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

New OMD user.

Discussion in 'Olympus Cameras' started by ice_man, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z
    Hey guys, just joined the bandwagon. Gotta say, I should have gotten myself a m4/3 camera much earlier if I knew it was this fun.

    I have to admit that I was hesitant to get into m4/3 since I have been using 1Ds and 5DMKI and 5DMKII for a long time now. I was afraid that it might just turn out like a point and shoot. But after reading and watching all the reviews, it convinced me to try this new system.

    Been shooting weddings for a few years now and I needed a smaller and lighter cameras for travel and some street.

    I will be slowly building up my lenses. I definitely will stick with primes, since I mostly use all primes on my larger cameras. I always use 35mm, 85mm, 135mm and 17-40.

    Which lenses from Pana / Oly would you guys recommend? I already ordered 14mm. Planning to get 25mm, 45mm, and 75mm.

    Or would it be better to get the 14, 20, 45, and 75?

    Thanks


    Tapatalk.
     
  2. littleMT

    littleMT Mu-43 All-Pro

    Apr 8, 2012
    Lucille Sanchez
    the 14mm you already ordered will be awesome....
     
  3. 00r101

    00r101 Mu-43 Regular

    56
    Jan 21, 2012
    The 14 is nice now compliment it with the 45 which is my favorite lens.
     
  4. elavon

    elavon Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 1, 2012
    Tel Aviv Israel
    Ehud
    I see that you got your OMD.

    If I understand your question it is whether to get the 20 or 25.
    The differences are as follow the 25 focus faster, larger, half a stop faster, pricier with little bit of better IQ. There are also reports of banding problems with the 20 on the OMD.
    Since you have already have a pancake (14) and the 25 is in your budget I would recommend the 25.
     
  5. napilopez

    napilopez Contributing Editor

    826
    Feb 21, 2012
    NYC Area
    Napier Lopez
    I agree with this. The 20mm is a great lens, actually a little sharper than the 25, but the 25mm renders in a very nice contrasty way. That so-called leica look. The 20mm has much more "flat" rendering. That said, the banding issue was a real problem for me, so you're safer with the 25mm, especially since you have a 14mm.

    Hope you enjoy it!
     
  6. flash

    flash Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Apr 29, 2010
    1 hour from Sydney Australia.
    Gordon
    Is there a 17-50 for FF?

    The closest lens match to your list would be the 9-18, 17mm 1.8, 45mm 1.8 and 75mm 1.8. There's a rumoured 42.5mm 1.2 from Panasonic that would be a near exact match to your 85.

    All the m4/3 primes are very good to stunning. The weakest is the 17mm f2.8 (the older of the Oly 17's). The best are the 60 macro and 75mm which are world class lenses by any measure. The 20 is optically great but a slower perfromer re; autofocus. The 25 is regarded as having exceptional rendering based on it's design input by Leica (more like design approval actually) and autofocus' very quickly. But it's a 50mm equivalent which you don't currently have.

    But if you stick to the primes you'll be very happy.

    Gordon
     
  7. Jay86

    Jay86 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Dec 26, 2012
    If I had the money from what I have been researching I would get the following set of primes:

    Oly 12mm f2
    PL 25mm f1.4
    Oly 45mm f1.8
    Oly 75mm f1.8
     
  8. brettmaxwell

    brettmaxwell Mu-43 Veteran

    350
    Dec 8, 2012
    I'm also a newish OMD owner and shoot weddings professionally with FX Nikons and primes. 35 and 85 are my bread and butter, so I got the Oly 45/1.8 and the new 17/1.8 is arriving today. Those are really the only focal lengths I need, but I got the 14mm also simply because it's a little wider and is super small, light, and cheap.
     
  9. GaryAyala

    GaryAyala Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 2, 2011
    SoCal
    The FOV between the 14mm and 20mm is merely a step or two. If you have the 14mm then go for the 25mm.
     
  10. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z
    Hey Gary, any chance you have the 25mm and the 45mm?

    Got my OMD from Ritz in Magnolia. But they don't carry lenses though. Was hoping they had them so I could try them out.


    Tapatalk.
     
  11. WasOM3user

    WasOM3user Mu-43 Veteran

    458
    Oct 20, 2012
    Lancashire, UK
    Paul
    I would go with the 14, 25, 45 & 75 as per the original list unless you need a macro (this what my list will look like once my bank balance recovers a bit).

    If you do need macro then you could get a 60mm instead of the 75mm :( or perhaps an adaptor for a legacy FF macro lens if you have one already (I have a Tamron SP 90mm :)).

    I still have the kit 12-50 lens until I feel the need to go wider than 12mm and if you need something longer than 75mm perhaps the Pana 100-300.
     
  12. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z

    yeah a bit torn between the 2. I wanted to get the 20mm since it's equivalent to 40mm on FF and is much closer to my 35mm target. But I've read a lot about the slow AF. And now you mentioned this banding problem, not sure what is that though.

    The 25 I am sure is a great lens as well. However, I also heard about the rattlesnaking issue with this lens. What does that mean?

    Sorry for all the questions.
     
  13. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z
    Sorry fixed the typo. It's a 17-40.

    I saw the new Olympus 17 1.8 and was considering it. But the reviews seems so so... I think the reviews on the Pana 20mm and 25mm are better than the new Oly 17 1.8.

    I would really love to stick to the 17mm 1.8, but if it's not as sharp as the other 2, then I would gladly skip it.

    Also, when is the rumored 42.5mm coming out? Any guesstimates? that would be sweet indeed. As the 85 1.2 lens I have is just wonderful.
     
  14. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z
    Lol. Heck, if I had money to burn then I would get the ff:

    Oly 12mm f 2 Black Edition
    PL 25mm f1.4
    Oly 45mm f1.8
    Oly 75mm f1.8

    +

    Pana 12-35
    Pana 35-100

    :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
     
  15. ice_man

    ice_man Mu-43 Regular

    158
    Dec 19, 2012
    Socal
    Z
    do let me know how the 17 1.8 performs. Maybe try it on a wedding? :smile:
     
  16. Bravin Neff

    Bravin Neff Mu-43 Regular

    192
    Sep 25, 2011
    Detroit
    Bravin Neff
    Don't get fooled by all the sharpness obsession. I have the PL25/1.4, the 12/2, the 45/1.8 and now the 17/1.8. They are all more than adequately sharp, but more importantly they bring great colors and rendering. A couple years ago I also owned the 20/1.7 -- it was a good lens, but I didn't care for its color rendering and definitely think the new 17/1.8 makes better looking images (not that the 20/1.7 was bad, mind you).

    And in case you ever shoot video, you will hate the 20/1.7 in terms of the sound its AF motor puts into the audio stream. The Oly lenses (and PL/1.4) by contrast are totally silent.

    And not to put too strong a point on it, but... A 35mm equivalent FOV is just right!... but 40mm? That's no man's land as far as I'm concerned.