1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

advice on top m43 glass... (Long Post)

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by Chrisnmn, Aug 12, 2012.

  1. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    hey guys as i mentioned in a different thread, im finally jumping the fence 100% into m43landia.

    since im selling my FF gear ill have some extra pennies to set a "formal" or more "pro" (whatever you wanna call it) setup for my OMD. my current setup is the al mighty P20 and the O45. so im thinking in probably getting top glass and heres were i need your help.

    1.) Ive read wonders about the P25 even some comparing it to the Canon 50L f1.2 lens which is a lot to say. but i totally HATE the size of it compared to my P20 (i should not forget that my first step into m43 was because of its size and weight and lately im seeing all the new glass getting bigger and bigger which i dont like much, but i can deal with it). I know about the faster AF which is definitely a plus for me, but im not sure about the IQ compared to the P20.

    Is it worth to get the P25 now or maybe wait for Photokina in the next couple of weeks and see if we get that new oly "pancake" ?!?!?

    Please guys im not hoping to get spec sheets answers from you, i rather have an honest real life comments. Tech spec sheets are one thing and real life is something totally different.

    2.) Im still in between the P7-14 and the O9-18, ive been reading about it, and took it down to apparently a slightly better IQ on the Pana, plus 2mm more which i know in UWA is a lot. BUT i also read about the CA and no filter threads which is the mayor drawback almost dealbreaker for me since its a lens i would use for Landscapes. Also bigger. then on the other side the Oly is smaller, top IQ as well, but also tons of CA, 2mm shorter but filter thread included and like 2 or 300 dollars cheaper. I NEED one of this UWA lenses. not sure if theres any rumor for Photokina of a new one coming besides the mid tele zooms coming?

    3.) I need a short tele lens, basically im looking for a C70-200 f4 lens, which i know about the P35-100 f2.8 coming later one this year. but also ive seen the O75-300 and P100-300 and they look pretty awesome. any advice here?.

    advices are more than welcome. im not hurry, i just want to make a clever system thats enough to work with as to go out on holidays and travelling.
     
  2. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    The only one I can speak to is the PL25. I was along time user of the P20 and IMHO the PL25 is a better lens. It focuses faster and doesn't hunt as much (especially in low light), it's a faster lens and has wonderful sharpness and bokeh. BUT...the P20 is probbaly a better value. You're looking at $200+ more USD for the PL25 and the P20 has some advantages. It's smaller, has a wider FOV (that I actually prefer) and very VERY close in IQ to the PL25. That said, I don't find that the PL25 feels that much larger on the camera than the P20 did. It's still pretty compact. Where I think the real difference lies is that I find I really like the way the PL25 renders. There is something very pleasing about it and to me it feels like a worthwhile upgrade.

    That however is a very subjective opinion. What I like you may not see as significant. I'd say that if you bought the PL25 (and held on to the P20) you could see them side by side and given the scarcity of the PL25s I doubt you'd have any problem selling it if you decide you prefer the P20.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. kwalsh

    kwalsh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    775
    Mar 3, 2012
    Baltimore, MD
    I second the opinion on the 25. Numbers and resolution charts aside images from it just look great. Not that the 20 is a slouch at all, but actually I will disagree with one thing said. I don't think the 20 is a better value really, the 25 is pricier but I do like it at least that much more. You have a hard decision, I think both are great lenses with lots of happy users. That said, in the hundreds of comparison threads I'd say the majority, perhaps a very large majority, of those who own both end up almost always reaching for the 25 unless they are trying to jacket pocket a camera.

    A number of folks have come up with clever ways to get filters onto the 7-14, there is a good recent post about one method on this board in fact. Honestly I rarely use filters on UWA so it has never been an issue for me, but if you are a long exposure ND junkie I can understand your concern.

    CA is not actually an issue on either lens really, all Lateral CA and easily correctable. Based on your experience I presume you are using LR/ACR or something like it and shooting RAW. The auto CA correction works very well, as well as the Panasonic embedded correction really. If auto something chafes then you can use the easy to use Adobe profile creator software instead.

    Yes, the 9-18 is very small but calling the 7-14 big is a stretch. Way smaller than UWA in APS-C or FF.

    Which one? Again very happy users for both, but if you are coming from a 5D and L glass I'd recommend the 7-14. It is a no compromises top quality performer.

    Short tele, no good advice really. Each of the 4x-1xx options has some sort of issue and are mostly targeted at cheap rather than high IQ. I've stuck with the 45-200 after trying both the 45-175 and 40-150 but if you go that route have a good return policy as there are a lot of lemons. Interesting to see what the 45-150 will bring but it still appears to be targeted as a budget optic.

    No experience with the 300s, but from all the reading it seems the 100-300 is the most common choice.

    Good luck!

    Ken
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    +1 on that advice. What it comes down to is only you can decide if the IQ difference and AF speed difference is worth it (to you) in moving to the PL 25mm.

    It *is* a bigger lens, but that's ok because 1) it's still compact and 2) I still have the 20mm anyway :biggrin: At the end of the day for me, there's a noticeable rendering difference between the two lenses and I am just not as "excited" about the results from the 20mm. I will still use it when portability/pancake is more important to me, but any other time I'd rather have the 25. Recently I wondered if that was just my imagination, but even after going back and reviewing my LR collection and the mu-43.com image threads for each lens, I felt the same reaction. Both lenses are very capable, I just seem to have a slight preference overall for the PL 25mm.
     
  5. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    Oh, missed your questions about other lenses the first go around. I had the 7-14mm and just picked up a 9-18mm also so I can give my opinion comparing them as well.

    1) 7-14mm vs. 9-18mm: if UWA is important to you, the 7-14mm is where it's at. That 2mm disparity at the wide end is just huge IMO. It takes it from a wide angle to what truly feels like an ultra wide to me. It's all the difference in the world when you really want that WIIIIIDE feeling & look.

    That said... I ended up ordering a 9-18mm anyway after trying one, only because it's about half the size & weight of the 7-14mm when collapsed. That means I can carry it in a pocket or tuck it into my camera bag super easily, even when I'm already carrying several lenses. This will be for the times I may want a wide angle but am not planning on it specifically, or when weight and space is paramount. Otherwise if I know I'll want a wide angle then the 7-14mm would be my pick, no question.

    2) Tele: I'd get the 45-200mm again without hesitation, if 200mm is long enough for you. It's a great value for the money right now, probably only going to go down in price as the new 40-150mm becomes available. I only sold mine because I have the 14-140mm and 100-300mm and the 200mm was smack in the middle. Definitely would have no hesitation recommending it personally.

    If you want a long tele then I can recommend the 100-300mm also, but haven't tried the 75-300mm to compare it against. However, if a fast zoom matters then the upcoming 35-100mm f/2.8 is really your only candidate. If it's as good as the 12-35mm f/2.8 then it should be an absolutely stellar lens (with a price to match of course).
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. ~tc~

    ~tc~ Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Oct 22, 2010
    Houston, TX
    How wide do you need? If 12 (24 equiv) is enough, the 12-35/2.8 is AMAZING. I am really looking forward to the 35-100, I hope they introduce a 2x teleconverter at the same time.

    The 7-14 is only large in comparison to the 9-18, which is unbelievably tiny. AF was noticeably faster on the 7-14, but it probably doesn't matter with the normal subjects for UWA.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    I've owned and used the 7-14 and it is a world class lens in my opinion. No experience with the 9-18 but I would highly, highly recommend the 7-14. There are workarounds for the filter situation if you must use them. I want another, but am waiting to see what is coming.

    With Photokina around the corner, it seems like a good time to wait. With GAS as rampant as it is, a month from now may be a good time to buy gently used gear.
     
  8. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    awesome tips comments and advice from all of you guys... i can read in between the lines that apparently the P25 is the new P20 (i remember when i joined this part of the photo world, the P20 was THE lens to get if you had a m43 camera). makes sense, i love the size, as i like the size and AF speed on the P14. the only problem with the P14 is that to me was no better than the kit lens IQ wise, but it was small and stop faster. and cheap. so its good to keep it.

    is it worth to pay $500ish for the P25 now or maybe wait Photokina and see if Oly releases the rumored new version of the 17/20ish?

    I am an ND Filter landscape junkie, so for me it is quite important to put the threads in front of it. ive read the DIY way to do it, but either way, it doesnt work properly cause everyone thats done it get a lot of vignetting ....anyway....now discarding that 2mm extra on the pana hows the image quality compared to the oly? or the AF speed of both on the omd?
     
  9. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    i agree with you 100%. might sell all my stuff now but will buy only after Photokina. :thumbup:
     
  10. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    That's pretty much the way the PL25 hit me as well. I just really like it better. I take back what I said about the PL25 not being THAT much bigger...

    [​IMG]

    BUT...I will say that it does't feel all that big on camera. It handles very well and I can't recall ever looking at it and thinking "gee this thing is huge". In the end however you really can't go wrong with either. Waiting for Photonika isn't a bad idea either. There is the rumored Olympus 25/1.8 and I think I have even read somewhere about a PL17. No harm in waiting.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    thank you guys. what about the tele portion of my questions? anyone has a nice recommendation, the lenses that caught my attention based on Robin Wongs post and some image thread here in mu-43.com are the O75-300 and P100-300. any experiences?
     
  12. krugorg

    krugorg Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jul 18, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    Chris, have you considered the Olympus 12mm on the wide side? Okay, I know it is expensive, but what sold me was that it was as sharp, or sharper, than the 7-14 @12 in the corners. Obviously, it doesn't go deep into ultra wide territory, but I find the focal length and lens (46mm filters, snap focus) to be pretty flexible.
     
  13. Chrisnmn

    Chrisnmn Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 26, 2012
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Chris
    Hi Kyle, yes! i have seriously considered the O12 im still deciding. i just dont want to overlap and be redundant with my system. Im thinking in the P7-14 for outdoors and landscapes, while the O12 could work for walkaround wide, street shooting. specially if im going to jump on the P25 or if Olympus releases the new 25 "pancake". so i need to make a decision in terms of going for the P7-14 or O12 since i could only afford one of those so i can get some other stuff i want-need.
     
  14. jeffryscott

    jeffryscott Mu-43 Top Veteran

    505
    Jul 2, 2010
    Arizona
    No experience with either, but I am also pondering these two lenses. What I have found here and other places is the consensus seems to be that the Oly focuses faster on the OM-D and may be slightly better optically. Refurbs can be found for under $700, so the price difference is a bit less, but the Panasonic certainly wins the price battle.

    Really hope Oly will remake the 50-200 from 4/3 - m4/3 needs that lens.
     
  15. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul Mu-43 Top Veteran

    729
    Aug 15, 2011
    Aberdeen Scotland
    The 9-18 is a great lens, I recently bought the 7-14 and sold the 9-18 but to be honest I can't say I notice any difference in the IQ or general performance. I got the 7-14 because I now have the 12-35 and the difference between 9 and 12mm wasn't enough in my view so got the 7-14 which makes it worthwhile. Once expanded the 9-18 is the same size as the 7-14.

    I'm waiting for the 35-100 before getting a tele lens none of the current selection of m4/3 tele's really inspire me, all a bit slow and I'd prefer the IQ and speed of the 35-100m once it's released. I used to have the 100-300 but sold it through lack of use however it is a very good lens and I had no issue with the IQ or general performance.

    I also used to have the 20 and now have the 25, the 20 just never quite did it for me, hard to put a finger on it, the images maybe seemed a bit sterile hard to describe but the 25 is excellent and I've no regrets selling the 20.

    You could get the 12-35, it's a great lens and covers you down to 12mm if thats enough for you.
     
  16. jnewell

    jnewell Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 23, 2011
    Boston, MA
    I don't think there is any consensus that the 75-300mm is better optically than the 100-300mm if the OP is considering a choice between them. If anything, I think that users' opinions slightly favor the Panasonic, but any optical differences are probably dwarfed by differences in cost, size/weight and OIS in the Panasonic for those without IBIS cameras.
     
  17. mattia

    mattia Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 3, 2012
    The Netherlands
    The 100-300 is a decent performer; only got it over the Olympus because I found a very good deal on it (as new from a dealer with warrantee for 350 euros...no-brainer). It's nowhere near the performance my 70-200 was, and it's a very long tele, not a medium long tele lens - starting at 200mm f.o.v (full frame equivalent) it's a wildlife lens more than anything else. For it's size and range it's crazy small. My 100-400 Canon (which I like but don't necessarily love) is a little better, but crazy much larger and will go on the market pretty soon.

    Right now, I'm waiting until Photokina to see what gets announced; my current thinking is to drop the 20 in favor of a 25/1.4, and get rid of the 12-50 and get the 12-35 (or a theoretical 12-60 from Oly).
     
  18. marcl

    marcl Mu-43 Regular

    184
    Jul 8, 2012
    I enjoyed reading your post and all the answers so far. I've been looking at the same lenses to expand my m43 glass collection and going through the same research. I was leaning for the 7-14mm when I came across the current sale on the Rokinon 7.5mm at buydig.com. I know it's a fisheye and much different then a flat UWA, but at $239, I couldn't pass. I'm expecting to receive it tomorrow. I hope it does not leave too much of a gap with the Oly 12mm. Maybe I can do without an UWA zoom...
     
  19. jloden

    jloden Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    May 15, 2012
    Hunterdon County, NJ
    Jay
    Seeing this thread pop up again in my subscriptions got me thinking about the title, "top m4/3 glass" and I wondered, what would I rate my top glass for m4/3 as. Just for the heck of it, from what I personally have used and owned, these are/were the truly outstanding lenses:

    Zooms
    Panasonic 7-14mm f/4.0
    Panasonic 12-35mm f/2.8*
    Pansonic 14-140mm (not quite on the same level as the 12-35, but very good, and my favorite of the 3 Panasonic tele zooms for both IQ and overall usefulness)

    *Can also add the Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 to this list for sure if it's equal to the 12-35mm quality :2thumbs:

    Primes
    Olympus 12mm f/2.0
    Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95 (17.5mm f/0.95 I've used and it was also excellent and might have an edge over the 25 but I only had it a short while)
    Panasonic Leica 25mm f/1.4
    Olympus 45mm f/1.8*

    *probably to be supplanted on this list by the 75mm f/1.8 as soon as I've tried one!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  20. DHart

    DHart Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Jan 7, 2010
    Scottsdale, Arizona
    Don
    As for 20 vs 25, I love almost everything about the 25/1.4... Such superb image and color quality - fantastic!!!! But one thing... It's a relatively boring focal length, in my view. The 20 is a bit more interesting for focal length, but definitely takes a back seat to the 25 in all other aspects. :frown: So neither is quite "it" for me. I have them both and love them both, but the moment a 17mm f/1.8 or 1.4 with high grade rendering and build quality (as the 25/1.4 exhibits) arrives on the scene, both my 25/1.4 and 20/1.7 will likely see little use.

    Regarding the 7-14 and 9-18, the "seven" is my favorite pet and I call it the "seven" because to me its pretty much a 7mm prime and that's all I ask of it. Amazing lens! I do keep the "nine" around as it is a slightly more versatile lens for times when I desire that versatility more than the sheer drama and glory of the seven. For me there is plenty enough difference between the two lenses to have and use them both.

    I agree with Jay that the 14-140 is an awesome lens which provides quite high quality images... it should, as it's not an inexpensive lens at all. And for my purposes, I find 140 about as long in focal length as I ever desire, which isnt often anyway. I rate the very versatile 14-140 as just a slight bit behind the 7-14 and 12-35 for IQ. Its a great lens, for sure. I am also eagerly awaiting the 35-100/2.8 and the rumored 12-60. I don't consider 14mm to be much of a wide angle, so having the 12-35 is fantastic with the 12mm wide end on it and amazing IQ. If the rumored 12-60 provides comparable IQ (even if not quite as fast) as the 12-35, I would be tempted by that lens...but only if it is a high grade lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1