Wider primes?

I've used my OM 24 2.8 and it works OK. It is not wide though.

 

Legacy wide angle primes were sort of a niche item in the past and thus command a price. Throw in the fact that wide angle is no longer wide angle on a 2x crop sensor, you are now looking at diminishing returns.

12mm is considered very side on traditional 135 format but is only 24mm FOV on 2x MFT sensor.

You are better off investing in a native wide angle.

 

I'm not talking about CRAZY wide either. Even 24mm is considered the focal length that is fairly wide. Wide enough on FF but not so much that it introduces too much distortion. Unfortunately 24mm is not that wide once you attach it to a 2x crop sensor. Anything wider is going to be difficult and expensive relative to simply buying a native MFT lens.

 

The cheapest wide primes are the Sigma 19mm f2.8 for $199, or the Panasonic 14mm f2.5 currently around $200 on ebay (it was $160 last winter).

These are better deals than paying like $250 for an Olympus OM 24mm or Canon FD 20mm. You might find a third party 28mm f2.8 for under $25. I have, but they are not wide, and often not very good unless you want a softer image.

Nothing wrong with looking. Someone might sell you Uncle Joe's old 20mm for nothing, but that's uncommon.

 

I would have to say the best cheap lens for m4/3 is the Panasonic 14mm. It is wider and a lot cheaper than trying to adapt an older lens. in the old days of 135 film a 20mm was about as wide as you could go without it being a fisheye. Sure there were a few but they were very expensive and still are today. A 24mm can be had for a fairly low price if you don't want a large max aperture.

There are some who have tried using smaller lenses, mostly c-mount types. However they either don't cover the sensor completely or if they do they vignette badly with weird swirly bokeh.

 

My first prime was the 20mm and I really liked how it was two stops faster than my 14-42, which added new capabilities for indoor shooting w/o flash and also night scenes outdoors. The main drawback I notice these days with the 20mm is it might not focus if targeted to a low contrast area when it's darker. I have to pick a high contrast area.

The second prime was the 14mm, and that's only 1 stop better than the 14-42. The main advantage to me was its small size. Later I heard about the DMW-GWC1 .75X adapter, which is relatively inexpensive and takes the 14mm down to an ultra wide 11mm equivalent.

I think better choices for primes include the Olympus 45mm. It's very fast, very small, and pretty sharp, Another is the Olympus 17mm f1.8, but in my opinion, that lens is about $100 too high right now.

 

On 35mm film, the Nikon 18mm f/3.5 was an excellent lens. As was the Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5. Non-native wides, however, do not far particularly well on μ43. Not to mention the fact that they tend to be as expensive (or more) compared to native glass (Sigma 19mm, Panasonic 14mm & 20mm).

 

I tested a not so wide Pentax SMC K 35mm f3.5 in flawless like new condition on a G2 and an E-m5. Both produced the same results. At f5.6-f8 sharp in the center but resolution falls of dramatically half way the corner and is very soft at corners. I though it might be field curvature but it wasn't I tested focusing at corners with the same results. The reason I tested it thoroughly because this particular item as a reputation on the Pentax forums of being at stellar performer. I didn't purchase the lens. A friend dumped two pentax bodies and seven lenses on me. He couldn't be bothered with selling them.

EDIT:
I should add that what completely made me loose interest in using vintage wide angles was testing the Pentax SMC K 35mm f3.5 in the field. It was abominable. Much worse than I would have expected from looking at test charts. Then I ran a bunch of side by side tests against the old E-1 kit lens, the Zuiiko 14-54 2.8-3.5 and the Zuiko just blew away the Pentax. It was much sharper at f3.5 35mm than the Pentax at any aperture. The Zuiko was good all the way to corners at f4. And it stellar at f5.6. I took the Pentax out in the field on several occasions and shot in all different kinds of light. Every time I opened up the files in LR4 I was amazed at how soft the were half way the corner and beyond.

 

The P14/2.5 is a fine and wonderfully compact lens, but I use more a Sigma 24/2.8 with a Metabones Speedbooster (effectively a 35 point of view compared to the Panasonic 28). The speedbooster is costly, but I can also use it with different lenses, e.g. with a Zeiss 50/1.7 to get a 75/1.8 equivalent, but for much less outlay.

 

The 14-42 II is an excellent lens - I have the WCON-01 wide angle adapter for it which takes you to 11mm and is surprisingly good.

While it's not great in very low light, both can be picked up for very little money, and would give you flexibility & some time to figure what focal length you prefer shooting at before you invest in a prime (the 20mm 1.7 is of course also fantastic).

As per the other comments here, while adapted lenses are great fun, IMO trying to get something in the equiv 24mm area is not worth the hassle/money Vs native lenses.

 

If you have the Oly 14-42 IIR and feel the IQ is adequate, the most economical way to go wider is add a WCON-P01 0.79x converter, that turns the wide end of the zoom to 11mm.

I have both the 14-42 IIR and the P14. I wanted to go wider. Olympus had a $69 sale on the WCON-P01 in January and I quickly pulled the trigger. I initially intended to use it on my 14-42. It does what I want, getting 11mm on the wide end with acceptable IQ.

I'd read that someone adapted the WCON-P01 on the P14 and found that the IQ did not deliver. Out of curiosity, I wanted to see for myself. The recommended way to use a couple of rings and rubber bands are much too fiddly and not at all secure. Well, I thought what the heck, $69 was cheap enough for an experiment, I went straight ahead and used a thin strip of 3M double sided tape to securely attached the WCON-P01 to a $2 46-52 step up ring. The WCON-P01 screws easily and securely on the P14.

Contrary to earlier opinion, I found that the WCON-P01 + P14 combo that yields 11mm is surprisingly good. IMO it's the true poor man's bright ultra wide prime (11mm f2.5). On my copies of P14 and 14-42 IIR, I found that the P14 + WCON-P01 beats the 14-42 + WCON-P01 by a comfortable margin. In fact, it's not even close. P14 + WCON-P01 is sharper from edge to edge than the 14-42 IIR that this converter was designed for. You can see an example from this combo on my Flickr page (the dome shot). There are some minor CA; it took me one minute to remove using Aperture.

 

Pano 14mm prime is cheap and good

Then DMW-GWC1 convertor for 11mm when needed.

 

Agree too. I expect GWC1 should work even better with P14. Its more expensive than WCON these days.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Mu-43 mobile app

 

Unfortunately m43 is a bit weak on wide primes at this time. I keep hoping for a 9 or 10 someday.

You may want to consider the Oly 9-18 zoom - covers ultrawide with good performance and is very small considering. Also very slow to keep it very small. I have one and love it.

Buy one used under $500 (I have seen them close to $400) and flip it if you do not like it.

Any other solution other than the 14/2.5 Panny recommended by others will likely cost you more with more hassle and less quality.

 

Yep. That sounds about right. The lens likely doe just fine on a larger sensor, but on μ43 edges get soft fast. It's often in the form of smearing.

 

I wonder how much the performance depends on the converter to lens spacing, Perhaps conventional step up rings puts the WCON-PO1 too far away from the 14-42 II, while your taped up solution just fit. For example, the DMW-GWC1 for the Panasonic 14mm doesn't work at all well on the 14-42 II if I use the adapter ring supplied by Panasonic. Lots of vignetting and distortion.

 

I have three 35's. One is my ageless and trusty OM 35mm f3.5 from 1974. I also have a Kmart blue light special in the Focal 35mm f3.5, and a Tak 35mm f3.5. These last two were almost free. While they are all gee whiz nice when used by themselves, when compared to either of the Oly M43 14-42 zooms, they are hardly any better. When I bring out my 4/3 Zuiko 35mm, they look old and tired. Of course, they are not even close to wide angle on M43.

On the other hand, it's not all about technical prowess. I like using all three of these 35's occasionally.