Micro Four Thirds Bodies and Lenses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jono1
  • Start date Start date
J

Jono1

Guest
Hi. I've recently purchased an Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mk. II and I think it is a great camera. I'm considering my first prime and I really like the idea of a 25mm lens. I just don't know if the Olympus 25mm f1.8 is worth paying extra for over the Panasonic 25mm f1.7. Does anyone have any experience of using the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 on an Olympus camera? Is it worth the extra money paying for the Olympus 25mm? I think I need convincing that the Olympus lens is worth the extra money over the Panasonic for another reason than just that build quality is slightly better. I was in a shop playing around with the Panasonic 25mm f1.7 lens on the new GX80 and it seemed great.

I'm not loyal to brands and was really considering purchasing that above mentioned Panasonic lens and camera combo. I just thought that the bulid quality and better viewfinder of the e-m5 ii was worth paying for. I might get the GX9 if that ever hits the shelf, but I'm sure i'll be more than happy with the camera I have at the moment. I just need to build upon lenses.

Perhaps anyone has any other 'budget first primes' they'd like to suggest? Although I must point out that I love the 50mm equivalent focal length as that's what I learnt photography on
 
Basically the Olympus is a bit smaller and a bit better built, both are good optically.

The Panasonic 14mm is a lovely little lens that can be picked up cheaply if you want something wide.

@ f/2.8 the Sigmas aren't fast enough for me, a prime should be f/2 or faster to make not having a zoom worthwhile.
 
FishyFish said:
I'm in a similar boat, although I have a Lumix GX7. I too want a fast walkabout prime, and am thinking about the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 pancake lens. However there are also the compatible 25mm lenses that you mention, plus the Sigma 19mm to consider.

I'll watch this thread with interest.
Click to expand...
I've actually used the GX7 with the 20mm f1.7.. I even bought it as a kit and I found the 20mm lens to be incredibly sharp... it's probably what made me realise that micro four thirds is justifiable as a system.. I have heard that some Panasonic lenses aren't great on Olympus bodies though and suffer from CA, but I don't think that will be a deal breaker for me... the 20 mm lens is an excellent choice, I think because I have used it in the past though, that I might be looking for something different... regrettably, I sold that camera and lens combo when I needed some funds for other things.. some people may complain that the 20mm is a bit slow to focus, however coming from Fuji it really isn't too bad, but there are quicker lenses out there for M4/3
 
I think both Panasonic and Olympus cameras automatically correct for CA and other lens distortions for their own lenses, but not each other's. So I would assume you'd get better results sticking to the Olympus lenses on your E-M5ii, unless I've been duped by the marketing hype :)
 
magicolor1 said:
I think both Panasonic and Olympus cameras automatically correct for CA and other lens distortions for their own lenses, but not each other's. So I would assume you'd get better results sticking to the Olympus lenses on your E-M5ii, unless I've been duped by the marketing hype :)
Click to expand...

I've used an Olympus 9-18mm on an old Panasonic G3 and it does correct for distortion.
 
Update to this thread from a couple of years ago. After going back and forth from micro four thirds to Fuji I'm currently on micro four thirds again. The main reason for this is lenses. Fuji make incredible lenses and cameras, which come at a cost. Best Fuji lens I owned was the 35mm f2. Everything else was too expensive.

I love my primes. I currently own the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 17mm f1.8, 12mm f2 and Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (plus low fi CCTV lenses converted for m4/3) The 14mm and 12mm are pretty close in focal length. I have put the 12mm up for sale even though it looks good on my pen f. My pen f will probably sell too. I rarely leave the house these days without my gx80 and 14mm combo. For years my first camera was a Ricoh KR-10 (the poor man's pentax k1000) with either a 50mm or 28mm lens. The 28mm lens being my preferred choice. So, it's no surprise I love the Panasonic 14mm so much. Even though the 12mm suffers less distortion, CA and is optically a better lens. I just like the 14mm. It's not all about image quality.

I bought an Oly 25mm f1.8, sold it. Then bought a Panny 25mm f1.7 and sold that too. I guess 50mm equivalent was never really my forte and I prefer something a bit wider. Or the Oly 45mm for shallow depth of field.

How have other people got on with their choice of primes? Are more expensive lenses worth the extra money? In my experience.. no, but then I'm not a pro. It's just a hobby for me. Any stories on how, or why cheaper lenses have been sought after over more expensive ones for any reason other than price?
 
Jono1 said:
Update to this thread from a couple of years ago. After going back and forth from micro four thirds to Fuji I'm currently on micro four thirds again. The main reason for this is lenses. Fuji make incredible lenses and cameras, which come at a cost. Best Fuji lens I owned was the 35mm f2. Everything else was too expensive.

I love my primes. I currently own the Olympus 45mm f1.8, 17mm f1.8, 12mm f2 and Panasonic 14mm f2.5 (plus low fi CCTV lenses converted for m4/3) The 14mm and 12mm are pretty close in focal length. I have put the 12mm up for sale even though it looks good on my pen f. My pen f will probably sell too. I rarely leave the house these days without my gx80 and 14mm combo. For years my first camera was a Ricoh KR-10 (the poor man's pentax k1000) with either a 50mm or 28mm lens. The 28mm lens being my preferred choice. So, it's no surprise I love the Panasonic 14mm so much. Even though the 12mm suffers less distortion, CA and is optically a better lens. I just like the 14mm. It's not all about image quality.

I bought an Oly 25mm f1.8, sold it. Then bought a Panny 25mm f1.7 and sold that too. I guess 50mm equivalent was never really my forte and I prefer something a bit wider. Or the Oly 45mm for shallow depth of field.

How have other people got on with their choice of primes? Are more expensive lenses worth the extra money? In my experience.. no, but then I'm not a pro. It's just a hobby for me. Any stories on how, or why cheaper lenses have been sought after over more expensive ones for any reason other than price?
Click to expand...

I went through a bunch of M43 lenses, primes and zoom, but the Olympus 12-40 was the one I held onto the longest. It is such a great lens, the perfect little all-rounder. I much preferred it to the 15mm and 25mm 1.7 primes I had before, even though those lenses are obviously brighter I would say the 12-40 was just as sharp and more fun to use. It's like having a bunch of 2.8 primes in one, it's also got great close up capabilities and I love that in a lens. The PL15 1.7 is a much loved lens, but I couldn't get on with it as I actually found it very fiddly to use. It's a bit smaller than I'd like, I prefer a lens I can cup my left hand under while shooting, and that aperture ring ... eurgh ... it was way too loose, could be much too easily knocked out of place. IQ was superb, sharp as you like even at 1.7, but if it's not comfy to use then I move on to the next. If I was looking for another wide fast prime I would look no further than the Sigma 16mm 1.4, their 30mm 1.4 is also reportedly excellent if you want something longer but not the bog standard 50mm equiv
 
Similar story here, it's the 12-40 that gets used, everything else is occasional.

I have often flirted with the idea of a Sony A7iii but the reality is that the image quality of m43 is still way more than good enough for 99% of situations.
 
I have the Oly 17, 25 and 45mm f1.8's plus Oly 9-18mm, Panny 14-42mm, 45-150mm and 12-35mm f2.8.

I also have a Sony A7 with 35mm f2.8, 55 and 85mm f1.8's and 28-70mm and also use old film era lenses on it. The A7 with the 35mm f2.8 or even the 55mm f1.8 isn't significantly bigger than my GX80 and GX9 but the MFT cameras have other advantages such as the electronic shutter and being a lot faster in operation.
 
woof woof said:
I have the Oly 17, 25 and 45mm f1.8's plus Oly 9-18mm, Panny 14-42mm, 45-150mm and 12-35mm f2.8.

I also have a Sony A7 with 35mm f2.8, 55 and 85mm f1.8's and 28-70mm and also use old film era lenses on it. The A7 with the 35mm f2.8 or even the 55mm f1.8 isn't significantly bigger than my GX80 and GX9 but the MFT cameras have other advantages such as the electronic shutter and being a lot faster in operation.
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of equipment. Reading this makes me feel more comfortable about owning two cameras even though I'm not a pro lol. No such thing as the perfect camera eh?
 
Jono1 said:
That's a whole lot of equipment. Reading this makes me feel more comfortable about owning two cameras even though I'm not a pro lol. No such thing as the perfect camera eh?
Click to expand...

Anytime I've ever had 2 bodies and a bunch of lenses I found it kind of frustrating. I hate leaving anything out, if I'm heading out specifically to shoot I want to use all my gear :D I know, it's a bit weird but that's me. Prefer to keep to one body and 2-3 decent lenses and mess about adapting stuff besides for the fun of it. In saying that, I'm expecting a camera to arrive tomorrow and I will have 2 bodies again, for now ...
 
Jono1 said:
That's a whole lot of equipment. Reading this makes me feel more comfortable about owning two cameras even though I'm not a pro lol. No such thing as the perfect camera eh?
Click to expand...

There may be the perfect camera and lens for each occasion. The problem is that there are a lot of different occasions.
 
I can recommend the Panasonic 25mm f/1.4, had an Olympus 25mm f/1.8 at the same time and it didn't compare favourably.
Mainly use a 12-40, also have Olympus 12mm and 17mm plus Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 and 14-45
Never noticed any problems mix and matching between an E-M1 and a GX9.

Seriously considering selling the 12 and 17, hardly ever get used, but the fast 25 does come in handy
 
I'm happiest with 2 or 3 bodies and just one lens permanently on each. I currently have 3 outfits set up: 3 M43 bodies with 7.5, 30 and 60 primes; 3 M43 bodies with 9-18, 12-32 and 45-150 zooms; a G9 with 100-400 plus a Sony A65 with 16-300. Each outfit has its own bag so I grab and go having only to make a simple decision about the sort of stuff I intend to do.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I'm happiest with 2 or 3 bodies and just one lens permanently on each. I currently have 3 outfits set up: 3 M43 bodies with 7.5, 30 and 60 primes; 3 M43 bodies with 9-18, 12-32 and 45-150 zooms; a G9 with 100-400 plus a Sony A65 with 16-300. Each outfit has its own bag so I grab and go having only to make a simple decision about the sort of stuff I intend to do.
Click to expand...
8 cameras?
Are you a pro?
 
Cagey75 said:
Anytime I've ever had 2 bodies and a bunch of lenses I found it kind of frustrating. I hate leaving anything out, if I'm heading out specifically to shoot I want to use all my gear :D I know, it's a bit weird but that's me. Prefer to keep to one body and 2-3 decent lenses and mess about adapting stuff besides for the fun of it. In saying that, I'm expecting a camera to arrive tomorrow and I will have 2 bodies again, for now ...
Click to expand...
I think I feel the same way. I would rather have less gear sometimes. But then I go out and about and think... oooh wouldn't be nice if I had that lens, or a camera that did this
 
Jono1 said:
I think I feel the same way. I would rather have less gear sometimes. But then I go out and about and think... oooh wouldn't be nice if I had that lens, or a camera that did this
Click to expand...

We'll always feel that though, look at the bigger spenders on here, never satisfied. They have the kind of juicy lenses we can only dream about yet still have bad GAS, still yearning for the newer models. I think the more we have the more we want, gone are the days of the guy with one crappy old body and one 50mm lens - in truth it's all any of us needs to get out and take some nice pictures :D
 
I don't have much gas myself and when I have it it's usually for an old lens that costs significantly less than many would spend on a round of drinks let alone on a meal out but I can't really criticise people who buy the latest expensive kit, use it for a week and then start all over again. Not if they can afford it. There are people on other forums and indeed in everyday life who spend their money on cars (been there and done that and I can tell you it makes spending on camera gear look like popping into the pound shop for a bag of sweets,) watches, clothes, handbags or any other number of things.

If people have the disposable cash and want to indulge themselves then why not? Yes, you could give it all to charity but sadly I've seen enough misuse of funds in charities to think that burning it would be putting it to better use.
 
woof woof said:
I don't have much gas myself and when I have it it's usually for an old lens that costs significantly less than many would spend on a round of drinks let alone on a meal out but I can't really criticise people who buy the latest expensive kit, use it for a week and then start all over again. Not if they can afford it. There are people on other forums and indeed in everyday life who spend their money on cars (been there and done that and I can tell you it makes spending on camera gear look like popping into the pound shop for a bag of sweets,) watches, clothes, handbags or any other number of things.

If people have the disposable cash and want to indulge themselves then why not? Yes, you could give it all to charity but sadly I've seen enough misuse of funds in charities to think that burning it would be putting it to better use.
Click to expand...

Nobody is criticizing them, they can do whatever the heck they like once it's not with my money :D But it's still GAS, whatever way you swing it. I wonder if they make use of half the gear they buy tbh, especially the non pros. I ask, I mean, I don't care! just wonder. I'm sure nobody would get butt hurt by an observation
 
Last edited:
I raise the odd eye brow reading threads on here and not just at the ones buying multiple high end bodies and lenses as the same effect is visible at all levels including the entry level with people swapping one perfectly good camera/lens for another with I'm pretty sure minimal if any effect.

As an example of pure gas that harms no one :D I have an old film era 35mm f2.8 coming today. I have... several like it that will do the same job but this one is subtly different in a couple of ways just as the others are subtly different in their own ways. I'll have hours and maybe years of fun and enjoyment with it whereas a meal out probably costing more will be over in an hour or so and flushed the next day. I know what I'd rather spend my money on, a cheap meal at home and a cheap old lens :D
 
Cagey75 said:
I wonder if they make use of half the gear they buy tbh
Click to expand...
I cetainly do. What's more I'm pretty sure I spent less on my photography over the last 50 years than most of the people seeking to make themselves seem "cool" by criticising others. As Conan Doyle put into Sherlock Holmes's mouth: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I cetainly do. What's more I'm pretty sure I spent less on my photography over the last 50 years than most of the people seeking to make themselves seem "cool" by criticising others. As Conan Doyle put into Sherlock Holmes's mouth: "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data."
Click to expand...

Is that what you think I was doing? not in the slightest [already stated above nobody is actually criticizing!] Also I wasn't even thinking of your post, I'll be honest I hadn't even read it. I was thinking the high end guys who buy £3K lenses for the many £2K+ bodies they have and never seem to take any photos. I have owned my fair share of pricey gear over time too, and you know what? I couldn't give a rat's what anyone thinks about my choices ... I certainly wouldn't go about explaining them to anyone on here. And the kind of types I'm referring to wouldn't give a rat's about my simple observation either. Just as I shouldn't feel the need to explain my observations - but I will because seems I've been taken up wrong ;)

While we're at it though, there's nothing 'cool' about people p***ing on others for using old vintage lenses or using M43 cameras either, yet they do it all the time ;) Different strokes.

My post was a general observation continued from what jono said, nothing whatsoever to do with your post, it wasn't actually about anyone specifically. I could say the same for people I know in person, the must-haves, they buy all the latest gear, use it for about 5 minutes then it gathers dust or they sell on to get the next 'better' version. I never said in any way that they shouldn't, but that doesn't mean it doesn't puzzle or amuse me - just thinking out loud, being a gear forum and all that. I don't get people who get defensive about gear, it's lumps of plastic and metal that we treat ourselves to, and if we get more fulfillment out of actually making use of it other than just scratching an itch, all the better.

GAS does exist though, it's here to stay, I mean I bought another camera I certainly don't 'need' - I just wanted to.
 
Last edited:
Cagey75 said:
I don't get people who get defensive about gear, it's lumps of plastic and metal
Click to expand...
I think it's more than that, especially now most people use digital. Photography has always been dependent on the technology and so people invest both financially and mentally in the tools of that technology. It's easy for comments criticising a person's choices of technology to be thought of as a generalised attack even though (as in your case) it wasn't meant that way.
 
AndrewFlannigan said:
I think it's more than that, especially now most people use digital. Photography has always been dependent on the technology and so people invest both financially and mentally in the tools of that technology. It's easy for comments criticising a person's choices of technology to be thought of as a generalised attack even though (as in your case) it wasn't meant that way.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think we take gear too seriously nowadays, more than ever. Hence my earlier 'one old camera one simple lens' comment earlier. I think I was happier when I felt lucky to have just that. I remember when I had bags of gear later and I'd feel a bit frustrated because I wasn't making best use of it. But that's a self afflicted pressure, we are all different I do get that.
 
Cagey75 said:
Anytime I've ever had 2 bodies and a bunch of lenses I found it kind of frustrating. I hate leaving anything out, if I'm heading out specifically to shoot I want to use all my gear :D I know, it's a bit weird but that's me. Prefer to keep to one body and 2-3 decent lenses and mess about adapting stuff besides for the fun of it. In saying that, I'm expecting a camera to arrive tomorrow and I will have 2 bodies again, for now ...
Click to expand...

I think I would be like that if I had two systems, never knowing what to take.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top