Best Prime Lens to Buy in the Format

Rupert The Camera Man wrote:

Okay so I probably was a little general in my original post. I guess what I had in mind when I originally wrote the post is a lens that would kind of simulate a cheap film camera like a disposable camera or a consumer film camera from the 70s- 2000s or so. a "Point and shoot lens" for lack of a better term. I have a lot of experience with those types of cameras from when I was younger and I think especially since I'm a beginner a familiar focal length will simplify things. I think I'm looking somewhere between the 15 and 50 mm (35 mm equiv.) focal length. Correct me if you feel I'm wrong on anything though. I plan on buying other primes but I thought it best to start with that range of lenses.

I recommend you to buy a camera with zoom, test it, find focal length that satisfy you and buy a prime. Because 2x crop is not full frame that you had before.

Dave Andrade wrote:

Max Polonski wrote:

20/1.7 doesn't support AFF and AFC and can take a long time to focus in low light. 15/1.7 is better. And agree about 42.5/1.7 - must have.

I wanted to chime in and say that I also hadn't heard many good things about the 20mm 1,7, either.

Or, to be fair, I heard that it had a few issues, and that there were better options.

I want to chime in and say when I first used the 20mm in 2011 on the GH1, it took a long time to focus in low light and even not so low light or hunted. When I finally got to the GX7 everything changed. Same lens and no more hunting and the lens caught focus almost every time. Now it was slower because of the lens design-no internal focusing-but I would say a 98% improved performance. Same with the GM1. Panny really upped the game with CDAF

Dave Andrade wrote:

Max Polonski wrote:

20/1.7 doesn't support AFF and AFC and can take a long time to focus in low light. 15/1.7 is better. And agree about 42.5/1.7 - must have.

I wanted to chime in and say that I also hadn't heard many good things about the 20mm 1,7, either.

Or, to be fair, I heard that it had a few issues, and that there were better options.

Sometimes, reading forums can lead to negative outcomes, such as the long time I put off buying the 20 because of grumbles about its focus speed.

Ah well, at least I have it now - two, in fact, as I bought one for my son to use with his E-M10. Neither of us now takes our camera bag anywhere without it, so we can't share.

Chas2 wrote:

Dave Andrade wrote:

Max Polonski wrote:

20/1.7 doesn't support AFF and AFC and can take a long time to focus in low light. 15/1.7 is better. And agree about 42.5/1.7 - must have.

I wanted to chime in and say that I also hadn't heard many good things about the 20mm 1,7, either.

Or, to be fair, I heard that it had a few issues, and that there were better options.

I want to chime in and say when I first used the 20mm in 2011 on the GH1, it took a long time to focus in low light and even not so low light or hunted. When I finally got to the GX7 everything changed. Same lens and no more hunting and the lens caught focus almost every time. Now it was slower because of the lens design-no internal focusing-but I would say a 98% improved performance. Same with the GM1. Panny really upped the game with CDAF

Thanks for sharing, Chas2. Honestly. That's good to know.

yellodog wrote:

When you reference a disposable film camera are you referring to the image quality or the angle of view?

I meant the angle of view. The image quality of a disposable is what I'm trying to get away from:-D

Rupert The Camera Man wrote:

I meant the angle of view. The image quality of a disposable is what I'm trying to get away from:-D

Point and shoot film cameras of the 70's to 90's were mostly Instamatic (126) and pocket (110) film. They all had angle of views between 15 and 25mm in MFT terms.

More upmarket viewfinder cameras of that vintage used 135 film with 35 or 40mm lenses (in MFT terms 17 to 20mm).

The 20mm Panasonic lens that many recommended is probably the best approximation to reproduce the feel of such old cameras. It also fits well with your camera, and with your requirement to be small and to have good image quality. It costs considerably less than your budget, you could almost buy two lenses with $500.

If you do not mind spending the whole budget on just one lens, and want a really top performing lens (albeit a little larger), consider the 15mm Panasonoc/Leica instead. Its angle is slightly wider, but you can always crop your image and still retain a far better image quality than the old cameras had.

That said, if you buy the camera with a kit zoom, use it with the zoom for a few weeks before buying another lens. Check the image metadata to see what focal lengths you are using most, then use this information to make your prime lens choice. And who knows, you may be perfectly happy with the zoom alone. Zoom lenses have improved dramatically in size and quality since the the film times.

Rupert The Camera Man wrote:

Hello all, I am planning on getting a Panny G7 in the next few weeks. I'm going to be getting it with the 14-42 kit lens and soon after buying a telephoto. I want to get a prime lens for my camera both for better low light performance and also for a simpler and smaller package. I am looking into sub- 500 dollar primes which I feel has a good selection. What is the best prime for the job? Thanks!

Get the 14-42 first and shoot heavily.  You will naturally find a few focal lengths you prefer and that can instruct your prime selection for general photography you seek. Some people gravitate towards 25 mm.  Others may like wider or longer. See what you actually like.

If you have a smartphone, look at it's specs and see what the focal length is.  Do you like using that focal length?

My phone is equivalent to 30 mm FF or 15 mm MFT, a bit wider than I used to use in the film days.  But the phone may be another comparison point for you