would you recommend lens for E-30 ?

[jhon_shine]

<p>I got E-30 camera a few days ago.</p>

<p>For beginner, which kinds of lens are proper to enjoy taking pictures ?</p>

<p>Cannon and Nikon has 35mm, 50mm, 85mm fixed lens, but Olympus doesn't.</p>

<p> </p>

[leandro_dutra1]

<p>For a beginner, the ‘kit’ ſemiprofeßional Zuiko 14–54mm II is a great choice. Olympus does have a 70mm equivalent, ðe Zuiko 35mm macro 1:3.5, and a 50mm equivalent, ðe 25mm 1:2.8 pancake. Alſo available are Sigmas equivalents to 48mm (24mm 1:1.8), 60mm (30mm 1:1.8), and a Leica equivalent to 50mm (25mm 1:1.4).<br>

Not only ðoſe Four Þirds prime lenſes, but Zuiko and Leica zooms are nearly as good as ðe primes, and Four Þirds cameras accept nearly all manual prime lenſes from oðer ſyſtems þrough adaptors. Obviouſly Leica Rs and Zuiko OMs are ðe moſt popular.</p>

[warren_lafever]

<p>what is your budget? i dont have a e-30 but i just bought two lenses that completed a system for me. my lenses are; 35mm macro, 50mm macro, 12-60mm SWD and 50-200mm SWD. i am covering pretty much the entire range i could ever need except for a superwide zoom (7-14mm) if you only want primes you could go with the panasonic 25mm f1.4, the olympus 50mm macro f2, 150mm f2 and the 300mm f2.8 (or get a teleconverter for the 150mm)</p>

[robwilson]

<p>I have an E3, so lens choice is exactly the same. If your budget is low then the kit lenses that Olympus sell are fine. However, I can't recommend the 12-60mm SWD highly enough - it is a fabulous lens. I combine it with a 70-300mm - which isn't as good as Warren's 50-200mm SWD, but is a lot less expensive and is still an excellent lens!<br>

I will say one other thing - Olympus lens really kick arse compared to the competition at all price ranges! <br>

Cheers<br>

Rob</p>

 

[michaelyoung]

<p>I'll echo Rob's praise of the 12-60mm SWD. It's a thing of joy.<br>

The 70-300mm is another in its own right--far different from the 12-60 in a variety of aspects-- but capable of wonderful things--and affordable.<br>

I'd be remiss not to mention the 50mm F2, sharper than a razor blade, superb through the lens quality in all respects, and again, very affordable.</p>

[warren_lafever]

<p>my 50mm f2 is worth its weight in gold......if you buy one lens that should be it...</p>

[brian_swagger]

<p>Hey Warren - Which model camera do you have? I am asking because someone made mention that some Olympus DLSRs do not take full advantage of the "SWD" feature of lenses that offer it. I own a e-510 and was wondering if paying the extra cash is worth me actually having a SWD. I know there is always the "well when you are ready to upgrade the body - you are good to go" But i was just curious?</p>

<p>Is it that the AF mechanism in the body not fast enough to take full advantage of the SWD mechanism in the lens?</p>

<p>PS - Thread starter (forget name - sorry) - Olympus claims that and E-30 equiped with an SWD Lens is just as fast as the E-3 with the same lens. And Olympus says the E-3 Is the world's fastest camera when it comes to AF. That's an olympus claim - nice to know if it is true or not.</p>

[warren_lafever]

<p>i have the E-520 and it seems pretty fast to me. even if it wasnt i would not really know the differance because i dont have anything to compare it to..its is much faster than the kit lenses i had (14-45 and 40-150 that came with the E-500 i had) i think its worth the extra money because of the updates that were made to the lens (50-200) to make it more stable and improve color abberation. also unless you buy used you would have a hard time finding a 50-200 with out the SWD because oly stopped making them i think.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>I would suggest getting the 2.8/25 and starting with that. It is a great little lens, fairly fast, focuses close and is not too expensive. After you have used that for a while, you should know whether you need to get something wider for your next lens, or something longer. And whether you would prefer a zoom of some length. In the old days all cameras were sold with a 25mm equivalent standard lens (50 mm in the old film days). Some great photographers, like Henri Cartier Bresson used nothing much else than a 50mm (on film) throughout their careers, so you would be in great company. The Olympus 2/50 is a great lens but it should not be your only lens, so not your first lens either. On 4/3 body it is equivalent to a 100mm in field of view, so fairly narrow, better for portraits (or closeups) than general use. It would make a perfect second lens if you find that you would like to get a bit closer to your subject, from a distance. Of course, the first question should be: what would you like to photograph. If your main interest is birds or wildlife, then your first lens could very well be the 70-300 zoom, or 50-200 if money is less of an objection. </p>

[oliver_b]

<p>Hi,<br>

I have a 510 with a 12-60mm SWD and damn its fast and absolutely magical. Im thinking of upgrading my 70-300 to a 50-200 with 2x converter for the same reasons. As for recommended lenses, anything in the pro or superpro range are amazing, however a still can't go past the standard lenses either. If your after super wide angle buy the 9-18mm, telephoto - buy the 70-300mm, primes (or macro's) the 25mm f2.8 and 50mm F2, and as for a standard walkabout lens either the 14-54mm (which you may have) or the 12-60mm if you can afford it. If you want an unobtrusive lens, buy the 25mm f2.8 - im thinking of one just for nights out with friends as i want the kit to be small and 50mm equ FOV is about the same as human eyes FOV, so what you see is what you take a photo of.<br>

One of my friends recently bought an E30 and he has the 12-60mm and 70-300mm lenses only. Its the perfect all round kit, ranging from 24mm at the wide end to 600mm and the telephoto. And you wont miss the 20mm gap in the middle. It also minimises the kit you need and keeps things simple when travelling.<br>

My gear includes a E510, 12-60, 70-300, 50 f2, 9-18. </p>

[leandro_dutra1]

<blockquote>50mm equ FOV is about the same as human eyes FOV</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_lens">Not quite</a> .</p>