Micro 4/3 lens options

ukaskew

ukaskew

Suspended / Banned
Messages
3,839
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
After a few months with the Olympus E-PL2 and kit lens I've decided to throw some money at the system and get myself a comprehensive set-up for holidays/travelling etc.

I've just raised about £1500 selling some Nikon kit so I'm looking to cover pretty much everything from wide to telephoto with that budget. The recently announced Olympus 45mm 1.8 will be added once released later this year, but for now I think I've narrowed it down to this...

Panasonic 20mm 1.7 (£290)
Olympus 9-18mm (£550)
Panasonic 100-300mm (£470)

Do any 4/3s users have any comments or further thought on this? I think I'm fairly settled on the 9-18mm and 20mm, but a little concerned about the size of the 100-300 on the little E-PL2. I'm wondering if it's better to go with one of the shorter telephotos that are about half the price and maybe get the Panasonic 8mm Fisheye as well.

Hmmm, decisions! The relative unavailability of them in local camera stores doesn't really help as it's difficult to try them out.
 
The 9-18 is a nice lens, a bit of distortion but that can be par for the course in wide angle, and the 7-14 is overpriced imo, the 20mm is generally considered a must and a lot of people's favourite lens.
I don't do long lenses, so won't comment on the 300, although I have the 200 and barely touch it.

Why no 14-45 kit lens? I think this is the most versatile lens in the m43 line up, I wouldn't want to be without mine.
 
I have the kit lens already (it's what I've been using exclusively since buying my PL2)
 
I've got the 45-200 zoom lens which performed really well at The British Grand Prix at Silverstone recently. I'm very glad I had it as the kit lens would of been no use to me on that trip. However, I see you've got the 100-300 on your list...now that is one lens I would love to try out on my G1:thumbs:

The 20mm is a must buy...it's a corker of a lens :clap:
 
Cheng said:
Panasonic 7-14?
Click to expand...

Seems very expensive compared to the Olympus 9-18 and I haven't read anything that suggests it's really worth double the price.
 
Must admit I have seen the 20mm in a new light since getting my X100 and doing some test shots. I hadn't noticed before how badly it handles high contrast areas.

It's a good lens no doubt, but I would be looking at one of the better zooms like the 9-18 and one of the new primes.
 
mid_gen said:
Must admit I have seen the 20mm in a new light since getting my X100 and doing some test shots. I hadn't noticed before how badly it handles high contrast areas.

It's a good lens no doubt, but I would be looking at one of the better zooms like the 9-18 and one of the new primes.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be the fault of the sensor for the problems you notice in high contrast areas? Or are you actually speaking of optical problems? Saying because the sensor on the X100 is quite a bit better than on the GF1/2 cameras and also from the G1/G2 as well
 
vrapan said:
Wouldn't it be the fault of the sensor for the problems you notice in high contrast areas? Or are you actually speaking of optical problems? Saying because the sensor on the X100 is quite a bit better than on the GF1/2 cameras and also from the G1/G2 as well
Click to expand...

Agreed, Flare and CA or general blown outness?

As for the 7-14 vs 9-18 I'd regrettably have to pick 9-18 since I'd want to use filters, and there's no way I could afford a 7-14. Although It is the better lens and I don't much like the collapsible deign of the Zuiko.

Have you thought about a 9-18 + 14-140 combination? Plus mabe the 20mm for low light? 100-300 is a very long lens for m4/3 I think you'd struggle to justify its use unless you are planning wildlife shoots.
 
I'm planning on getting the E-P3 when it goes on sale. My intended lens lineup for walking an travelling etc is;

Olympus 12mm f2
Voigtlander 25mm f0.95
Panasonic 100-300mm f4-5.6

That shoulder cover all my landscape, wildlife, low light, portrait and general shots. :)
 
There's also the new lenses; 25mm f/1.4 (I think that's the aperture), and the 12mm f/2.0, both of which have gotten good reviews (though very pricey - the 25mm is about £500 and the 12mm nearly £1k if I remember correctly).

There's also the option of using old manual focus lenses via an adapter. I have a 28mm f/2.8 OM lens, which I absolutely love. A bit tricky to get the focus right in a split second situation though.
 
Picked up the Panasonic 20mm 1.7 this morning, very impressed after a brief play in the garden, will give it a proper workout on holiday next week. I knew they were small, but it's really small, easily pocketable on my E-PL2.
 
vrapan said:
Wouldn't it be the fault of the sensor for the problems you notice in high contrast areas? Or are you actually speaking of optical problems? Saying because the sensor on the X100 is quite a bit better than on the GF1/2 cameras and also from the G1/G2 as well
Click to expand...

Did a few sample shots a while ago. 20mm is a good lens, but the Fujinon is a definitely better, as you'd expect from an expensive camera that only has to deal with one lens :)

X100:
http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu323/mid_gen/DSCF3001.jpg

G1+20mm
http://i660.photobucket.com/albums/uu323/mid_gen/P1020655.jpg

You can see the flare around the bright areas, which I assume is lens rather than the sensor...
 
Voigtlander 25mm f0.95? I've been impressed since getting one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top