Micro 4/3 'star' lenses - opinions please

<p>Hi all<br>

Again I'm drawing on the combined knowledge here to get some rapid pointers as I get 'up to speed' on Micro 4/3 systems.<br>

I'm soon to get an OMD EM5 body and the 12-50 zoom, but that lens is intended to be a secondary lens (e.g. for when I absolutely need a on-lens solution) as I have always preferred shooting primes.<br>

My idea is to get 2-3 primes in addition to the 'kit', and in terms of focal lengths I'm wavering between the fast 12mm and 17mm options for wide, and am pretty firm on the 60mm macro (alternative being the 75mm), and maybe want something in between.<br>

But this is driven by what I like to shoot in DSLR terms and what I'd like to know is what the real 'gems' are in the 4/3 line-up and what combinations give people who use this system good results; even if they deviate a bit from my starting plan.<br>

Thanks!</p>

<p>I'm walking around these days with the 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 60mm f2.8 in my E-M5. Just shot this Chinese Lantern Festival Friday night with the setup..</p>

<p>http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Portfolio/Chinese-Lantern-Festival/26833943_zvNmPz#!i=2247779847&k=nfJmVhF</p>

<p>Back in late May, before I purchased my E-M5 and before the 60mm f2.8 was available, I took an E-P3 and the 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4 and 45mm f1.8 to Paris for 10 days. Worked really, really well..</p>

<p>http://gmchappell.smugmug.com/Travel/Paris-2012/23447320_hbHF63#!i=1900069269&k=QqWvZ7W</p>

<p>The 12mm f2, 25mm f1.4, 45mm f1.8, 60mm f2.8 and 75mm f1.8 primes are all top drawer, and I don't doubt the new 17mm f1.8 will be the same.</p>

<p>With the new 17mm f1.8 and the 75mm f1.8 the possible 2-3 prime combinations are almost endless. A wealth of choices for someone like myself who would have given anything to have only a couple of these options in the Four-thirds DSLR system.</p>

<p>+1 for the 45/1.8</p>

<p>Welcome to micro 4/3! For your "in-between" lens, you may want to consider the very highly regarded <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-Lumix-Micro-SUMMILUX-Aspherical/dp/B0055N2L22?tag=battleforthew-20">$499 Panasonic Leica 25mm f1.4</a>. Many believe this to be the best lens in micro 4/3.<br>

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/review/R3CX1MRHC1SZ4U/ref=cm_cr_pr_perm?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B0055N2L22&linkCode=&nodeID=&tag=battleforthew-20">Here</a> is a review from a very satisfied OM-D E-M5 owner.<br>

Hope this is helpful,<br>

Bill<br>

<a href="http://hybridcamerarevolution.blogspot.com">Hybrid Camera Revolution</a></p>

<p>Probably the top lenses are 12f2 (personally I think it is overpriced and under resolving); 25f1.4 (bit over priced; bit high loca); 45f1.8 (relative inexpensive but not biting sharp); 60f2.8 (biting sharp wide open; virtually no loca or ca; some reports indicate a lost of sharpness at infinity) 75f1.8 biting sharp nice bokeh low loca/ca but higher than 60f2.8; tad long for normal portrait). The reports on the 12-35f2.8 are mixed (bit high ca odd loss of resolution around 25mm sharp but not biting sharp) and 35-100f2.8 (not as sharp as some had hoped at 100mm). Quite a few folks like the 20f1.8 but it seems to have banding issues on new bodies (gh3, e-m5) slower focus than 25f1.4.<br>

-<br>

If you don't use 1.8 on the 45mm I would recommend the 60mm due to the very low loca and close focus ability. The wide end is a bit of an issue today there is the 12f2 but it is expensive and not in the same league as the 60 or 75; the 14-45 (panasonic) is probably the best consumer zoom but it does have a bit of ca. <br>

-<br>

Fyi the initial reviews on the 17f1.8 are relatively negative. lenstip has nice reviews on most of the lenses you've mentioned so you might take a look over there. They cover a bit more than basic resolution but like most reviews they cannot cover every aspect of a lens. There is sometimes that magical 'look' that a clinical review cannot quite capture. That's what folks like about the 25f1.4 though as I mentioned I think it is a bit over rated; but at least today there is not a viable auto-focus alternative. If you are willing to consider manual focus the voiglander 25f0.95 is said to be exceptional (though once again loca is quite high).</p>

<p>Like Greg, I own and shoot with many of these "star" lenses. It should be noted that what comes out of a lens can't always be reduced to a set of numbers. That's why it's often useful to read reviews of photographers like: http://robinwong.blogspot.com/p/olympus-gear-review.html, <a href="https://plus.google.com/104558599624253816184" rel="author">david taylor-hughes</a>, http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/</p>

<p>My take on what I use:</p>

<p>12/2 - Like all the good µ4/3 lenses, it useable wide open. It has a very nice 3D look to images. There's some CA, but the Adobe CA removal tool makes it a non-issue. It's worth every nickle. They come for sale at http://www.mu-43.com/ & refurb'd at Cameta pretty often. </p>

<p>25/1.4 - OK wide open, but a little weak in contrast. Great by f2. For a 25mm it's big & heavy. I also have the 20/1.7 which is optically excellent, although the bokeh isn't as creamy as the 25 and the AF is a little slow and noisy. A good alternate if you want a wide normal.</p>

<p>45/1.8 - Can't get a better short telephoto. Keep in mind that the bodies have a top shutter speed of 1/4000 sec. and low ISO of 200. If you want to shoot wide open in bright sun, you'll need a .9, 3 stop ND filter.</p>

<p>75/1.8 - The DOF control that this lens gives, and its look, make it very desirable even if you don't normally shoot this focal length.</p>

<p>17/1.8 - While I don't have this lens, I suspect that once more photographers review this lens, it will get a more positive rep.</p>

 

<p>I have the 14mm Panasonic lens. Nearly every rave review I've read about the 12mm Olympus lens ends with something like "the Panasonic 14mm is just about as good, just about as fast and wide, at a third of the price and weight. </p>

<p>The Panasonic 14mm f2.5 is excellent and tiny. If a 28mm field of view is all you need at the wide end, it's excellent. It's just not as wide (24mm vs. a 28mm equivalent FOV is not a small difference, and the wider difference does cost. Always has), the 12 is also nominally faster at f2, has a manual focus scale allowing one to easily set infinity focus if you want to avoid AF altogether and is way, way better built. The Panasonic 14 is a very well made lens, just not nearly as well as the Olympus 12mm f2 which is an all-metal exterior and has the feel of a high-quality piece, which may or may not be important to anyone looking at the two, but you do have to pay for the difference whether it's important or not.</p>

<p>Since you prefer primes for some reason I won't mention my Lumix 014140.</p>

<p>From direct experience, I recommend the following third party MF options:<br>

Samyang 7.5/3.5 fisheye<br>

Voigtlander Nokton 17.5/0.95 and 25/0.95</p>

<p>The following lenses have a great reputation and I saw great samples from them:<br>

Olympus: 12/2, 45/1.8, 75/1.8<br>

Panasonic: 20/1.7, Leica 25/1.4 and 45/2.8<br>

Most have already been mentioned already in this thread.</p>

<p>The 14/2.5 is *NOT* a star lens. It's a good lens, but there is nothing amazing about it. It's arguably marginally better than the 14-42 kit lens, although I wouldn't be able to tell the difference between them when used at similar settings.</p>

<p>With the caveat that I haven't seen or used it, may be worth checking the SLR Magic 12mm prime - reviewed on Photozone. Cheaper than the Olympus 12mm, and with (according to reviews) qualities of its own. Also worth reading Ctein's comments on the Olympus 12mm on the Lensrentals blog.</p>

<p>While I would agree that the Oly 12mm lens is superior to the Pany 14mm, a 24mm equivalent lens, while fine as the short end of a wide angle zoom, is, in my opinion, too wide as a stand alone walk around lens. As someone pointed out, there is a world of difference in those 4mm.</p>

<p>Everyone's pretty much summed up what I think. The 45mm is a star, definitely worth getting, especially as it's under $350 now, if you shop around. The 60mm and 75mm from what I hear are good, you just have to decide whether that's a focal length for you. I have a 180mm lens in my 35mm film kit, but don't use it very much, certainly not for the general photography that everyone seems to be buying the Olympus 75mm for. I am especially proud of Olympus making their 60mm have good handling features like the variable focus limiter, magnification markings, etc. while the Panasonic 45mm macro is a little disappointing in that regard. Plus, it depends how "macro" you shoot. Many people buy a macro lens and then just take photos of flowers and other subjects for which my non-macro lenses focus close enough. If you're just shooting flowers and plates of food, from what I've seen of the 12-50mm's macro mode, it may be enough for you. Just as we've seen from Canon and Nikon (with lenses like their 70-200mm's, 24-70mm's, Nikon 14-24mm, etc) with today's computer design capabilities, many zoom lenses are rivaling the performance of primes!</p>

<p>As for general lenses, I think the 12mm is overpriced for what it is, especially when it doesn't have noticeably better image quality than the zooms that cover the same range. Still, if you want a prime, you're a captive audience. I agree about the 14mm, that it's not optically better than the zoom lenses like the 14-42mm (I quickly sold my 14mm for that reason, but if you want one, they are cheap on ebay, since there is a huge overstock in Asia, where they are separated from camera bundles). The Olympus 17mm is a disappointment, as others have mentioned. Both 17mm versions are, the old f/2.8 and the newer f/1.8 version. Both Ming Thien and lenstip have tested the new one, if you'd like to look. For $200 less than it, the Panasonic 20mm is optically better AND it's a pancake, but has slower autofocus if you care. I personally think that at its current price, the Panasonic 25mm isn't worth it, but YMMV. That much for a normal lens seems ridiculous to me. </p>

<p>I definitely agree to look to the third parties. Sigma's 19mm and 30mm, you definitely get more than you pay for, and I'd say that from what I've seen, the Sigma 19mm at least beats the old Olympus 17mm f/2.8, for two-thirds the price. Voigtlander's lenses are as good as, well, Voigtlander lenses, if you can live with the price and manual focus. That fisheye from Samyang is very well regarded, and is more in line with what you'd want to pay for a casual-use fisheye.</p>

John F - could you please point me more accurately to Ctein's comments; I can't seem to find them.

<p>I think he meant at TOP (the online photographer), where Ctein is a regular, and not lensrentals.<br>

http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/11/olympus-12mm-review.html</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think the 12mm is overpriced for what it is, especially when it doesn't have noticeably better image quality than the zooms that cover the same range.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Overpriced? It offers two stops advantage over any zoom with little drop in IQ. And the build quality is superior as well. This and the 75mm are among the best built AF MFT lenses.</p>

<p>Ariel is quite right - I goofed; go to TOP for Ctein, and Lensrentals for some resolution comparisons of M$£ wide and normal lenses. Sorry!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Overpriced? It offers two stops advantage over any zoom with little drop in IQ. And the build quality is superior as well. This and the 75mm are among the best built AF MFT lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the difference between those who actually own and take pictures with the gear they're commenting on, and those who parrot what they've read on the net. There's also the issue of having lots of kids here who can't afford some of the better gear.</p>

 

<p>Laurentiu, all I can do is point you over to that TOP link as well, because it echoes my sentiments with the short time I had the lens from B&H, when I visited New York earlier this year. It's always nice when you read stories like that, btw, shows that you don't need to put on your tinfoil hat, that you aren't going crazy. Especially read the comments, as Ctein rebuffs some of the comments made against his article.</p>

<p>Bruce, I suggest you read them as well. Why you are devolving a thread on gear discussion into personal attacks is beyond me. But, since you started it, Some people are obsessed with fashion, how it looks, how the 12mm is like a piece of jewelry. Sorry, when I want something fashionable, I'll buy Cartier or Omega, not Olympus. My camera is a tool, and I'm going to evaluate it using objective merits, i.e. what shows up on my hard drive, not how it looks around my neck. There, am I doing the baseless attack thing correctly? And if I listened to online reviews, I'd be using an Olympus instead of my G2, because of nonsense about how image stabilization takes precedence over so many other camera features, or nonsense about "Olympus color" as if they aren't restricted to the same gamut as everybody else. </p>

<p>All I can do is also point you to other reviews from sites many people swear by that say just the opposite of the TOP review, which is "unique" compared to any of the other reviews I have read, and my own experience having had the lens now for several months..</p>

<p><a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_ed_12mm_f_2_review/">http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_ed_12mm_f_2_review/</a></p>

<p>This guy had to get a third copy before he had a good one..</p>

<p><a href="http://admiringlight.com/blog/olympus-m-zuiko-12mm-f2-review/">http://admiringlight.com/blog/olympus-m-zuiko-12mm-f2-review/</a></p>

<p><a href="http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1444">http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1444</a></p>

<p>Now, who's review should everyone take as gospel? Should CTEIN have asked for another copy to see if one sample warranted a singular pronouncement on the model as a whole? There are bad copes of any lens you can buy. At $800, if you have a bad copy, you keep sending it back until you get a good one. They're out there. People are using them and testing them with very nice results.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There's also the issue of having lots of kids here who can't afford some of the better gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't know, but when there is a discussion of "star" lenses, I don't expect to see people complaining about prices.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Laurentiu, all I can do is point you over to that TOP link as well</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, he's keeping the lens, doesn't he? He's hoping for a better one coming along, but aren't we all? If he could replace this with a zoom lens, it sounds like he would have already, but the f/2 aperture is what makes it a keeper and no zoom can compete with that. I am not surprised that a lens that offers 2 extra stops is expensive. Look at the difference between the Canon 50/1.2 and the 50/1.4 - $1400 vs $400 for half a stop - that difference alone covers the price of this lens with money to spare.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>All I can do is also point you to other reviews from sites many people swear by that say just the opposite of the TOP review</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's also the photozone review which ends with more praise than one expects from them:<br>

http://www.photozone.de/olympus--four-thirds-lens-tests/673-oly12f2</p>

<p>For some reason, I see quite a bit of <em>outrage </em>on µ4/3 boards at the prices charged for the high end gear. There seems to be a concept that this is a small, economical format. Whatever. I don't have much interest in broke, entitled kids, or people who have no first hand knowledge of what they're passing judgement on.</p>

<p>I can vouch for the Oly 60 f2.8 macro. It is truly an excellent lens, which is also well thought out in design terms. The focus limiter switch is very useful. I can also recommend the Oly 45 f1.8. It has excellent image quality and is very affordable.<br>

I also use the Pany 20 f1.7 and am very happy with it. It has a reputation for being slow to focus but I haven't really noticed it myself and would not regard it as a problem. YMMV. It wouldn't suprise me if the Leica Pany 25 f1.4 is a bit better again but that might be splitting hairs. <br>

The Pany 14 f2.5 is a bargain at around the $150 mark with ok IQ but not necessarily a lot better than the kit 14-42 zooms. Its main advanatge is its size and speed.<br>

The Samyang 7.5 fisheye has very good IQ. It is MF only which may or may not suit your needs.<br>

The Oly 9-18 is the "affordable" M4/3 wide angle zoom. The IQ it offers makes it good value for money IMO.</p>

<p>Ok so i am sold on the 12 and 60.</p>

<p>But in between should I spend my 500-600 remaining dollars on the Pana-Leica 25mm/1.4? Or (as I'm tempted to do) on the cheaper Pana 20mm/1.7 pancake and the Oly 45mm?</p>