Need advice for lens to accompany my coming OM-D EM-5
- Thread starter silencer13
- Start date
albertri
Senior Member
when i tried it although not played much the AF is pretty good I dont have other pana lens to compare but looks ok to me maybe other who really owns this could attest
i have the 12-50 kit lens that came with my E-M5, and the 20/1.7, 45-200, and 45/1.8 from when i had an E-PL1.
now i'm torn between two 4/3 lenses, 12-60 and 14-54mkII, so would like to test my logic with you guys.
- like the range of the 12-60 but i hear the AF is very slow even on the E-M5. is it too slow for street photography?
- AF speed on the 14-54 seems ok in a youtube video i've seen, but it seems to make quite a bit of whirring sounds. is the AF noise noticeably audible when street shooting? ie. compromises stealth?
- i'm new to the 12mm FOV and loving it, so that's a point for the 12-60 vs 14-54. but i'm thinking that most of what i'll be shooting at 12mm is likely static and thus allow for a lens change, which i'm otherwise reluctant to do specially when travelling (which is most of the time)
- but if i accept lens change to go wide as a necessary evil, then i again face a dilemma on what wide angle lens to get
- 12/2 seems to get a lot of praise and for sure i like the speed, but then i would likely need to swap back immediately to 14-54 right after using the 12/2
- the 7-14 gives UWA which piques my interest a bit, but again i'll most likely have to immediately swap back to 14-54
- 9-18 seems like a good compromise as it gives UWA and i can probably keep it on longer since its range includes the 35mm standard, albeit at slow speed
- the upcoming 12-35/2.8 seems like best fit for me but i hear it's going to be bloody expensive
am i making sense? my setup currently is D7K + 17-50/2.8 + 28-300/3.5-5.6 with the deliberate range overlap to minimize lens changing.
which combo would you go for?
12-60 and sell the 12-50
14-54mkII and keep the 12-50
14-54mkII + which wide angle lens
thanks for hearing me out
now i'm torn between two 4/3 lenses, 12-60 and 14-54mkII, so would like to test my logic with you guys.
- like the range of the 12-60 but i hear the AF is very slow even on the E-M5. is it too slow for street photography?
- AF speed on the 14-54 seems ok in a youtube video i've seen, but it seems to make quite a bit of whirring sounds. is the AF noise noticeably audible when street shooting? ie. compromises stealth?
- i'm new to the 12mm FOV and loving it, so that's a point for the 12-60 vs 14-54. but i'm thinking that most of what i'll be shooting at 12mm is likely static and thus allow for a lens change, which i'm otherwise reluctant to do specially when travelling (which is most of the time)
- but if i accept lens change to go wide as a necessary evil, then i again face a dilemma on what wide angle lens to get
- 12/2 seems to get a lot of praise and for sure i like the speed, but then i would likely need to swap back immediately to 14-54 right after using the 12/2
- the 7-14 gives UWA which piques my interest a bit, but again i'll most likely have to immediately swap back to 14-54
- 9-18 seems like a good compromise as it gives UWA and i can probably keep it on longer since its range includes the 35mm standard, albeit at slow speed
- the upcoming 12-35/2.8 seems like best fit for me but i hear it's going to be bloody expensive
am i making sense? my setup currently is D7K + 17-50/2.8 + 28-300/3.5-5.6 with the deliberate range overlap to minimize lens changing.
which combo would you go for?
12-60 and sell the 12-50
14-54mkII and keep the 12-50
14-54mkII + which wide angle lens
thanks for hearing me out
cannedpineapples
New Member
Personally I would get the uwa (7-14 is my personal fav), keep the 12-50 and wait for 12-35. Af speed is critical with street photography, which your 12-50 already has in spades.
It's fast enough to make me feel that the panasonic 20mm f/1.7 autofocus is slow. Makes me appreciate how fast the 25mm is. But the 20mm pancake is compact and matches well with EM-5. There is always give and take.
The AF is extremely fast under most conditions. Feels faster than my 60D + 50mm f/1.4. However, be prepared to use MF with 10x magnification assist when shooting under very dim light because the AF will have problems locking on. The 12-50mm kit lens also exhibits the same problem, so it is probably inherent to CDAF rather than the lens.
subisisniki
New Member
This is 1 poisonous thread... Anyone tried both 20 1.7 and 25 1.4 and actually prefers the 20 1.7? Wanna know your reason
ageha
Senior Member
Olympus acknowledges E-M5 / 20mm banding and is working on fix: Olympus acknowledges E-M5 / 20mm banding and is working on fix: Digital Photography Review
Finally...
Finally...
Preference between the 20/1.7 and 25/1.4 depends on application usage. For food photography, 20/1.7 is way ahead due to the close up distance of 20cm. For kids portrait, the 25/1.4 wins due to it's speed in AF. For street shooting, 20/1.7 is less intimitating.
It is not necessary true that 25/1.4 is the clear winner. 20/1.7 just trash it for food imho.
It is not necessary true that 25/1.4 is the clear winner. 20/1.7 just trash it for food imho.
Sorry, if I were to give a different perspective.
1) The four-thirds 12-60mm f2.8-3.5 lens, when used on EP3 or OMD EM-5 (with adapter, of course) is a bit slower, but the pictures are very sharp. I have taken pictures with the 12-60 mm. However, the 12-60 appears heavy when paired the EM-5.
2) I was fortunate to meet one of the Olympus reviewer in Malaysia and he was using the EP-3 with the Micro four thirds 14-54mm f2.8-3.5, and this was again, less weight and sharp pictures. Of course, the speed was slower than with the kit lents.
As most of us have four third lenses, it would be a waste not to use them
3) The 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 micro fourthirds lens is not too bad, it gives sharp pictures, and speed is acceptable. With this EM-5, if you switch the digital projection on, you get 2xzoom, which is fantastic. The 12mm is wider than the 14mm, so it helps in your picture taking.
4) Of course, the prime lens is mandatory for use with the OMD EM5. But for those like me, it again involves changing lens. For those who don't mind, this is fantastic sharp.
5) latest, I found out that using OMD Em5 with the zoom micro lens, 14-150mm lens, there are good reviews.
I was told from reviews that the 12-50mm lens is not good for video, in fact the 14-42 MKII is better for videos.
Summary:
a) Prime Lens is good, expensive, with leica prime the best.
b) 12-50mm micro lens: has the macro as well, so good for general purpose.
c)re-cycle your four third lenses. I regret selling my 14-54 f2.8-3.5 lens, and this version I is a better made lens (material wise).
My two cents worth.
Love to hear your other views, as I am still making up my mind on the final list of lens for the OMD EM5. The 12-50mm micro lens gives me 2xdigital zoom, macro and wide angle.
*************************************************************************************************************************
Which combo would you go for?
12-60 and sell the 12-50
14-54mkII and keep the 12-50
14-54mkII + which wide angle lens
thanks for hearing me out[/QUOTE]
1) The four-thirds 12-60mm f2.8-3.5 lens, when used on EP3 or OMD EM-5 (with adapter, of course) is a bit slower, but the pictures are very sharp. I have taken pictures with the 12-60 mm. However, the 12-60 appears heavy when paired the EM-5.
2) I was fortunate to meet one of the Olympus reviewer in Malaysia and he was using the EP-3 with the Micro four thirds 14-54mm f2.8-3.5, and this was again, less weight and sharp pictures. Of course, the speed was slower than with the kit lents.
As most of us have four third lenses, it would be a waste not to use them
3) The 12-50mm f3.5-6.3 micro fourthirds lens is not too bad, it gives sharp pictures, and speed is acceptable. With this EM-5, if you switch the digital projection on, you get 2xzoom, which is fantastic. The 12mm is wider than the 14mm, so it helps in your picture taking.
4) Of course, the prime lens is mandatory for use with the OMD EM5. But for those like me, it again involves changing lens. For those who don't mind, this is fantastic sharp.
5) latest, I found out that using OMD Em5 with the zoom micro lens, 14-150mm lens, there are good reviews.
I was told from reviews that the 12-50mm lens is not good for video, in fact the 14-42 MKII is better for videos.
Summary:
a) Prime Lens is good, expensive, with leica prime the best.
b) 12-50mm micro lens: has the macro as well, so good for general purpose.
c)re-cycle your four third lenses. I regret selling my 14-54 f2.8-3.5 lens, and this version I is a better made lens (material wise).
My two cents worth.
Love to hear your other views, as I am still making up my mind on the final list of lens for the OMD EM5. The 12-50mm micro lens gives me 2xdigital zoom, macro and wide angle.
*************************************************************************************************************************
Which combo would you go for?
12-60 and sell the 12-50
14-54mkII and keep the 12-50
14-54mkII + which wide angle lens
thanks for hearing me out[/QUOTE]
iise7en
Senior Member
I prefer 45mm F1.8 lens. Faster AF and good lighting. Super good low light. Very affordable.
Frosty1971
New Member
weakpig said:
Just use your kit lens and snap pictures that you would normally take. Look through the shots and see which is the focal length that you would normally use. That will be your shooting habit and get that prime lens.
No point getting a great lens but hardly use cause it doesn't suit your style. It'll just end up as a white elephant.
25mm is actually a 50mm in the real SLR world (35mm film). The scope of the pic is actually quite narrow but at F1.4, the bokeh is beautiful.
speedtest99
New Member
please don't buy omd if you are a Canon user, trust me.
If you buy OMD, you will surely relegate your Canon Camera to the Dry cabinet for the next decade.
Anyway, the price for body is about $1450, with kit lens is about $1720.
To all to E-M5 users (and a lesser extent, other m4/3 users) out there: For the same money, would you prefer a few primes, one pro zoom, or a mix? Please share your reasons as well. For example, at about $1700...
Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 ($1600)
vs.
M.Zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 ($400)
Leica 25mm f/1.4 ($800)
M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 ($450)
vs.
M.Zuiko 12mm f/2.0 ($900)
Leica 25mm f/1.4 ($800)
For me, I'll go with the mix. The 12-50 is inexpensive, weather-sealed and a jack of all trades covering a long range from wide to mild tele to macro. It is a great travel companion. To compensate for its small maximum aperture, the positively awesome 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 come to the rescue. The zoom itself is a 12/3.5 which is quite adequate for most situations.
The much more expensive 12-35/2.8 is only 2/3 of a stop faster than the 12-50 at 12mm, and it is 2 stops slower and quite unlikely to outperform the 25/1.4 at 25mm. It also stops at 35mm and cannot compare with the 45/1.8. So I really cannot justify paying that much more for this lens. The big consolation, though, is its size and convenience. There is no need to change lenses and it is the lightest combo of the three at only 300g.
The 12/2 probably has the best IQ at its focal length. Add in the 25/1.4 and you have a deadly landscape / street / indoor combo. But the fact remains that you are fixed to 2 focal lengths, and you have to change lenses often if you want to take the same scene from different perspectives. If you want a longer reach, you will have to pay extra for the 45/1.8.
Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8 ($1600)
vs.
M.Zuiko 12-50mm f/3.5-6.3 ($400)
Leica 25mm f/1.4 ($800)
M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8 ($450)
vs.
M.Zuiko 12mm f/2.0 ($900)
Leica 25mm f/1.4 ($800)
For me, I'll go with the mix. The 12-50 is inexpensive, weather-sealed and a jack of all trades covering a long range from wide to mild tele to macro. It is a great travel companion. To compensate for its small maximum aperture, the positively awesome 25/1.4 and 45/1.8 come to the rescue. The zoom itself is a 12/3.5 which is quite adequate for most situations.
The much more expensive 12-35/2.8 is only 2/3 of a stop faster than the 12-50 at 12mm, and it is 2 stops slower and quite unlikely to outperform the 25/1.4 at 25mm. It also stops at 35mm and cannot compare with the 45/1.8. So I really cannot justify paying that much more for this lens. The big consolation, though, is its size and convenience. There is no need to change lenses and it is the lightest combo of the three at only 300g.
The 12/2 probably has the best IQ at its focal length. Add in the 25/1.4 and you have a deadly landscape / street / indoor combo. But the fact remains that you are fixed to 2 focal lengths, and you have to change lenses often if you want to take the same scene from different perspectives. If you want a longer reach, you will have to pay extra for the 45/1.8.
I am still a rather new MFT user but I am beginning to love it. The size and weight is really a plus factor for me. The downside is that when I pair it with the FL600R, you will need to get a grip to feel secure. It is quite difficult to hold it nice and secure without a grip with the flash on.
Currently, I have 3 lens.
1) Kit lens 12-50
2) Panny 20mm
3) Samyang Fisheye
I love the 12-50 for the versatility, it works great for my trip to hong kong but the indoor experience is something else. The 12mm F2 is really really tempting me but I keep telling myself I dun need it. It is really expensive for something that I will not use that often.
The next lens I am looking at is the 45mm F1.8, with that it will solve the problem of low light portrait lens but that means I need to frequently switch lens for a different perspective.
I am still trying to get used to MF the Fisheye and I am having some trouble. Went for a buffet at Meltz yesterday and 90% of my FE shots were OOF. Argh.
Brought my 20mm to Yan Ting today and for food I think it works not bad.
Currently, I have 3 lens.
1) Kit lens 12-50
2) Panny 20mm
3) Samyang Fisheye
I love the 12-50 for the versatility, it works great for my trip to hong kong but the indoor experience is something else. The 12mm F2 is really really tempting me but I keep telling myself I dun need it. It is really expensive for something that I will not use that often.
The next lens I am looking at is the 45mm F1.8, with that it will solve the problem of low light portrait lens but that means I need to frequently switch lens for a different perspective.
I am still trying to get used to MF the Fisheye and I am having some trouble. Went for a buffet at Meltz yesterday and 90% of my FE shots were OOF. Argh.
Brought my 20mm to Yan Ting today and for food I think it works not bad.
Similar threads
