the hardest thing to search for on micro four thirds

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Kosta, Oct 11, 2010.

  1. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Sep 29, 2010
    Australia
    Are there any users currently using a 35mm 35mm equivalent lens?(No that's not a typo)

    something of the 17.5mm range maybe not so wide angle?

    Just keen to try out a range of prime sizes (going with the classics) and haven't come across many 17.5(or there about)mm lenses.

    Any clues?


    Thanks :D
     
  2. pdh

    pdh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    598
    May 6, 2010
    what about the Olympus 17mm pancake - a native micro 4/3 lens - that is a standard part of the Olympus mFT offering
     
    • Like Like x 2
  3. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Sep 29, 2010
    Australia
    i thought of that, but it seems like a very wide angle lens...something more on the traditional side of 35mm full frame...unless i'm mistaking exactly what that is!
     
  4. Krang

    Krang Mu-43 Veteran

    202
    Feb 19, 2010
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Krang

    Krang Mu-43 Veteran

    202
    Feb 19, 2010
    35mm is quite wide on 35mm cameras :). It was once considered to be a wide angle, nowdays it's gotten closer to "normal" in our photographic perception. Maybe starting from when Leica started to manufacture M-series cameras with this frameline as a option in the viewfinder.
     
  6. Herman

    Herman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Feb 7, 2010
    The Netherlands
    The G1 kitlens 14-45 (35mm: 28-90) covers a nice range, which includes 17,5 (35mm: 35).
     
  7. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Sep 29, 2010
    Australia
    thanks guys,
    i will try and play with my kit lens (e-pl1) at that focal length and see what, if anything, i discover!

    thanks :)
     
  8. pdh

    pdh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    598
    May 6, 2010
    I'm really confused
    Do you want a lens that has an equivalent field of view to ~35mm on a 35mm camera?
    In which case either the 17mm kit lens (if you want a prime) or Herman's suggestion (if you can stand a zoom) will work.
    Or do you want a 35mm focal length lens (with a FOV equivalent to 70mm on a mFT camera)?
    In which case, there's plenty of legacy glass about and you could look through the adapted images thread to see what people are using (or Herman's suggestion again).
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Sep 29, 2010
    Australia
    thanks pdh, but yeah, i'm looking for a m4/3 35mm equivalent focal length. (so a lens at 17.5mm on the m4/3 camera) as opposed to (for example) a 35mm voigtlander etc.
    :)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. pdh

    pdh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    598
    May 6, 2010
    the 17mm pancake should be almost perfect then ... though if you've got the 9-18mm you've already got that covered haven't you ? (though the 17mm makes for a lovely compact little package on an E-Px, and is faster than the 9-18, which may be what you're after)
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. Kosta

    Kosta Mu-43 Veteran

    435
    Sep 29, 2010
    Australia
    i'll try give one a test run. but otherwise i'll just play with the focal lengths on my current lenses! thanks again! i guess i should rephrase the heading of the thread:
    "The hardest thing for KOSTA to search for on micro four thirds"
    but seriously, try to search "35mm 35mm equivalent" you may as well go ask a brick wall.
     
  12. pdh

    pdh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    598
    May 6, 2010
    Yep.
    I've been thinking about either a 28 (56) or 35 (70) prime for myself, and have found it really useful to set my kit zoom to 28 or 35 and just spend a day walking around to see how it suits my eye.
     
  13. Brianetta

    Brianetta Mu-43 Veteran

    438
    Sep 5, 2010
    North East England
    Real Name:
    Brian Ronald
    I'm not intending to rile people here; I'm just venting my spleen.

    <rant>
    All this conversion to 35mm equivalent is doing my head in. I haven't used a 35mm camera in years. Most recently, I'm coming from the bridge camera world.

    My zoom is 14mm-42mm. My adapted prime lens is 50mm. It says 50mm on it, and it's no surprise that it's slightly longer than my zoom at 42mm. I don't need to convert it to compare it with what I have, or with what I know. In my mind, 50mm is a short telephoto, regardless of what somebody who uses a 35mm system might be familiar with. 20mm is just slightly wide angle. 200mm is an awesome telephoto.

    The only reason I ever make any kind of conversion is because people keep asking. As long as we're talking about µ4/3, these questions shouldn't come up at all. What's a 35mm lens going to be like? Well, exactly like the kit zoom, when it's set to 35mm. The numbers don't change, and don't need to be changed.
    </rant>
     
  14. grebeman

    grebeman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2010
    South Brent, south Devon (UK)
    Real Name:
    Barrie
    Brian,
    I couldn't agree more, lets begin to think in the format that we shoot in. When I took 8 on 120 roll film negatives I used 90mm and 105mm focal length lenses and I would not have been able to tell you what their 35mm equivalent was, nor would I have been interested, just that they were around what would be regarded as normal focal length lens for the format, i.e. roughly equal to the diagonal of the film negative (read sensor in this digital age). I knew what they got for me in that format and now hopefully I'm thinking in :43: terms, not trying to translate it from one format to another.

    Barrie
     
  15. pdh

    pdh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    598
    May 6, 2010
    Perhaps some of us who used 35mm a long time ago need some time to adjust to thinking in mFT terms ... when I look at a scene "photographically" and I think about FL, I still have to translate internally from my old experience, so I can envisage how scenes render with particular FLs.

    It may take some months more before I am able to do the translation that photographers who are more imaginatively flexible and skilful than I am, can do "automatically" ...
     
  16. PeteMarshall

    PeteMarshall Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Aug 30, 2010
    Maybe because what you are searching for is nonsense....
    a 35mm equivalent, equivalent to what? A lens that has a focal length of 35mm is a 35mm lens...there is no equivalent.
    A "normal" lens for a specific format is the measure of the diagonal of that format translated into the focal length. So on a 4:3's sensor a "normal" lens is around 20mm. This means a 35mm lens is a short telephoto on a 4:3 sensor. On my large format camera the diagonal of the format I usually use ( 5" x 4") is around 120mm, so a 35mm lens would be a very, very wide angle.
    This obsession with equivalences based on a film size that hardly any body uses any more and I hardly ever used even before digital came around is just a load of nonsense. Why not base the "equivalence" on my 5X4 system?:smile:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. grebeman

    grebeman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Mar 13, 2010
    South Brent, south Devon (UK)
    Real Name:
    Barrie
    I would suggest that all that is required is to remember the length of the sensor diagonal, a lens with a focal length of less than that measurement is a wide angle, the further away it is from that measurement, the more wide angle it is, the same concept applies to long focal length lenses. The actual format then becomes irrelevant.

    Barrie
     
  18. Krang

    Krang Mu-43 Veteran

    202
    Feb 19, 2010
    I think this thread went totally haywire.

    The question was appropriate and it did not really deserve all this rant, which really was not that related to the thread. If you have some grudge against the norms of photography, please make your own thread…
     
  19. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Are we done with our hissy fits?

    Okay, back to the question...if you want the experience of shooting a moderate WA lens (similar to a 35mm on a film camera) then the 17/2.8 Olympus native lens is a good option. It's sharp and contrasty, very small and makes a great walk around lens. It's also a good deal more reasonably priced that finding the something in a legacy lens that would give you the same results.

    Kevin
     
  20. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    The OP was simply trying to replicate the experience of shooting a 35mm lens on film. If you look at the vast majority of legacy lenses that are available they were for 35mm film bodies so trying to make sense of how that would look on an m43 body doesn't strike me as nonsense. It's not how you look at things and clearly your experience differs from the OP and mine and likely a number of other folks but that doesn't make us idiots.

    Kevin