Best Standard Zoom

Kalamaki wrote:

I have a Lumix G6 & recently got hold of a Sigma 30mm. The shots from the Sigma highlighted the shortcomings of the 14-42 Kit Lens. I used the 14-42 with a Metz 36 AF-5, at my daughter's birthday party, on Saturday. Generally disappointing shots. The flash seemed to make things worse, rather than better. I tried it with the diffuser, I tried bouncing etc.

Just wondering what I should upgrade the 14-42 too. I don't need a long zoom, just something with a bit of flexibility.

Flash-wise, I'm now not convinced that I actually need it, as the shots without the flash, were much nicer (1 or 2 a little blurred - obviously) & I'm not a pro/semi-pro.

I mostly take shots outdoors - family, scenery, street. Occasionally indoors - parties.

Perhaps I should sell the 30mm & 14-42mm & get the Panasonic Leica 25mm!

you help & advice would be appreciated.

Cheers

The only advantage of that 25mm is the f1.4 aperture and for general photography it has very few advantages.

You would be far better of with a prime of between 17mm and 20mm and I would hang on to that flash (and learn how to use it) for indoor use and shooting people the flash would be far more useful than constantly shooting at f1.4.

But with any prime, your going to loose flexibility.

You already have a pretty good standard zoom, practice and get to know it.

I'd consider you an ideal candidate for the 12-35/2.8. Fast, sharp, OIS and wider than a 14. As far as standard zooms for non-IBIS cameras, it's the best option.

Cheers,

Rick

Kalamaki wrote:

I have a Lumix G6 & recently got hold of a Sigma 30mm. The shots from the Sigma highlighted the shortcomings of the 14-42 Kit Lens. I used the 14-42 with a Metz 36 AF-5, at my daughter's birthday party, on Saturday. Generally disappointing shots. The flash seemed to make things worse, rather than better. I tried it with the diffuser, I tried bouncing etc.

Just wondering what I should upgrade the 14-42 too. I don't need a long zoom, just something with a bit of flexibility.

Without knowing your budget, you're going to get a lot of suggestions which include the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and the Olympus 12-40/2.8.

They're both great lenses. I went for the 12-35 because I have a Panasonic (and Olympus) body but also because I liked the small size of it and its stable mate, the 35-100/2.8. Also, these two lenses share the same filter size which is convenient for me since I do use ND and polarizer filters.

Flash-wise, I'm now not convinced that I actually need it, as the shots without the flash, were much nicer (1 or 2 a little blurred - obviously) & I'm not a pro/semi-pro.

I love the light produced by *good* flash photography. Before writing off flash completely, you might consider checking out http://strobist.blogspot.ca/ just to see what results you can achieve with very, very minimal and inexpensive equipment.

Paulmorgan wrote:

The only advantage of that 25mm is the f1.4 aperture and for general photography it has very few advantages.

You would be far better of with a prime of between 17mm and 20mm and I would hang on to that flash (and learn how to use it) for indoor use and shooting people the flash would be far more useful than constantly shooting at f1.4.

But with any prime, your going to loose flexibility.

You already have a pretty good standard zoom, practice and get to know it.

I would add a point of correction here: f1.4 aperture is not "the only advantage of that 25mm" - it has great image quality all round - indoors and out. I have the 25mm 1.4 as my only lens and find it works great for that. I dont miss a zoom at all. I'd like a 15mm or wider to completement this, but not a zoom.

One doesnt have to buy these new - used would be even cheaper. Especially with the 25mm 1.7 out now, which puts pressure on the price of the f1.4 version. I got mine used I consider it an incredible bargain.

Thanks for all your help.

Thanks.  I'll do that.

Thanks for the advice.  Just gone through 30 or 40 shots & it seems that I favour around 20mm.

Perhaps the Panasonic 20mm would be a good choice.

Cheers

larsbc wrote:

Kalamaki wrote:

I have a Lumix G6 & recently got hold of a Sigma 30mm. The shots from the Sigma highlighted the shortcomings of the 14-42 Kit Lens. I used the 14-42 with a Metz 36 AF-5, at my daughter's birthday party, on Saturday. Generally disappointing shots. The flash seemed to make things worse, rather than better. I tried it with the diffuser, I tried bouncing etc.

Just wondering what I should upgrade the 14-42 too. I don't need a long zoom, just something with a bit of flexibility.

Without knowing your budget, you're going to get a lot of suggestions which include the Panasonic 12-35/2.8 and the Olympus 12-40/2.8.

They're both great lenses. I went for the 12-35 because I have a Panasonic (and Olympus) body but also because I liked the small size of it and its stable mate, the 35-100/2.8. Also, these two lenses share the same filter size which is convenient for me since I do use ND and polarizer filters.

Flash-wise, I'm now not convinced that I actually need it, as the shots without the flash, were much nicer (1 or 2 a little blurred - obviously) & I'm not a pro/semi-pro.

I love the light produced by *good* flash photography. Before writing off flash completely, you might consider checking out http://strobist.blogspot.ca/ just to see what results you can achieve with very, very minimal and inexpensive equipment.

Great site.  Many thanks.

Great advice.  Many thanks

Kalamaki wrote:

I have a Lumix G6 & recently got hold of a Sigma 30mm. The shots from the Sigma highlighted the shortcomings of the 14-42 Kit Lens. I used the 14-42 with a Metz 36 AF-5, at my daughter's birthday party, on Saturday. Generally disappointing shots. The flash seemed to make things worse, rather than better. I tried it with the diffuser, I tried bouncing etc.

Some example photos would be very helpful.  No way to know if the problem is the lens or something else from that meager amount of info.

Osa25 wrote:

Paulmorgan wrote:

The only advantage of that 25mm is the f1.4 aperture and for general photography it has very few advantages.

You would be far better of with a prime of between 17mm and 20mm and I would hang on to that flash (and learn how to use it) for indoor use and shooting people the flash would be far more useful than constantly shooting at f1.4.

But with any prime, your going to loose flexibility.

You already have a pretty good standard zoom, practice and get to know it.

I would add a point of correction here: f1.4 aperture is not "the only advantage of that 25mm" - it has great image quality all round

As does pretty much every other M4/3 prime, sorry there are still no real advantages to that 25mm and especially when shooting people.

- indoors and out. I have the 25mm 1.4 as my only lens and find it works great for that. I dont miss a zoom at all. I'd like a 15mm or wider to completement this, but not a zoom.

One doesnt have to buy these new - used would be even cheaper. Especially with the 25mm 1.7 out now, which puts pressure on the price of the f1.4 version. I got mine used I consider it an incredible bargain.

Same as below, but bounced the flash off the ceiling

14mm with flash F3.5 ISO 160

Henry Richardson wrote:

Kalamaki wrote:

I have a Lumix G6 & recently got hold of a Sigma 30mm. The shots from the Sigma highlighted the shortcomings of the 14-42 Kit Lens. I used the 14-42 with a Metz 36 AF-5, at my daughter's birthday party, on Saturday. Generally disappointing shots. The flash seemed to make things worse, rather than better. I tried it with the diffuser, I tried bouncing etc.

Some example photos would be very helpful. No way to know if the problem is the lens or something else from that meager amount of info.