Buying First Prime(s) Questions - 20mm + Sigma 30mm & 60mm later? Or Conventional 25mm?

Ulric wrote:

Because light matters and buying once is cheaper than buying twice.

But is it obvious that everyone who buys a prime, does so solely to get the largest aperture possible? I think there are many other reasons why someone is interested in a prime lens.

Alright so, in the literal definition of frustration, the pinnacle of annoyance, the craigslist guy who hadn't responded to my texts since Monday to buy his Pany 25mm f1.7 for $120 responded within two hours of me ordering the Oly 25mm f1.8 for $223 express shipped out the door. I swear this is just how my life operates. I called Oly to try and cancel the order as CL guy is willing to meet me wherever and apologizes for the inconvenience - Oly told me they can't cancel it but if I don't want it, just refuse pickup at delivery and they'll refund the whole price. Is there any reason, outside of going with my initial purchase, to stick with the Oly for an extra $100? Will it perform that much better on my EM10? Is it noticeably sharper? Is the Bokeh a lot nicer? Someone please convince me it's $100 better than the Pany lol I'm so beyond annoyed that everything in my life seems to pan out like this - my brand new in box EM10 body was broken out of the box on Christmas morning (defective lens mount that wouldn't recognize lenses attached) and had to be sent back. I waited over a month for a replacement, and now this happens. Thoughts? I'm sure trying to refuse pickup will turn into another returns nightmare, because again, that's how my life operates with any consumer purchase.

If it were me, I'd probably stick with the Oly lens. Oly camera, Oly lens. For me, Panny camera, Panny lens. That's just the way I am though. Nothing OCD about it, I'm just happy to take advantage of the fact that the manufacturers tweak their lenses to suit their own products. However, in saying that, I'm more than happy to buy if a particular lens is not available in the brand I own, or it's wildly overpriced for a comparable product.

brad1242 wrote:

Hey guys, I'm new to micro 4/3 and legitimate photography and you all have been more than helpful so far. I'm wanting to buy a few primes for my EM10 but have a few questions, as the first prime I buy will most likely determine the lenses I buy next. This being my first legitimate modern ILC camera, I don't yet know how often I'll use it or how "into" photography I'll get, although I must ssay I'm loving it so far. Therefore, I want to buy some good, quality, not-overly-expensive primes, as I understand the need for fast sharp glass, and the kit lens isn't cutting it.

I already have the 40-150mm Oly and plan to keep that for long telephoto. There doesn't seem to be a cost effective wide angle lens, and I'd rather not shell out $4-500 USD on a wide angle right out of the gate; I'd rather get a couple less expensive lenses to cover more focal lengths. I was thinking if I went with the pany 20mm f1.7 (which I have tried and found the focusing speed to be acceptable on), that would align me nicely to maybe pick up the cheap, but allegedly very sharp Sigma 30mm f2.8, which I have also tried in store and liked, although it isn't as fast. Then, if I wanted to go even longer, I could look at the Sigma 60mm, or Oly 45mm...

If you want something reasonably wide or close to Panasonics 20mm with budget restraints don`t get Sigma`s 30mm, get Sigma`s 19mm instead.

Sample

The other option is to go for the great Oly 25mm + Oly45mm, but then I'm even more out of the wide angle, and this is a more expensive combo... My main question I suppose is this: If I start with the 20mm pancake, that would be my widest prime for a while. Then the next logical prime would be the Sigma 30mm for ~$130 used, because the 25mm seems too close to the 20mm. Would the 20mm, 30mm, and 40-150 suffice as a decent compact-camera-bag system to cover most needs? Or am I underestimating the need for something as wide as my kit lens, and I should just get the more modern Oly 25mm (or Pany 25mm f1.7) to start, plan on shelling out later for the 17mm (which I may never do) and skip out on ever buying the Sigma 30mm (as it's too close to 25mm)? The 20mm + Sigma 30mm seems to be a compelling combo, and very cost effective for a rookie. Appreciate any advice!

I`m not much of a fan of the 25mm`s, I never much liked the 50mm on film SLR`s, they were never quite wide enough for me, 35mm was more of a normal length for me.

These are my current Primes, Panasonic's 14mm, Sigma`s 19mm, Olympus 45mm and Sigma 60mm, at some point I might swap the 19mm for a 17mm fl.8 but I`m in no rush, all of my current primes perform well, none are bad.

Ulric wrote:

But let's make one thing perfectly clear: in the normal/-ish range, f/2.8 is extremely slow. Extremely slow. It was slow in the 70s and it is slow now, only worse because the sensor is smaller. The kit lens for a system camera used to be a f/1.8 prime.

Yes, in the 1970's SLR cameras were sold with "fast normal" lenses in kits. There were specific reasons why a 50-55mm f/1.8 (or thereabouts) was the "normal" lens for these cameras:

With the long register distance of SLR cameras (around 45mm), the 50mm lens was the shortest possible which could be designed and manufactured cheaply enough with a fast aperture. If you bought a rangefinder camera in the same era, it would come with a 35-40mm lens, due to the relatively shorter register distance. (The rangefinder didn't need the fast aperture, though.)

SLR cameras at the time had horribly dim and small viewfinders. To allow the amateurs who bought these cameras to be able to focus reasonably well, they sold them with fast lenses. That made the viewfinder image bright enough, and it was fairly easy to focus them correctly enough.

People still did not expect to use the lenses at f/1.8. That would have given poor image quality and lots of out of focus areas.

All other lenses that people bought at the time had slower apertures. Sure, there were some exotic fast lenses, but they were just that: Exotic and expensive.

Today, the normal lens is the 28-85mm equivalent f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom lens that almost everybody use. It allows amateurs to take fantastic images, much better than they could take in the 1970's.

Why should we let the technology level from the 1970's decide how we use photographic equipment today?

If you look at the Leica M lineup of lenses, note that they have the same focal length available in different max apertures. Those who just want the best image quality, can buy the slow lenses. Those with more money to spare, and who want to photograph at a larger aperture, can buy the exotics with 0.95 apertures. But it is widely understood that the fast lenses do not give you better image quality.

Fredrik Glckner wrote:

If you look at the Leica M lineup of lenses, note that they have the same focal length available in different max apertures. Those who just want the best image quality, can buy the slow lenses. Those with more money to spare, and who want to photograph at a larger aperture, can buy the exotics with 0.95 apertures. But it is widely understood that the fast lenses do not give you better image quality.

One very small nit pick. The faster lens will give you better image quality (by being able to use lower ISO values), when the light gets low. In good light, not important. That's one of the advantages of the smaller 4/3 sensor. Larger aperture lenses such as f/1.2-1.8 are actually useable in a lot of situations, without having 99% of your frame out of focus. Good quality compacts, & even a lot of phone cameras use the same physics to their advantage

Corkcampbell wrote:

Where, where in my post did I write that the Sigma was better than the Pany? I was just trying to give the OP an option for an affordable range of decent primes, not try to start a discussion of the merits of the 20mm, which has been done to death over the years in these forums.

Please don't reply. Thank-you.

I agree.

For the budget minded the 19mm is a far better option.

Mark Thornton wrote:

My copy of the 45 improves a lot just stopping down to f2.

I agree with you that the image quality improves when stopping down from f/1.8 to f/2. In my experience, the image quality improves further when stopping down to f/2.8.

I set an aperture between f/1.8 and f/2.8 depending on the lightning, mostly. If it is very dark, I use f/1.8, knowing that the sharpness is not optimal, but it is a way to get the picture.

I also use f/1.8 some times in better light, if I want the full hipster effect.

http://m43photo.blogspot.com

Want to add that you must have a 1/8000 shutter to exploit sub-f:2 lenses without resorting to ND filters in sunlight.

Cheers,

Rick

You've got a good set of questions here but are they really the right ones at this stage of your photo experience? If you're starting out, I would suggest sticking with the basic zoom (in 12/14 to 32/45 range) and shoot! Figure out what you like (wide shots to close-in portraits) then see what other lens might best complement that basic zoom. I personally like a large aperture since the sensitivity and reduced depth of field is what is normally missing the most from the zoom. There are way too many lenses out there, much of these available used (I bought my 25 F1.4 that way). As for the Oly 45, you might want to look at the Panny 42,5 F1.7 as well since it seems much sharper at the edges http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G_42-5mm_f1-7_H_HS043E/. On the other hand, if you find a used Oly, go for it.

Oh I know! I've been shooting a lot with it, but while this is my first real ILC, I used to shoot with my friends rebel XT years ago and had a compact with manual controls so I know a thing or 2 about "real" photography in terms of the technical stuff. In terms of shooting needs, I guess in hindsight I probably need a wide-ish lens to shoot photos of friends indoors, as the kit zoom's slowness struggles indoors... But in that case, the 20mm really isn't all that wide anyway, so I feel good about my choice to go with the oly 25mm f1.8, as it should give me great DOF results outdoors and good low light performance indoors, so long as I'm not trying to shoot the whole room at once, and then I can figure out which wide lens to go with later.

I had contemplated returning the Oly when it gets here to buy that Craigslist pany 25mm f1.7 but decided against it because I feel, from what I've heard, the Oly lens is considerably smaller (one of the main reasons I went m4/3), has better CA correction and other corrections on Oly bodies, and I had heard some sharpness issues with the Pany... The Oly cost me $87 more but if I keep it for many years, whatever, I'd rather have the Oly lens on my EM10 than the bulky plasticky looking Pany, even if it offers more bang for the buck, which it probably does. Treat yo'self

Michael M Fliegel wrote:

What do you want the prime for. If you shoot portraits the Sigma 60 is stellar.

You can shoot portraits with pretty much any lens and I already have all the primes I need including the Sigma 60mm and although its good its certainly not my most used lens for portraits.