower than what they would be on a native camera.

Hithertoo wrote:

Jacques Cornell wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

I'm thinking about getting a narrower prime, for closer crop photos. I have the Olympus 12mm F/2 and Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. 30mm is a little different to 20mm and will give me 60mm instead of 40mm, the other options are the 42.5mm and 45mm which are just about the same at around 85 to 90mm, or there abouts. The Sigma is the cheapest option.

The mixing of actual focal lengths...

I've discounted the Olympus 60mm and 75mm options as they're really too long for indoor use, I've tested it out with my 14-42 at 30mm and 40-150 at 45mm, I can't really decide.

...with 35mm sensor effective focal lengths...

I've got a slightly obscure normal lens at 40mm so I could go with a 60mm or an 85mm or 90mm option.

...is making my brain hurt.

I really can't decide, the Sigma option is very cheap, and I like a slightly wider lens, but it just might not do it for me.

Question: As you already have zooms covering these focal lengths, are you looking at primes for a) better image quality, b) more light gathering, or c) both?

While I have zooms that cover that distance, and the 14-42 is OK while the 40-150 is passable. I have primes for a number of reasons including:

• More depth of field control.
• Better image quality.
• More light gather

I do a lot of available light photography or if I use a flash I tend to use flash only for a little bit of fill in certain situations usually +1 or +2 exposure compensation.

With regard to the 30mm in specific, I'm just looking at it on the basis of its low cost and that it is enough of a gap between my 20mm lens and it, I may discount it yet if people can't sell me a good reason why I should be looking at it and not something else. I do think 30mm may compliment my 20mm lens.

With regard to the Panasonic lens, I may yet upgrade to the GX8 in the near future also, so some Panasonic lenses may well be in order to take advantage of its dual IBIS system. I am leaning towards the Olympus 45mm but I'm not 100% sold on that either.

I see. Since the Sigma is only one stop brighter than the kit zoom, it'd be worth doing a careful comparison of the IQ to see if the Sigma really offers something you don't already have. I'm afraid I can't offer any solid info on that score. Like you, I shoot a lot in low light, and for that I'd give preference to the faster primes, like Oly's 45/1.8 or Panny's 42.5/1.7. Then again, I already have f2.8 zooms, so f2.8 primes don't excite me. I think the 20 & 45 make a brilliant pair - bright and sharp - and I don't really need anything in between. The Sigma 60mm seems to be a good affordable portrait prime if you don't need shallow DoF - good focal length for a tight headshot, and reportedly very sharp.

Which version of the 14-42 kit zoom do you have? The new one is reported to be much better than the old one.

I have the 14-42 II R which is a good lens until you use the 12mm F/2 and 20mm F/1.7 then you get a bit spoiled. There are some good reviews of the Sigma 30mm that have come more recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPP25IFKawM

I think because I've got the 20mm, 30mm might be a nice compliment, but you're right the extra stop of light would be very nice with either the Olympus o Panasonic option.

neil holmes wrote:

Hithertoo wrote:

If I got an EF adapter I have a bunch of lenses that I can borrow. I would suspect the issue with the EF adapter is the slow AF speed. People say the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7 is slow because of its focus motor, and it is to a point, but on top of the fact that EF lenses generally require a PDAF sensor (excepting the EOS M), most Canon lenses have the same sort of focus motor as the Panasonic 20mm F/1.7. That is slow and noisy screw drive lenses.

It's an interesting prospect but I would have to at least own an E-M1 first and then I may think twice about it. Adapted lenses no matter on the format including Sony E mount (where there are numerous AF adapters) or Canon EF mount, are always slower than what they would be on a native camera.

The Canon 40 2.8 STM at least is NOT slow to focus....not on my CDAF GX7 anyway.....it is pretty much native in focus speed.

It did have a lot of distortion before the firmware update but is fine now.

How does firmware affect distortion? Which firmware are you talking about - camera, lens, adapter? MFT bodies correct distortion with MFT lenses, but I'd be very surprised if Pan/Oly were building in corrections for something as alien as a Canon 40 on Kipon.

In low light it is a bit slower but not really any more than many native lens.

What lenses are you thinking of? There are a few f2.8 native MFT primes, but not many. The only ones I can think of are the Pan/Leica 45, which is a macro, and the Sigma 19/30/60, which are all APS lenses with MFT mounts.

Still works fairly well in low light with a GX7 (EV -4 AF is ok).....which is also much better I think since the firmware update.

One thing that is still a small issue is it keeps trying to focus when not being used so will drain the battery if not turned off when not using it.

Do you have Quick AF turned on?

Touch AF and touch shutter work great with the 40 and the Kipon (as does he 135 f2 L Canon too).

I would go for the 45mm F1.8. You might be able to find a good deal as it is a popular lens.

Hithertoo wrote:

I have the 14-42 II R which is a good lens until you use the 12mm F/2 and 20mm F/1.7 then you get a bit spoiled. There are some good reviews of the Sigma 30mm that have come more recently.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CPP25IFKawM

I think because I've got the 20mm, 30mm might be a nice compliment, but you're right the extra stop of light would be very nice with either the Olympus o Panasonic option.

I think you'll find a fast short tele more satisfying, as it'll give you a capabilities you don't currently have: shallow focus and low-light shooting from a distance.

FWIW, I've got the Oly 45/1.8 and like it a lot on my GX7 with IBIS, mostly for picking people out of a crowd at low-light events. However, I will likely replace it with a Pan 42.5/1.7 for three reasons:

1. OIS for stabilization on my G6 and Dual IS on a future GX8
2. Much closer focus
3. Better sharpness in the corners.

I put my camera at 30mm with the 14-42 and I like it, at 30mm it's a little more than a stop slower than the Sigma 30mm F/2.8 which is significant. I would be using it when I wanted a slightly tighter crop and for portraits. I think having some background in portraits is nicer than an 85mm or 90mm portrait which is basically only the person. If the Sigma was just a bit faster I'd buy it tomorrow. Even if its negative space the 60mm frame is nice.

Hithertoo wrote:

I put my camera at 30mm with the 14-42 and I like it, at 30mm it's a little more than a stop slower than the Sigma 30mm F/2.8 which is significant. I would be using it when I wanted a slightly tighter crop and for portraits. I think having some background in portraits is nicer than an 85mm or 90mm portrait which is basically only the person.

Unless you back up.

If the Sigma was just a bit faster I'd buy it tomorrow.

Yeah, f2.8 on APS is OK, but on MFT it seems a bit slow. Still, the price is right. The only alternative I can think of is Panasonic's new 30mm f2.8 macro, but that costs $360.

Even if its negative space the 60mm frame is nice.

That's 30mm, or 60mm equivalent. Argh, my brain hurts again.