Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by Aushiker, Aug 31, 2016.
oh and um...
I got an incredible deal on one and just had to pick it up. I was going to play with it for a few days and sell it again. That was 3 weeks ago. It's rarely left my camera since. I have absolutely no intentions of selling it.
I'm considering replacing my Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 with this, but if I read correctly, the 25mm has the same minimum focusing distance as my 45/1.8, where as my Panny 20/1.7 has a much closer focusing distance (just a much slower and noisier AF).
The 25 1.8 focuses a lot closer than the 45 1.8. This is from actual use, not published specifications. I don't have the 45 1.8 any more, but I can measure the 25 1.8 minimum focus if you would like actual numbers... The 20 1.7 focuses closer than the 25 1.8, but not by much.
If it's only marginally closer, that gives me more incentive to get an Oly 25/1.8 instead as it seems like a more solid lens.
I have the Oly 25mm 1.8, great lens.
If you have an Olympus body there is no reason to get a Panasonic 20/25mm lens except based on cost.
Sent from my Moto G (4) using Mu-43 app
Not sure where you read it. The specs clearly show that it is half that of the 45/1.8. Personal experience tells me that the mfd is right around 10 inches.
I find that the four-thirds.org website is a great resource for quacking looking these things up: Four Thirds | Micro Four Thirds | Products(Lenses).
Based on specs like B&H etc
25mm : 9.4"
45mm : 19.68"
Panasonic 20 : 7.87"
For some reason I thought it was about 20 inches like the 45, either changed from a bad document or I just remembered incorrectly.
Right! It is a great lens and I would certainly recommend it whole heartedly. May I ask why you are looking to replace the 20/1.7?
AF speed and focusing noise primarily, also the AF tends to take forever finding a lock if it's not a bright sunny scene.
While I do manually focus most the time, the focusing ring isn't as nice as the one on either my Olympus 12/2.0 or 45/1.8.
It's a nice lens in terms of the images it delivers to me, but I would only replace it when it's feasible to spend the funds doing so because when out and about it's not as comfortable to use as my Olympus lens.
And size/weight. I love slapping the 14 on the body and the 20/25 in my pocket...however, the 25 is a bit chunky (I know, I know, it's still tiny)...the 20 is completely unobtrusive in your pocket! If it wasn't for the size advantage, I would have put the 20 up for sale already...as it is...I can't make up my mind haha.
I use am E-M5 with a JB Grip... It's not going in my pocket any time soon.
Lol yeah...that's why I never use my grip!
Apparently last post deleted even though there was nothing shown (censor bars and what not) and despite that the model is a woman it somehow alienates women.
The reason nude photos of females alienate women is because many women see it as sexually objectifying.
Artfully done nude photos, male or female, don't seem that way to me or to many others -
and the nude body has been a major subject in art since art began.
There could be a forum dedicated only to that genre w/o it offending anyone who didn't want to look at it.
But then the admins would have to get into hopelessly sticky judgments about what is art and what is tasteless nudity/pornography.
I totally understand why just banning it completely is the practical choice.