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

Which 4/3 lens work well on OM-D?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by Zanr Zij, Sep 10, 2012.

  1. Zanr Zij

    Zanr Zij Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Mar 10, 2012
    I think about get Olympus SHG and HG like:

    - 14-35mm f2: 1st priority.

    - 35-100mm f2

    - 150mm f2

    - 50mm f2

    How about your opinion and experience, especially about auto focus performance? Please help me choose.

    Thank you!
     
  2. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    No personal experience, but there are some YouTube demos etc. Basically AF will be very poor (~2 seconds or worse) across the board. Not usable for moving subjects. Some people have also conjectured about potential for damage to the SWD motors but I don't know if that's credible or not.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    The only one I tried was the 14-54. It focused rather slow in comparison to any m4/3 lens I've used but it wasn't quite as bad as some people have said. The guy who's lens it was said that it probably focused better than some of the other 4/3 lenses that he has. From his opinion having a few of the of the high grade lenses on an E-3 using them adapted didn't work too well other than static subjects.

    I know the Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 probably isn't quite the same level as the 14-35 f/2 Olympus, but it is quite a bit cheaper and honestly I think the results are amazing so far. Focus speed is blazing fast on the EM-5 and GX1. With the EM-5's IBIS and great high ISO performance I don't think an extra stop would do a lot for me considering the weight an f/2 equivalent lens would bring. I imagine the 35-100 f/2.8 Panasonic will be right up there as well.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Zanr Zij

    Zanr Zij Mu-43 Regular

    93
    Mar 10, 2012
    As my test with PL25f1.4, Oly 45f1.8, Pany 14f2.5, Zuiko MC 50f1.4, Zeiss 50f1.7 + 135f2.8, Nikon 35f2 AIS, Canon 70-200mm L f2.8 IS2:

    - Prime lens with f1.4 would be best for m4/3. I mean about for free to capture almost thing I want. 1.8 will also good.

    - Due to zoom lens available only max @ f2 like Olympus SHG so I want it for better result @ low light

    - m4/3 has limitation about DOF, depth of light so larger aperture will be better.

    - SHG lens = super quality glasses, designed for 4/3 ( same m4/3) sensor so it maximize resolution, sharpness and color rendering ... ( PL25 help me said this )

    14-35 ~ 900gram ~ 3 native lens of m4/3. Of course it will be bigger at the time attached on body.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Mu-43 App
     
  5. dhazeghi

    dhazeghi Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 6, 2010
    San Jose, CA
    Dara
    If you care about autofocus speed, you really should be looking at those lenses. They are all slow - 2-5 seconds on average. The 35-100 seems to be the best and the 50/2 is the worst, but none is even remotely comparable to native glass for AF. As others have said, they are also all (save the 50/2) very large and heavy. Save for a few specialized cases, they don't really make much sense on m4/3.

    DH
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. danska

    danska Mu-43 Top Veteran

    945
    May 21, 2012
    Portland, OR
    Joe
    I've got to think hand-holding a 2lbs lens that weighs 3x the 12-35 isn't an easy feat. I think an aperture of f/2.8 is still actually fairly usable at low light with the EM-5. The IBIS gives me stable shots with the lens down to 1/8 of a second, no problem. Usable ISO goes up to 3200+ so again there you are gaining at least two stops over any 4/3 body that I'm aware of.

    If you can get these lenses for a really excellent price, I guess I can understand going for the 14-35. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense to me, unless it's just purely for studio or landscape work. The Panasonic 12-35 f/2.8 can actually give fairly shallow DOF when using the longer end and focusing close. It has a 10cm closer focusing distance than the Olympus 14-35. Retail the 12-35 is $1000 cheaper than the 14-35.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Eirik

    Eirik Mu-43 Regular

    72
    Aug 20, 2012
    Oslo, Norway
    Eirik
    My opinion on this is that it would be better to get the Panasonic 12-35/2,8 and 35-100/2,8 (when it reaches the shelves) rather than shelling out almost twice for the Zuiko 14-53/2 and 35-100/2. As stated previously, although they are as close you get to optical perfection as far as zoom-lenses go, they will have very slow AF (useful only for very slow or stationary subjects) on the E-M5, and be considerably bulky. I think that if you already had them, it would be worth getting an adapter for them, but I wouldn't buy them new with the intent on using them on only on mFT. The same goes for the 150/2, that one is also optically excellent, but big, heavy, and the AF will be poor just like the 14-35 and 35-100.

    The 50/2 is not big, nor bulky, but the AF will be agonizingly slow, it's even slow on Olympus' regular DSLRs... I have used it a couple of times on my E-30, and I found it very slow...

    I happen to use the 12-60/2,8-4 SWD and 50-200/2,8-3,5 (old, non-SWD) with the E-M5, and they work very well for stationary and slow-moving-subjects, like cruise ships, but I had these already and used them on my E-30 prior to getting my E-M5. The trick I have found to make the AF with these lenses behave itself is to use only one focus point (preferably the one in the middle), then they use a little less than two seconds to find focus... I also have and old 14-54, and the same trick works with that one...
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Ross the fiddler

    Ross the fiddler Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    I use my existing 4/3's lenses on the E-M5 but only when a slow focus will do it. The 14-54 II gives nice results (after it has focussed) & the 70-300 works surprisingly well but can be painful if it has to cycle through its range to lock onto focus (as it is a slow focussing lens anyhow). The 40-150 isn't too bad either, plus the 35mm macro lens can be used OK as well. The Sigma 150mm macro lens can only be used in MF.

    If you are are buying lenses for the E-M5, then I wouldn't buy any of the 4/3's lenses, but only the Olympus or Panasonic M4/3's lenses instead.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. kenez

    kenez Mu-43 Regular

    125
    Apr 18, 2012
    I have several 4/3 lenses that I use on my E-M5 including the 35-100mm, 50-200mm SWD, 14-54mm Mk 1, and 50mm macro. I agree that the 35-100 is probably the fastest to lock focus followed by the 14-54 Mk1. The 35-100mm takes great images and it has a focus limiter switch which can help with focus speed but it is a very large and heavy lens. It is not proportioned very well with the EM-5. On the other hand, I use my 14-54mm frequently and keep it in my bag at all times. I would say it locks focus in 1-2 seconds on average. The 50mm macro is well proportioned to the camera as well and since macro photography is often done using MF I find it to be useful at times. The 50-200mm SWD is the slowest to focus on the EM-5 and often locks focus incorrectly.

    One advantage of the 4/3 lenses on the EM-5 that is not mentioned very much is that Olympus makes two different teleconverters that will extend the lens reach by either 1.4X or 2X. I have the EC-20 which is the 2X extender. I hope that something along these lines is released for m4/3. I would think a 2X teleconverter matched with the upcoming Pany 35-100mm m4/3 lens would be very popular.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. SVG-HK

    SVG-HK Mu-43 Regular

    33
    Aug 15, 2012
    Hong Kong
    Valeriy
    Just my 10p. Those 43 lenses that can support CAF also show acceptable performance on m43 bodies. 14-54 Mk II, 3.5/35 Macro, 14-42 Kit Lens and tele 40-150 the 2nd reincarnation lens normaly get focused within 1-2 sec. From those mentioned, IMHO, only 14-54 Mk II can be considered as a really good option especially in case you inherited it from your older DSLR body. Otherwise native m43 Pany 2.8/12-35 much better choice as it less bulky and well balanced with native bodies, much faster in terms of AF and speed. On the other hand Oly 14-54 Mk II much less expensive especially second hand, has wider range of up to 54 mm against pany's 35mm, produces a very pleasant picture and can be used for portrait or close-up photography at 54 mm with really good results.

    Good luck!
     
  11. hkpzee

    hkpzee Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 5, 2011
    Hong Kong
    Patrick
    I have both the 14-54 Mk II, and the 50-200 SWD. I can live with using the 14-54 Mk II as a everyday lens because of its acceptable focusing speed (probably not much slower than the 20/1.7 on my E-M5, although I haven't really done any side-by-side comparison). The 50-200 SWD, I only use it for very specific purposes. AF could be slow, especially in low light, but I find using the smallest focus box help.

    As for the 14-54 Mk II, it does focus incorrectly sometimes, especially in low light, missing focus just slightly, so that you won't notice when looking at the camera display, but when you load the photos onto your computer, it becomes quite obvious, which is quite annoying. Again, I think using the smallest focus box help, and the issue seems to only happen in low light environment. There is no problem with daytime AF.
     
  12. Promit

    Promit Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 6, 2011
    Baltimore, MD
    Promit Roy
    Actually I have never seen my 14-54 II miss focus slightly. I have seen it miss focus completely, locking to minimum focus distance and reporting AF confirm even though nothing in frame is even near focused.