Oly 50mm vs. the pancake

<p>Hello all,<br>

Its time for my first prime lens, and I am trying to decide between the 50mm f2.0 and the pancake lens.<br>

I am looking for a portrait lens, but I could really dig the macro capabilities of the 50mm too. However, the crop factor also concerns me somewhat with the 100mm eq.<br>

I know what all the reviews say about each, but besides the obvious advantages (like 50mm for macro) what are everyone's personal experiences with each?<br>

Thanks for all your imput!!!</p>

<p>"The pancake" ... what a ridiculous way to refer to a compact, normal lens. Sorry, but these quaint assignations are just silly to me. </p>

<p>I own and use the ZD 25mm f/2.8 and ZD 35mm f/3.8 Macro. I have borrowed and used the ZD 50mm f/2 Macro.</p>

<p>The 25mm lens is a very good normal lens, particularly for the smaller/lighter Olympus bodies and the Pansonic L1 and G1 bodies. The price is very reasonable, the performance is outstanding for the price, and f/2.8 is fast enough for most needs, even in fairly low light, hand-held situations. IN my photography, a good normal lens is without a doubt the most valuable lens I have. (I also have the Panasonic/Leica Summilux-D 25mm f/1.4 ASPH ... and use it almost as much as the Olympus ZD 25/2.8.)</p>

<p>The 35mm lens is another superb value for money: excellent rendering qualities, useful as a short portrait lens as well as for landscape work, macro work, etc. It achieves 1:1 magnification with no accessories and is also remarkably small and light. It's a little larger than the 25mm and balances well even on the larger E-1 and E-3 bodies, continues to be very handy on the diminutive G1 body. The f/3.5 speed is a little slow for some low light work, but overall proves useful for a great deal of general purpose photography as well as its specialties. </p>

<p>The 50mm lens is just plain wonderful in all ways. It's larger and heavier than the other two by a good bit. It has delightful rendering qualities, f/2 speed, and superior build quality. It's a professional lens, thus a bit pricey. HOWEVER, I find the focal length a little too long for my general purpose use. This is the only reason why I haven't purchased one yet: given the amount of use I have for a 50mm lens, I've made do with an adapted Pentax M50/1.4 that cost me $30 and performs similarly (both image quality and handy size dynamics) when stopped down to f/2, or I switch to the 50-200mm f/2.8-3.5. </p>

<p>Given my photographic needs, the 35 Macro was the first additional lens I bought for a FourThirds camera. If the 25/2.8 had been available at that time, I would have bought that first. I'm glad I have both: they are my most used lenses, along with the Summilux 25. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>For portraits, most photographers like longer then normal focal length lenses with wider apertures, so that distracting background elements can be blurred or eliminated. An 85-135mm eq. or longer is commonly used for portrait photography, head and shoulder kind of shots. So I think the 50mm f/2 would be the way to go. I had the lens, but primarily used it for the macro feature.</p>

<p>Godfrey,<br>

Nobody cares if you think the designation "pancake" is silly or ridiculous.<br>

Stop being such a pretentious snob.</p>

<p>The term pancake has been used since 1902 when the Tessar lens was developed. Over 100 years of continuous usage qualifies it as being a normal part of the photographic lexicon.</p>

<p>Ironically, one definition of quaint is "unfamiliar or unusual" which means it has no application in your criticism of the usage of the word pancake.</p>

 

<p>If nobody cares, why was it important for you to respond? I regret to say that I don't care what you think of me. Whether I think you're a pompous ass or not is irrelevant. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>I responded because I considered your tone condescending and inappropriate.</p>

<p>As it continues to be.</p>

<p>Sadly.</p>

<p>So you can search Wikipedia and a dictionary, eh? So why is the other definition of "quaint" irrelevant?</p>

<p>"Quaint - adjective : <br /> attractively unusual or old fashioned"</p>

<p>What ridiculous silliness. An off-hand comment, intended to be rhetorical, causes one jerk to sneer and another to seek accredited validation. I must have forgotten to put in a smiley-face for the irony-impaired.</p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>No, Godfrey, I made a counter point to your argument that the term is quaint and has no value. If you don't want people to respond to your rhetoric then you shouldn't use it in the first place.</p>

<p>It has been used for a long time to describe a certain type of lens. Your opinion on its usage has no relevance to the the thread. You are trolling and your behavior is childish.</p>

<p>"Which tastes better, the ZD 25mm f/2.8 or the ZD 14-54/2.8-3.5?<br /> The ZD 25mm f/2.8, of course! It's a pancake!"</p>

<p>Let's not carry on this stupid train of thought. I offered a full, well-considered reply with an off-hand, rhetorical comment. You must have a very short attention span if all that was significant to you was the first sentence, which by the way, was NOT an argument: just a personal opinion. Also, by the way, the ZD 25mm f/2.8 is not a Tessar lens. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>Godfrey, your sneering attitude somewhat overshadowed your self-declared well-considered reply.</p>

<p>It's a shame that this needs to be pointed out to you.</p>

<p>[[you must have a very short attention span if all that was significant to you was the first sentence.]]</p>

<p>And you must have a terrible time going through life with such thin skin.</p>

<p>If you can't handle people criticizing what you say then you shouldn't be posting to this or any other website. You are behaving like a boorish child.</p>

<p>If I had a problem with the rest of your well-detailed response I would have said so.</p>

<p>I can handle whatever stupidity you want to proffer, Rob, because I really, truly, sincerely don't give a rat's patootie about such stupid comments. If I choose to respond in kind, well, why not? I'm on lunch break and enjoying a little harmless banter with you.</p>

<p>Of course, neither of you have contributed anything to the OP's search for information, neither opinion nor experience regards the lenses in question. It makes your defamatory remarks so much more creditable.</p>

<p>I apologize to the original poster if my rhetorical remark was off putting, and for the stupidity of those who would elevate it to be the subject of the rest of the thread. I don't apologize for their inane attempts to call me names, nor to them at all. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>[[ If I choose to respond in kind, well, why not?]]</p>

<p>You did not respond "in kind" or anything close to it, Godfrey. You responded like a child who was told he couldn't have candy before dinner. I offered a counter point to your statement. You responded with sarcasm and insults. You clearly cannot handle someone having an opinion different than yours which is a real shame.<br>

I'm glad you're enjoying your time away from reality and decency, Godfrey.</p>

<p>Insults aside, You still haven't answered my question. Unable to? Wouldn't surprise me. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>You haven't actually asked me any questions, Godfrey.</p>

<p>Why are you like this Godfrey?<br>

Your tone was condescending; it continues to be.<br>

There is absolutely no need for it.</p>

<p>Rob, <br /> <br /> All it takes is a moment's reading of the thread: <br /> <br /> <em>Godfrey DiGiorgi , Feb 20, 2009; 03:43 p.m.<br /> > ...So why is the other definition of "quaint" irrelevant?<br /> > "Quaint - adjective : <br /> > attractively unusual or old fashioned"<br /></em> <br /> But you're too busy trying to promote your opinion.<br /> <br /> William,<br /> <br /> My <em>"tone was condescending"</em>? I disagree with you, it demonstrates another reading deficiency. But again, why do you care? My response was not directed at you. If you found it offensive, the sensible thing to do would be to ignore it. <br /> <br /> Which is what I'll do now by unsubscribing to this thread. I hope Nathan gets his information, either from my post or from someone else who also responds informatively. You two haven't contributed anything but more time-wasting nonsense to photo.net. <br /><br /> Godfrey</p>

<p>AHHHH HAAAA - Godfrey really does pick fights with everyone, and I thought it was just me! Just don't ever say anything derogatory Mac computers to this guy. FWIW, I actually think he is a fine photographer.</p>

<p>Hello again Sanford, </p>

<p>Thank you for the compliment. </p>

<p>Pick fights? No.<br>

Respond to obnoxious comments? yes. </p>

<p>Hmm. I wonder why clicking the "disable this alert" link didn't work. No matter. </p>

<p>Godfrey</p>

<p>Oh, he means digital... I get it now. I thought he meant 50mm f/1.8 or 40mm f/2 pancake OM. Silly me. What will be fun is when Oly starts making M43 lenses and then all you digital guys can be just as confused as us film guys. ;)</p>

<p>And yes, it IS a pancake lens... that's why Oly referred to it as and so that's what it is. Sure, just because technically it is the size that any normal lens of moderate speed would be for 4/3's means that technically it's just a normal lens... but if Oly wants people to think of it as a pancake, then it's a dang pancake. As far as 50mm lens vs. 25mm lens... wow, theres a TON of differences here. Normal lens verses telephoto shouldn't even have to be a choice, but Oly refuses to make more prime lenses, so that's the situation people are in. Nathan, consider carefully if you want. A 50mm lens for 4/3's is very long for an "everyday" lens. If you are shooting lots of portraits and doing lots of close-ups it's probably worth it. If you just want occasional macro capability, then you probably just need extension tubes to turn the 25mm into a macro lens every now and then. 25mm will be much much more appropriate as an everyday, walk-around lens.</p>

<p>[[> ...So why is the other definition of "quaint" irrelevant?<br /> > "Quaint - adjective : <br /> > attractively unusual or old fashioned"]]</p>

<p>You mean the rhetorical question you asked and then incorrectly answered yourself? I was going to save you (and this thread) the embarrassment of pointing out that you have no idea what the word irrelevant actually means. </p>

<p>But since you are now claiming this was your question to me, ok.</p>

<p>irrelevant - Unrelated to the matter being considered. Not connected with the matter in hand. Having no bearing on or connection with the subject at issue; "an irrelevant comment"; "irrelevant allegations"</p>

<p>Notice how the word "quaint" and the words "old fashioned" and "attractively unusual" don't actually appear in the definition of irrelevant? Nor do any of them appear in the list of synonyms for irrelevant.</p>

<p>But did you notice that your opinion of the word "pancake" was completely irrelevant to the original posters question? No, of course you didn't.</p>

<p>Then again, you don't care about any of this. Your only concern is that someone dared to disagree with your worthless rhetoric. Or was it irony? Oh wait, was it opinion? Have you made a decision about what it was yet, I'm beginning to lose track.</p>

 

<p>[[if you found it offensive, the sensible thing to do would be to ignore it.]]</p>

<p>And if you didn't like my response, why didn't you ignore it? How is it possible that you are so blind to your own words?</p>

<p>.02$<br>

I would recommend to go with the 50mm! The pancake compromises image quality to make a tiny package. By the time you add a hood (mandatory for outdoor shooting) its not that small anymore, anyway. The 50 is a better performer and gives you close-up possibilities too. </p>