My current favorite all around micro 4/3 camera and lens

[GerrySiegel]

<p>For Panasonic and zoom enthusiasts. I bought the Lumix GH 2 last year and it hasn't disappointed me. Does lots of things very well. I got it with the kit lens which was not bad but not anything to crow about, that was the package available then. I have since acqired the 20mm 1.7 pancake which is a good all around normal lens. I was using the ED Zuiko 50mm with an adapter for a longer reach and it worked OK for the time while I digested the future of micro 4/3.<br /> I was chewing over getting another prime like the 45 mm 1.8 from Olympus when the reviews of the new Lumix 12-35 F 2.8 lens started to come out. I have a reluctance to spend over a thousand on any lens, so I was a tough sell. Adorama managed to offer it at $1099.00 a couple hundred under MSRP, I made the decision, and I finally emptied my piggyback. ( the price has already jumped up on line..)<br /> I must say that this lens, so far, lives up to its high quality reputation for a medium range zoom and Panasonics top line of lenses, akin to the Leica branded ones I bet. It handles well and looks terrific, meaning solid and smooth in operation and focus and zoom. It balances well with the GH 2 which is not a pocket size camera but is right sized for my hands. But for one who experiments with movies as well as stills, it was and is a nifty outfit.<br /> If anyone is thinking of a 12-35mm constant F 2.8 ( always my sweet spot for indoor and low light) image stabilized lens and can afford that kind of exotic offering, I recommend it and you won't be disappointed. I would hope that the price will come down some from MSRP. Maybe later this year. This lens is a keeper, no matter which Lumix body you have. For the right side of the GH 2 I am using a Hakuba wrist palm grip, a budget useful accessory to avoid clumsy neck straps. Latter Hakuba soft palm grip is a solid Best Buy item. No shots worth posting yet but come my trip to Kona I expect to have a bunch.</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>Gerry - I'm glad your kit is working out for you. I'm sure that in large part it is because you chose equipment based on your photographic needs. For video, that body and lens is an excellent way to go. FWIW, I don't shoot video and went with the OM-D and 12/2, 20/1.7, 25/1.4, 45/1.8 & 75/1.8 primes. It fits what I shoot and gives better results than my old DX SLR system.</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>I have a G2, with the kit lens you mention, and I love it. Not pro-quality, but it's pretty damn good in ample light. My biggest hesitation is the current price for good micro 4/3 equipment. I have used the Panasonic 14mm and 20mm, along with the Olympus 17mm lenses, and they were honestly fairly poor performers, The 45mm has come down to $300-ish, which means I'll probably be picking it up soon, and I would do the same with the 25mm f/1.4, but even at the recent drop to $500 that people are rejoicing over, I can't bring myself to spend that on this setup. If the new Olympus 17mm is going to be as reasonably priced as the 45mm was upon introduction, I'd buy it in a heartbeat, and I would maybe willing to spend up to $800 or so for that 12-35. Micro 4/3 finally has competitive image quality to reasonably compete with the DX SLR systems, but for my use, the price isn't commensurate with what you're giving up. Still, I can't wait to play with that lens!</p>

[bruce_rubenstein]

<p>The Olympus rep at Photo Expo let me handle a prototype 17/1.8; it has the same build as the 12/2, not the 45/1.8.</p>

<p>I have the 14/2.5 & 40/1.7. My experience matches every test and comment on these lenses I've ever read: they are both very good. The only knock I have against the 20/1.7 is slow AF. If you don't think the 20/1.7 is very good, don't bother buying the 45/1.8; you won't think much of that one either.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>It is hard to dispute that the price of the lens is a big chunk of money. If I had any doubts about whether it was worth it I would have to ask 1) Do I appreciate a fixed aperture lens 2) Do I favor zooms 3) Do I appreciate the exotic lens elements in this professional level lens 2) Do I need the optical image stabilization system in the lens. 3) Do I want a zoom built for video work as well...Well I do and I do and I do. <br>

Had I bought the OMD or rather waited for it to come out and be available, (and where oh where would I get to handle a copy on Oahu, that is-) I might have gone for the 45mm Oly and had the pair along with adapted 4/3 lenses. The GH2 is one of the cleverest all around cameras I have used. The buttons are scrunched a little for my fat fingers, but the touch screen is nice as well as the articulated finder. I plan to use the combo a lot. Which does <em>not</em> mean I will stop using my E-3 for tripod work and studio type work. It still shines with those 12-60 and the 50-200 lenses. I got each for under a thousand and that was my idea of big bucks. That seemed like a lot I mean, and I understand any reluctance to go for the costly extravagant purchase of top of the line item. Although, great lenses can be a forever item and a pleasurable thing to handle. I can say that I am satisfied without immediate gear lust, although who knows....tempt me with a bargain and see if I bite, :-)</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Since I want convienience in use rather than 'absolute' IQ I have settled on the 014140 for first my G3 and now GH2. My aim with m4/3 is to get as close to the bridge cameras which it has replaced but with the larger sensor and permissable higher ISOs.<br>

The zoom gives me a 28-280 AoV range which is not as much reach as I would like but is similar to my first bridge camera which is 35-280.<br>

Not everybody's choice for sure, but I'm happy :-)</p>

[ariel_s1]

<p>Bruce, I actually received a personal message about my comment. I'll just repost the comment, and my response to it. I've played with the 45mm and liked it. It's just that I don't really do much portraiture with my m4/3 setup, not enough to originally justify buying a lens specifically because of it, and also because I have a Yashica 50mm f/1.4 ML with an adapter. Still, for under $350 it's a great price (as it is from the Olympus refurb store right now), and it would be nice to have a smaller telephoto to back up my kit. Anyway, the comment messaged to me:<br>

"<em>Was quite surprised to read of your disappointment with this lens. Performed fabulously for me with the G2. The kit lens is disappointing.</em> "<br>

And my response:<br>

"Wonderfully sharp in the center, but WAY too slow AF, especially for the price, and the corner performance (due to the behind-the-scenes autocorrections) were fairly poor, again for the price. The AF is also too noisy for video. My kit lens at least has even performance across the frame, which makes me not feel so bad when I move my subject off-center or have a scene in which I'm not trying to throw the background out of focus (but I'd say that even in the corners on the 20mm, it's still in absolute terms still as good as the corners of the kit lens). Plus, I judge my 14-42mm taking into account its price ($120 right now on Amazon) and consider that it gives me the convenience of a zoom. I have higher expectations for a prime lens."<br>

<br>

And JC, first of all, it is standard practice in photography to use the lens name instead of the model number. You can just call it the 14-140mm, even though with those kinds of model numbers, it's easy enough to decipher if you know the Panasonic lineup. Still, if Gerry had opened up this thread throwing around "H-H020" instead of "20mm," there'd likely be a lot of confused faces. Second, everyone has different needs, so there is no right answer, but that's a $550+ lens that gives subpar performance to my $250 in lenses. Changing lenses isn't such a bad thing, given that these ARE interchangeable lens cameras and all. When I want a light kit and don't need telephoto, I take only my 14-42mm. When I need telephoto, the Olympus 40-150mm is so freaking small! But, I'm coming from the other side, where I am used to DSLR quality, and am already giving up enough from the smaller sensors. I had a Nikon 18-200mm which is pretty well revered online, but it just doesn't hold a candle compared to even the most mediocre duo of zooms. I suspect that the same is true for the Panasonic superzoom, although who knows with Panasonic' bungling of the telephoto lineup (first a 45-200mm, next a 45-175mm, and now a 45-150mm at $300? Maybe I should just wait another two years, and the 45-125mm will get it right. Just kidding, I'm happy with my 40-150mm Olympus).</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>Actually if I wanted to be correct I would use the Panasonic number which is 014140. I told you that I am interested in convienience and flexibility rather than absolute performance and it is noted for its very quick focusing ability .... not much point in IQ if the shot is out of focus.<br>

Changing lenses is an old fashioned neccesity rather than a virtue as zoom lenses improve with modern production design and manufacture. The bridge camera is 'THE' digital camera and the shame is that with the pre-occupation with DSLRs the R&D has not gone into improving the design except for adding super long lenses. With M4/3 I have got as close to the bridge camera as is possible currently by treating the 014140 as a fixed len on my GH2. And yes if I want and need to change I have the ability but it is rare for what I do.<br>

I was saved from using a DSLR early on when I didn't want to borrow to buy a Nikon and got the Nikon 5700 bridge camera ...I was very lucky to get by chance circumstances a digital age camera instead of a 1950's make-over :-) I had been using SLRs since the '60's so it was a very lucky break I got becuase I knew very little about digital cameras. If I had researched more I am sure I would have been mis-led by the pundits into getting a DSLR.</p>

[GerrySiegel]

<p>The first results with my 12-35 mm reveal to me that this lens focuses very fast. I can't count the milliseconds, but it does well in even low interior light, possibly best of all my good lenses. The manual focus works smoothly as well, with just a nudge and the finder is clear enough to use. I look forward to see what the GH3 finder looks like and whether we will really want to give up idea of the optical prism finder in the long haul.... I guess Fuji is sort of straddling the fence on that. I am not happy with the need to push the rear dial to go from f stop and shutter to exposure compensation. I may try dedicating the left hand EVF/LCD button. Got to make that left hand do more work. No, shucks I am not one to go after the latest GH model. It just suggests that Panasonic is achieving its goal of making a real mark in the SLR universe. I got sunset shots on quick catch the fading cloud sunlight with the GH2 that I would have trouble catching with non EVF model. So they have a real place in my heart by now.</p>

[scott_paris4]

<p>"it is standard practice in photography to use the lens name instead of the model number."<br>

Of course that's true, but Panasonic, alone among all manufacturers, as far as I know, lists its firmware updates by model number, with no mention of the focal length or speed.<br>

Just makes the process take a little bit longer. </p>