Oly 50mm vs. the pancake

<p>I am happy with the performance of my 50mm, and I have been using it lately with the EC-14 for portraiture. With the f2 aperture I lose one stop and can still focus well. If you are thinking of primes, I believe that the 50mm for most people will turn out to be a very good buy. A good design, both in quality,size and weight. Actually, the 50mm give me what I used to have in my Canon FD 100m,my most <em>utility</em> focal length for head and shoulders portraits. The only thing one must consider is that you need now to account for the fact that the background will appear sharper than you may want in a standard portrait. And you will learn to account for that (meaning it has the same depth of focus as a 50mm,which it is.) </p>

<p>Lately I have been using the 50mm plus EC14 as a copy device too for a few old 23X24mm slides on a light box. It does well in any macro capacity I can think of. I have never used the 25mm pancake since my 14-54mm covers that focal length and I think I prefer the versatility of Zuiko zooms. Small is sometimes good when one want to be light and inconspicuous. I would love to own the 150mm f 2 but a local implant dentist will have first call on my spare cash fora while...Been a stormy and choppy week out there... C'est la guerre.</p>

<p>I use an E-510 with a Zuiko 14-54 and find it to be a fine combination. I also have adaptors that allow me to use my Pentax Takumar and Leica-R lenses on the E-510, although they function only as manual lenses.</p>

<p>I have used 50mm and 55mm Takumars as portrait lenses, and they work just fine. To have a lighter walk-around kit, I use my Leitz Elmarit-R 28/2.8 lens with an adaptor. This "normal" focal length lens focuses down to 12 inches, which provides a lot of versatility in a small package.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>If the 'pancake' refers to the 2.8/25 then it is not a fair comparison at all. It is a bit like asking: I want to buy a new car, should I get a Ferrari or a Mack truck. You need to decide what you want, a small and light normal lens or a longer portrait lens that can also do macro. By the way, the 2.8/25 focuses pretty close as well so not a slouch for closeup work though of course not a macro by any means.</p>

<p>I have the 25mm Zuiko. Its quite my favorite lens for general use. I have tried my Takumar 50/1.4 as well. It is nice sometimes to have have such a long and fast lens but it is by no means a general use lens. The 25 is such an affordable lens and, complaints not withstanding, it performs very very well even wide open.<br /><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3093/3142566124_9ba97fbd84.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>Your post says you are looking for a portrait lens.... based upon personal experience, since i own both lenses I think:<br />A. 50mm will be a better focal length for portraits. Sorry, the 25 was not optimized for portraiture. I do like the 25/2.8 for an all round shooter, but when I tried getting quite close to fill the frame on some informal portraits, distortion became very noticable. The effect was not flattering. At more of a distance the effect is less pronounced. Sensor-size not withstanding, it is still a wide-angle lens! The 50 is a stop faster and has less inherent DOF to begin with, so you have greater options/control for selective focus. <br />C. The 25 is not really that sharp at ~f4 and wider. Almost certainly no sharper that your kit zoom. Just wayyyy smaller...... that's where that lens shines- it's nice for walking around with and an all-around shooter.</p>

<p>Thank you everyone for your responses. It is amazing how much I learn from the collective intelligence of this community!<br>

It seems that I have asked the wrong question, trying to compare the two. Perhaps I should have asked about the difference between the Olympus 50mm and the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. The larger 1.4 aperture is appealing! This leads me to another question I don't know... when shooting in low light how much more flexibility will the f/1.4 give me over the f/2.0 of the Olympus? I love the "available light only" look.<br>

p.s. Godfrey - "quaint assignations"... That one made me laugh.<br>

Thanks again to everyone for all your help!</p>

<p>And Lili,<br>

I am impressed with the sharpness of that lens. Thanks for the example... that one will be on the wishlist for traveling.</p>

<p>Nathan, the greater f-stop, if shooting with the E-series, is only going to give you brighter view screen ability. Generally, the sensors are good to approximately f/2.0. I use a Zuiko 55mm, f/1.2 and have noticed that the image sensor does not change exposure beyond f/1.8.<br>

<br />You can still obtain the "available light only' look by shooting at ISO 400 and f/2.0. But I would recommend that you do so as B&W. Color images at this setting will most likely produce some noise and it is very noticeable when enlarging to 8x10 and greater.<br>

<br />The soft effect with the Zuiko fast lenses is perfect out of the box for portrait work. However, my experience is to get the tack sharp image and then apply softness, vignette, and etc. with post production such as Photoshop.<br>

<br />I hope this helps.<br>

</p>

<p>Thanks Ken,<br>

That answers my question perfectly. I think I will be going with the 50mm f/2.0!</p>

<p>CORRECTION:<br />---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />The Olympus E-series sensors can perform exposures with an f/1.2 aperture setting. My recent experiments have proven that the exposure changes from f/2.0 to f/1.2 of the same subject and lighting environment.<br>

I also noticed that Sigma has f/1.4 lenses for the 4/3 mount, and the E-series sensors should perform with the fastest aperture setting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Good choice Nathan. I have the E-420 camera w/the 50mm f/2 lens as my all-purpose carry-around camera (I know, it's a bit weird). I've taken thousands of pictures indoors & out and used the on-board flash just once. The color quality is richer than Canon. </p><div></div>