I'm getting more and more tempted by the OMD and the 20/1.7 as a small discrete carry around. I'd almost settled on a Fuji X100, I like the form and the optical viewfinder, but I've been reading about the flare problem and some of the examples look horrendous, even at smaller apertures. This may not be a problem for a lot of people, but I like shooting into the light - contre jour.
I'd like to ask those who are using the combination of OMD and 20mm whether there are any problems.
1. I've heard the auto-focus with the 20mm is slow. Can someone put that into context for me. How slow? As slow as the X100?
2. Aren't some of the 20/1.7's aberrations corrected in camera? If so, then what will the IQ be like on the OMD?
3. What is the flare control like on the 20/1.7?
Please don't recommend the Leica 25/1.4 - I know it's better, but I don't want the extra length or that tighter field of view.
I hate the idea of using a video screen as a viewfinder - how good or bad is it compared to looking through a 5DII?
Thanks.
40mm is a weird FoV for me personally. I prefer 35m or 60mm. But that's just personal.
The 20mm F1.7 is a noisy slow lens and IMO, over rated although it does have slimness going for it. I can't say I'm a fan of the rendering style of this lens out of camera, usually needs a heavy hand in post.
Its not as slow or missive as the X100 was for me.
1. I've only had the combo a few hours (just got the OMD this afternoon) so I can't speak on all the points but I think I would compare the 20 1.7 focus to something like the Canon 50 1.8, audible and not blazing fast, but for static and slow moving stuff it does fine.
2. I should have a better idea about aberrations soon enough as I've taken, but not downloaded, some higher contrast scenes with white objects.
3. Honestly can't say, I don't think I've shot much in the sun with it, even on my old setup.
I have mixed feelings about EVFs, things seem more "real" in an OVF to me, but EVFs are really useful and I think make shooting easier in many cases. I think you just have to try it.
I've only had the EM-5 for a couple of days and I have yet to see the sun, so there are some things upon which I cannot comment.
The Nifty Fifty comparison is valid in some ways, but nothing is built quite as poorly as that thing. The 20mm is small but sturdy.
AF is relatively slow in low light compared to a faster lens like the 45mm which is virtually instantaneous and it does tend to hunt a bit. That being said I've used the lens a lot and it spends a lot of time on my camera, even though I also own the 25mm.
It's also very sharp but can be a little lifeless and does require some post work on color and contrast but can produce very nice images. I hate to say it but the 25 is much better right out of the camera. It's a wonderful lens but just a little too long.
The best thing about the 20mm is the focal length. It's just about perfect for what I like to shoot, extremely versatile.
So, I guess it's kind of a mixed bag, but I wouldn't be without it on a m4/3 rig. For only about $300 on the used market it's hard to go wrong.
You may consider the Nex-7 with the Sigma 30/2.8, fwiw, if you're ok with a 45 equivalent lens. The Sigma lens is a little longer, but the OM-D is a taller and deeper camera, so it's about a wash, size-wise. The Sigma is about a half step slower in equivalence, but it's likely better at every aperture, and the Nex-7 will have better IQ and a better EVF, too. Just a thought.
20/1.7 at f2.8 is 1050 and 875
at f4 is 1075 and 880
30/2.8 at 2.8 is 985 and 805
at f4 is 1040 and 840
EM5 also seem to have better high ISO than NEX7 from dp's test sample.
douglasf13 wrote:
You may consider the Nex-7 with the Sigma 30/2.8, fwiw, if you're ok with a 45 equivalent lens. The Sigma lens is a little longer, but the OM-D is a taller and deeper camera, so it's about a wash, size-wise. The Sigma is about a half step slower in equivalence, but it's likely better at every aperture, and the Nex-7 will have better IQ and a better EVF, too. Just a thought.
I don't believe the tests would be cross compatible between the two cameras, especially considering the resolution difference between the cameras. Either way, that Panasonic 20/1.7 does look very good.
The dpreview test of the OM-D vs. the NEX-7 is a joke. Outside of not comparing the images at like output size, they gave the OM-D +1 EV more exposure than the NEX-7, and, as I understand it, their lighting setup isn't consistent. DxO will give us a better idea. I'd imagine the lowlight results will be pretty close, but the NEX-7 will still have a decent DR advantage. Either way, I figured the NEX-7 should at least be another option for the OP to consider, since that's the direction a lot of us have gone.
Ya, would love to see DxO's result. The EM5's performance seems impressive from other test result so far.
douglasf13 wrote:
I don't believe the tests would be cross compatible between the two cameras, especially considering the resolution difference between the cameras. Either way, that Panasonic 20/1.7 does look very good.
The dpreview test of the OM-D vs. the NEX-7 is a joke. Outside of not comparing the images at like output size, they gave the OM-D +1 EV more exposure than the NEX-7, and, as I understand it, their lighting setup isn't consistent. DxO will give us a better idea. I'd imagine the lowlight results will be pretty close, but the NEX-7 will still have a decent DR advantage. Either way, I figured the NEX-7 should at least be another option for the OP to consider, since that's the direction a lot of us have gone....Show more →
I love the E-M5, and I love the Panasonic 20mm, so I'm very sorry to report that with that lens (and apparently only that lens) the E-M5 seems to have a banding issue.
I usually don't subscribe to DPReview camera flaw hysteria, but the person who discovered that the banding only happens with the 20mm is my wife, and she does know what she's talking about.
Also, it doesn't actually modify the RAW file for these corrections...it includes tags in the metadata that many RAW converters then pick up and apply as part of the decoding routine. It's not a permanent change to the RAW file.
FlyPenFly wrote:
It's pretty common knowledge mft (panasonic in particular) does a significant amount of raw modification for native lenses.
I think you should watch out for both common knowledge and common sense then.
The banding issue seem very real though (I replaced my 20/1.7 with the 25/1.4 long ago so this is from reading all the posts about the problem). As I understand it it is about interference (recalling Canon having a similar problem a couple of years ago, no?) between that lens and the E-M5. What a pity for all those loving pancakes!
The problem hasn't been reported for any other lens yet.
Well, if I would search for every unsubstantiated statement I came across, I would never have time for anything else I will file this factoid under your opinions for now.
