Yes, it works and looks great in my EP3. The issues some refer to is the "rattlesnake" issue where the aperture blades open and close when the camera is on. You can watch the blades open and close when you move the camera as it stops down and opens up. The sound somewhat sounds like a rattler. Never a big issue to me as I reasonably think the 25 is an outstanding lens and just a bit bigger than the 20 and of course faster...
Primes can be shot stopped down, too
At which point you lose the speed and, often, image quality advantages
I am mostly a landscape shooter, but I mostly use my FF kit for that.
Out of curiosity, which are your most used lenses?
My m43 kit is for pretty much everything else... I like the primes because they're small and light, but also because they generally offer the best IQ available on the system. I'm sure Art Wolfe would prefer to carry f/2.8 zooms, but he's trading that marginal increased utility off for the lower weight of f/4 zooms.
I'm sure you're right on 2.8 v. 4.0. I was mainly noting that he uses zooms rather than primes, and that I'd like m43 equivalents to what he uses.
I'm happy to trade marginal increased utility for much lower weight.
kahren wrote:
9-18mm as a walk around and wide option, 20mm 1.7 as a walk around/low light and 45mm 1.8 for tele/portraits.
The 9-18 has appeal due to being lighter and smaller than the 7-14, seemingly at only a small cost in image quality. I saw a review by Thom Hogan in which he says the 7-14 is a somewhat better lens, but he uses the 9-18.
The 45/2.8 macro has appeal for flowers, etc. From what I can tell, most m43 lenses don't focus very close.
If going down this route, a prime in the range of 75 to 100 would be useful
foosion wrote:
Questions for fans of primes: is your preference due to the speed of the lens (including narrow DOF and ability to shoot with faster shutter speeds or lower ISOs) or size and weight or optical qualities? I'm guessing most of you are not landscape shooters, as landscape shooters tend to prefer shooting stopped down for DOF (and may well still be in FF)
FWIW, I just saw that Art Wolfe, one of my favorite photographers, lists the 70-200/4 and 16-35/2.8 as his most used lenses (both FF). In m43, this would be the 35-100 so many of us are waiting for (and I fear bdshort is right about pricing) and the 7-14 (or so). ...Show more →
I like primes! I'm an odd-ball here in the alt forum tho because I also like zooms. The most interesting aspect about primes to me is that their qualities (roundness, 3D-ishness, bokeh, color accuracy, CA, sharpness, etc) as a whole is more locked down and simpler to recognize and make use of. The only two things that vary are the aperture and the focus distance. So the formula (?) is easier to understand and therefor make better use of.
I like zooms! Zoom lenses on average usually have far far less CA yet just as often compete with primes for sharpness, as well as some of the other attributes mentioned above. Zooms however totally complicate the "formula" I'm trying to describe by changing all of the variables at once just by altering the focal length. Sharpness changes, bokeh changes, 3D-ishness changes, color accuracy changes, and distortion properties also change. I like it anyway tho! It just means I have to spend a little more time with the lens in order to understand how to use each of it's extremes (or formula states) in the best way for whatever I'm trying to achieve.
It's kinda sad in a way because some <$100 zooms kick butt on or at least match, expensive primes at a given same/similar FL - yet they get no recognition for it. I guess there might be more sample variation with zooms too - I dunno. I'm not a big believer in tiny differences being caused by sample variations. <shrug>
It's not at all surprising to me that a professional (who spends a lot of time with his gear) will often prefer zooms over primes for a wide range of subjects. He knows the lens, where it's sweet spots are, and how to make the best of them for what he's doing.
Bifurcator wrote:
I like primes! I'm an odd-ball here in the alt forum tho because I also like zooms
I have noticed a subtle, almost imperceptible, preference for primes.
When I first started shooting a used primes, because zooms weren't that good. These days, they seem good enough.
Bifurcator wrote:
It just means I have to spend a little more time with the lens in order to understand how to use each of it's extremes (or formula states) in the best way for whatever I'm trying to achieve.
There's a theory that we should practice photography the same way pianists practice the piano.
On a related note, one of my favorite rules of composition is to work the subject, take lots of pictures from different views, different focal lengths (zooms make this easier), etc. A much better rule than the rule of thirds or the like (and it gave me a chance to say something favorable about zooms).
I used the 7-14 for awhile and felt very good about all aspects of the lens!
Well, all but one! I wanted the AF to be slower and noisier. The AF with that lens is instant no matter what and completely 100% silent. What a bummer! I really missed that z.z.z.z.t - z.z.z.z.z.t sound.
Build excellent, IQ excellent, CA control was good - Not perfect tho. Distortions were enjoyable.
I spent some time deciding between the 7-14 and 9-18 and in the end it was the fact I could use my Lee filter holder and polarizer with the 9-18 that made me choose it. And image is quality it's great, I did fear I'd regret not taking the 7-14 but I don't.
My current lens lineup is 9-18, 20/1.7, 45/1.8 and the 14-42 (Olympus). I however never use the 14-42 even if it's a decent lens.
My buying plan is something like this:
Olympus E-M5 to replace my E-P1
Olympus 12mm f/2
Panasonic 100-300. Until we get a fast 250 to 300mm prime.
Leica 25/1.4 to replace my 20/1.7
Olympus 75/1.8 when it's available.
I might buy the Samyang 8mm fisheye if I feel like having a fish somday.
My buying plan is a 12-35/4 and a 35-100/4. Unfortunately, these lenses don't exist and don't even seem to be contemplated.
The 9-18 could work. It seems to have similar optics to the 7-14 and is much lighter. Pairing it with a 20-100 would be nice, if only there were such a lens.
For what little it's worth the 9-18mm spends a lot of time on my m4/3 bodies. The slow, variable aperture definitely makes this a bright light lens, but for us landscape and scenic photographers, that's not really a problem. Like the Olympus kit lens, this lens collapses when not in use, and it makes for a very compact carrying size, almost as small as the kit lens collapsed. Extended, the lens becomes a bit longer than you might expect from its collapsed size and modest focal range, but it still wouldn't qualify as a "big" lens to me. Optically, the lens is pretty close to the Panasonic 7-14mm in the overlapping range. So the issue is whether you need 14mm or 18mm equivalent at the wide end. Most people will find the Olympus just fine. I personally like the extra width of the Panny, but I can also say that I shoot more with the Oly since acquiring it....Show more → http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-database/olympus-m43-lenses/olympus-mzuiko-9-18mm-f4-56.html
