What lens next?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by bilzmale, Mar 11, 2010.

  1. bilzmale

    bilzmale Mu-43 All-Pro

    Having sold a lot of my 4/3 exotica I am cashed up (check wife is not looking :biggrin:) and considering some spending. The only prime I own is the 50mm Oly macro but a lot of people here like the Oly 17 or Panny 20. What is the appeal of these lenses? What would you buy next? I have an adapter on order so will be able to use my 50.
     
  2. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Get the 20mm. It's a great lens and will open up low light for you.
    Then make photos and don't buy anything till and if you feel the need.
     
  3. hohoho

    hohoho Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jan 24, 2010
    Tokyo
    Only you know which angle of view you like. A lens can be of as high quality as you like, but if it's narrower or wider than what you're looking for it will be too narrow or too wide.

    And no matter how many exhibitions I see of really good photographs, I never hear praise or criticism of the resolution of the lens, the "creaminess" (or opposite) of its "bokeh", etc.
     
  4. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    the 17 is a true wide angle the 20 is not , the 17 is a fine lens ,imho but opticallty and in terms of speed it lives in the shadow of the panasonic 20

    buth are plasticy affairs , but you knew that
     
  5. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    I'd pick the Pana over the Oly, mainly because of speed, but I personally find that 17mm complements a 50 better than 20mm complements a 50. Those 3mm make a noticeable difference!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. mauve

    mauve Mu-43 Top Veteran

    892
    Mar 9, 2010
    Paris, France
    True, but really good photographs tend to have reputable lens to begin with. HCB shot mainly Leica, as did many 'humanist' photographs, and many, many modern photographs use at least MF gears (where bokeh is less an issue). Not to speak of fine art photographs that haul an ungodly amount of technical camera gear in the remotest part of the planet.

    I remember an exhibition of Martin Parr where there was side by side his earliest student work (shot with a Nikkormat, if memory serves), and his latest at the time (shot in MF, possibly 'blad). The quality difference was screaming.

    Cheers,

    Manuel
     
  7. hohoho

    hohoho Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jan 24, 2010
    Tokyo
    Well, um, I'd thought that HCB mostly used a Zeiss lens on his Leica. But if he'd instead used a Canon lens, I don't think it would have mattered in the slightest.

    Parr's earliest work would I'd guess have been shot with the grainy high-speed B/W films of the time. It would have been the film rather than the lens that would have been problematic. Yes, he moved from 35mm to 6x7 (a Plaubel Makina). I have mixed feelings about the work for which he is widely known, but I'm the happy owner of a copy of his first book, Bad Weather (all B/W), for which he had to use a Nikonos. My copy's out of reach right now, but I don't remember anything about the "edge resolution", "bokeh", etc. of what's inside it.

    And I tend to think that the photographers who tout themselves as "fine art" churn out the most sterile and boring work. (If they can sell it for big bucks, good for them of course.)

    Back to widths. For somebody whose preferred lens on 36x24 is 24mm, the Olympus 17mm would still be too narrow.
     
  8. bilzmale

    bilzmale Mu-43 All-Pro

    OK, found a Panny 20 used for $350 on Amazon and have bought it. My Panny 45-200 arrived today and first impressions are positive. I feel GAS setting in again (GAS = Gear Aquisition Syndrome).
     
  9. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus

    You are not alone here with that ailment bilzmale - "GAS" is definitely a side effect.:biggrin: Congrats...now I can continue to ruminate about the 45-200mm that I've been watching on its dedicated image thread.