Newbie Musings

empknight

New to Mu-43
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
9
Hello everyone.

I was interested in getting a CSC and when the E-PM2 went for $200, I couldn't resist anymore. I just bought a Panny 20mm f1.7 II (in Silver to match) for $344 in de-kitted "new" condition. Do you guys think this is a good price or does the lens go on sale for less? Also, is this lens still "must-have." It is quite old after all.

There seems to be an odd lack of pancake lenses for the system (under 100g and relatively cheap; 14mm 2.5, 17mm 2.8, 20mm 1.7). To me, this is where M43 really shines. The size of the E-PM2 is pretty great and I think that the kit lens really messes up the balance.

Some of these lenses are really expensive when compared to the cheaper primes that Canon and Nikon sell. I was surprised to see a Canon 50mm f1.8 was only $109. What do you all think about this? Are M43 lenses too expensive or are they worth it? There also seems to be a view that all M43 lenses have CA problems.

The included Olympus software was horrible. I have an i5-3xxx and it lagged, so I installed Lightroom and wow.. what a powerful application.

Thanks for helping me out.
 

barry13

Mu-43.com Editor
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,335
Location
Southern California
Real Name
Barry
Hi,

$344 is a good price for the 20mm; the lowest I've noticed it on eBay NEW was $335, and that isn't very common.

A lot of users complain about the low-light AutoFocus performance of the 20mm, so I decided to get the Oly 17mm F1.8 instead, but it is larger.

CA is corrected in-camera for Oly lenses on Oly cameras, and Pana lenses on Pana cameras.
Possibly cross-system on newer cameras, but I'm not certain.
CA is also correctable in software (incl. Lightroom).

DxO has CA measurements for many lenses; the 20mm is rated at 7µm which is the lowest I've noticed for the system in a focal length lower than 35mm.

Barry
 

John M Flores

Super Moderator
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
Messages
3,238
Location
NJ
Oly 45 1.8 isn't a pancake but it certainly is small. I've got a 14/2.5 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. Now all I need is the GM1 and I've got a great small travel kit.
 

pdk42

One of the "Eh?" team
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
7,456
Location
Leamington Spa, UK
Low end Canon primes are amazing value for money, although the build quality of the 50/1.8 is pretty poor. The u43 primes are I think a little on the pricey side, but used prices are much more realistic.

The 20/1.7 is an excellent lens, you can't go wrong with it really. Its only real vice is that it can cause banding on Oly cameras at high ISOs (Google it - it's a problem if you're a low light shooter).

I'd like to see a more modern pancake though - something in the 15-20mm FL range, f2 or faster, with improved AF speed and no bigger than the 20/1.7. We all hoped that the 20/1.7 II would have been that, but they kept the old AF :frown:
 

spatulaboy

I'm not really here
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,459
Location
North Carolina
Real Name
Vin
Yeah the Canon is completely plastic, even the mount. Wide open its not very good at all. So I guess you get what you pay for. That being said I think m43 lenses are more expensive than they should be but not horribly so.

The 20mm is a very good lens, amazingly sharp. Have fun with it.
 

empknight

New to Mu-43
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
9
Hi,

$344 is a good price for the 20mm; the lowest I've noticed it on eBay NEW was $335, and that isn't very common.

A lot of users complain about the low-light AutoFocus performance of the 20mm, so I decided to get the Oly 17mm F1.8 instead, but it is larger.

CA is corrected in-camera for Oly lenses on Oly cameras, and Pana lenses on Pana cameras.
Possibly cross-system on newer cameras, but I'm not certain.
CA is also correctable in software (incl. Lightroom).

DxO has CA measurements for many lenses; the 20mm is rated at 7µm which is the lowest I've noticed for the system in a focal length lower than 35mm.

Barry

That's good to know. The seller actually backed out, because of an "inventory error." Ebay smh, I think I'd prefer the 17mm 1.8's focal length, but I really want a pancake lens before I get any other lenses. The 14mm is probably too wide and I've read distasteful things about the 17mm 2.8.

Oly 45 1.8 isn't a pancake but it certainly is small. I've got a 14/2.5 20/1.7 and 45/1.8. Now all I need is the GM1 and I've got a great small travel kit.

That's actually the set-up I'm aiming to have. The bang for the buck holy trinity. I just want to start off with a pancake lens before getting anymore lenses. I would've considered the 25mm 1.8 from Oly, but it doesn't have many reviews and the 17mm 2.8 is well a kit lens.

Low end Canon primes are amazing value for money, although the build quality of the 50/1.8 is pretty poor. The u43 primes are I think a little on the pricey side, but used prices are much more realistic.

The 20/1.7 is an excellent lens, you can't go wrong with it really. Its only real vice is that it can cause banding on Oly cameras at high ISOs (Google it - it's a problem if you're a low light shooter).

I'd like to see a more modern pancake though - something in the 15-20mm FL range, f2 or faster, with improved AF speed and no bigger than the 20/1.7. We all hoped that the 20/1.7 II would have been that, but they kept the old AF :frown:

Yeah it seems that all the pancakes on the m43 system sacrifice too much to get their smaller size. I've been looking at some of the used products, but I'm too afraid of dust having gotten into the lens and obscuring the images.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,847
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
The 17mm f2.8 isn't as bad as some say, check out the image thread. I'm really enjoying mine.

The idea of using "kit lens" as a universally negative descriptor is a bad one - kit zooms are bad mainly by reason of the compromises made to keep the optics inexpensive, but traditionally kitted m4/3 primes have been well liked. The Panasonic 20mm was the kit lens offered with the gf1.

•••GX1+LVF-2+Olympus 17mm f/2.8, GF3; Konica FS-1, C35v; various lenses•••
 

empknight

New to Mu-43
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
9
It seems to respond well to sharpening. It's a little heavy for a pancake and the price (new and used) isn't very far off from the 14mm, so I'll probably get that instead. Although if I could only have ONE lens, 17mm would probably be the focal length I'd choose.
 

agentlossing

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Jun 26, 2013
Messages
4,847
Location
Oregon USA
Real Name
Andrew Lossing
I've owned both, the 14mm produced rather flat colors, but it was just a little bit sharper than the 17mm. I prefer the more punchy colors of the 17mm over the marginal sharpness of the 14mm, though the more useful focal length is my biggest reason for switching. My Nokia smartphone has a 28mm lens so I already have a wide angle solution that's much more portable than the 14mm!
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,420
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
CA is corrected in-camera for Oly lenses on Oly cameras, and Pana lenses on Pana cameras.

No, not on the E-PM2, or indeed any Olympus body before the E-M1.

Yeah it seems that all the pancakes on the m43 system sacrifice too much to get their smaller size. I've been looking at some of the used products, but I'm too afraid of dust having gotten into the lens and obscuring the images.

Dust in the lens really has an incredibly minimal effect. You'll lose far more quality just by adding a UV filter, even a high-end one.
 

empknight

New to Mu-43
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
9
Doesn't Lightroom correct for CA? That's what I use.

I see. I was going to buy some UV filters, so I wouldn't have to keep messing with the lens cap. Then I read a few posts here and on dpreview and looked at some samples; I was completely put off? How do you recommend protecting the lens? Just a lens hood?
 

empknight

New to Mu-43
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
9
I've owned both, the 14mm produced rather flat colors, but it was just a little bit sharper than the 17mm. I prefer the more punchy colors of the 17mm over the marginal sharpness of the 14mm, though the more useful focal length is my biggest reason for switching. My Nokia smartphone has a 28mm lens so I already have a wide angle solution that's much more portable than the 14mm!

I see, so the 17mm isn't that bad after all. My Xperia has a 27mm lens, so I'm in the same camp as you. I think it takes decent photos. https://www.flickr.com/photos/51909349@N03/14030028768/
 

Cruzan80

Mu-43 All-Pro
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
1,107
Location
Denver, Co
Real Name
Sean Rastsmith
Doesn't Lightroom correct for CA? That's what I use.

I see. I was going to buy some UV filters, so I wouldn't have to keep messing with the lens cap. Then I read a few posts here and on dpreview and looked at some samples; I was completely put off? How do you recommend protecting the lens? Just a lens hood?

Various arguement are out there for and against UV filters. Personally I use higher end ones, not the most expensive but good enough (Hoya UV (0). It depends on your needs and wants.

Sent from my LG-P769 using Mu-43 mobile app
 

dhazeghi

Mu-43 Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
4,420
Location
San Jose, CA
Real Name
Dara
Doesn't Lightroom correct for CA? That's what I use.

Yes, it does. In-camera correction only matters if you're shooting JPEGs.

I see. I was going to buy some UV filters, so I wouldn't have to keep messing with the lens cap. Then I read a few posts here and on dpreview and looked at some samples; I was completely put off? How do you recommend protecting the lens? Just a lens hood?

I use UV filters all the time. I personally don't find the loss of image quality meaningful with a decent filter (I wouldn't get the $2 no-name ones, but anything Hoya or B+W or Marumi is fine). All I'm saying is that if you're at the point that you're worrying about dust in the lens impacting your images, you're going to have to take a lot of other things into account too.
 

empknight

New to Mu-43
Joined
May 18, 2014
Messages
9
Various arguement are out there for and against UV filters. Personally I use higher end ones, not the most expensive but good enough (Hoya UV (0). It depends on your needs and wants.

Sent from my LG-P769 using Mu-43 mobile app

I use UV filters all the time. I personally don't find the loss of image quality meaningful with a decent filter (I wouldn't get the $2 no-name ones, but anything Hoya or B+W or Marumi is fine). All I'm saying is that if you're at the point that you're worrying about dust in the lens impacting your images, you're going to have to take a lot of other things into account too.

Makes sense to me, thanks. I'm aware that I can find the lenses cheaper in Asia and I'm assuming that I should steer clear of Hong Kong ebay listings.

EDIT: Found a Kenko UV(0) for under $10 from an authorized seller. This is just for the kit lens though, so whatever.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Mu-43 is a fan site and not associated with Olympus, Panasonic, or other manufacturers mentioned on this site.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom