Jae do you mean 35mm equivalent or 35mm giving a FOV of 70mm? I would love an equivalent 35mm f1.4. Even a 1.2 dare I say.
I hear you Jae. Characteristics of a lens goes well beyond how sharp it's optics are. I do not wish photography to become a microscope on the materials of life.
My feelings of the PL25 f1.4 are very similar, it has surprised me and it has been a good surprise. It is one of the most rounded lenses I now have and trust. I don't have many that I trust as much to deliver, what I ask of it.
Your picks are all good but the second pic is beautiful . You are also a dab hand at watch photography.
Thanks JuJu, means a lot coming from someone so talented. Your photos lately have inspired me to *try* up my game a bit.
Yes, I did mean a 17.5mm = 35mm equivalent.
The Voigtlander 17.5mm is there but I really want native aperture control. However, it's probably the fastest we'll ever see. It seems just on the cusp of being useable at F0.95 wide open but I wish it was just 10-15% sharper at that aperture. It does sharpen up very nicely as you step down.
Who am I kidding, I'll probably end up buying that one too.
This forum attracts people who are perfectionists and who are into using prime lenses under the belief that only a prime lens can create perfect image quality. I think they feel great mental anguish if they have to take a photo with what they consider an inferior lens. I would agree that, on average, a prime lens will have better quality than a zoom at the same focal length, but it depends on the specific prime and the specific zoom.
While I won't argue the "attracts people who are perfectionists" part, I wouldn't cast that as the only reason some of the posters would suggest a PL25 over a kit zoom of any type.
Granted, none of us can really answer this question because we're not the OP and we don't know what/how the OP shoots, but ---
1) 50mm FOV has been pretty popular for ages, so the "50mm prime starter lens" is still a popular option and can serve a variety of uses and is a pretty good "general" focal length.
2) Shooting indoors begins to seriously limit a kit lens's usefulness, especially as the lights begin to lower. You're already at f 3.5 at the fastest part of the zoom (unless you're using 43 adapted kit lenses that IIRC start at 2.8)
3) The PL25 has a rendering characteristic that none of the kit lenses seem to exhibit, nor many of the Oly primes either. Olympus seems to go for pure optical perfection, sharp across the frame and pleasing bokeh and rendering but nothing "characteristic" (one could argue for and against this approach). So, if one wishes to have a lens like this, a kit isn't going to get you there.
Granted, I could make just as many arguments (or even a few more) for a kit lens and against the prime.
But, most people here are going to suggest a lens at least in part because of how they shoot, at least without more specifics from the OP. Given that information, I would also take a PL25 over a 12-50 just because I don't shoot macro that much, or wide angle too much, and I need the speed of a 1.4 lens more than I need the kit weather sealing, etc.
I'm happy with the photos I get from the 12-50 - nothing really wrong with its IQ, though it's not stellar (heck I own the 100-300 also, another so-so lens) but if we're talking choosing lens A or B, I'd probably go with the 25 also...not even from a pure sharpness standpoint.
Of course this is m43, so this exercise is almost moot. Slap a PL25 and throw the 14 2.5 in your pocket and you're set
I love zooms. I use it when I only have 1 body to shoot with or if I'm in a time limited situation such as an event where I won't have time to switch between 24mm and 100mm.
When I know exactly what I need to shoot, I use primes. When I'm shooting for me, I use primes. When I want every last little oodle of detail and contrast from a scene, I use a prime. When I want to use a len's brush to add to the image, I use a prime.
There are only a handful of zooms that have WoW'd me. They all say Olympus SHG or C/Y Zeiss or Zeiss ZA. I haven't yet had the opportunity to try the Leica zooms or the vaunted Canon L II 70-200.
Uncle Mike wrote:
Believe it or not, the 14-42mm II R kit lens.
It's small and light and takes great photos. It needs to be stopped down to be sharp at the telephoto end. I recently bought the overpriced LH-40 lens hood to make it even better.
The 25mm f/1.4 has a massive advantage with regards to aperture size, but when you compare photos taken with the lenses stopped down, only very intense and careful pixel peeping will tell you which lens took the photo.
I also have the 12-50mm lens, and feel ripped off. Very bad quality at the edges and corners when used at wide angles. Although maybe there's some sample variation because some people seem to like it. ...Show more → cannpope wrote:
Great Mike! I have been wanting to hear things on the 14-42 lens, so this is good news
The 14-42 lenses are all pretty mediocre. The Panny 14-45 is the best of the "kit" lenses. Of course the Panny 12-35f2.8 is the best "normal" zoom.
Do you plan on only having one lens forever? Is so than a MILC system makes no sense.
If you want a initial lens choice and plan to buy more later, then that suggests you have a budget limit. So you should state that.
A bit more info on your reasons for the limited choice or budget or photographic needs would make suggestions much easier.
For me, if I had to do it again and could only get one initial lens with plans for eventual expansion, I'd get the Panny 20f1.7. Inexpensive, small pancake, excellent image quality, one of my fav FL (versatile for a prime), good AF. Much better than any of the cheap kit lenses.
The Panny 20 F1.7 actually has probably the slowest/loudest AF outside of maybe the PL45.
The cheaper 14mm is actually faster and the Panasonic 14-45mm as well as the Oly 14-42 R MSC lenses are way way faster and much quieter in AF.
I'm not a fan of the Panasonic 20mm. It's a sharp lens no doubt but it's output has always left me cold and not impressed. I've shot about 300-400 images on it. It does have a lot of people who love it though.
Being lazy, I find myself using zooms most. When I'm home, that means the Oly 12-60. When traveling, it ends up being the 12-50. I didn't like the output of 14-140 on the OMD. Although the 12-35 output is nice, sometimes it is all about length. Primes means you sometimes don't have the right lens quickly. And yes, you could move closer or step back but remember, I'm lazy.
FlyPenFly wrote:
The Panny 20 F1.7 actually has probably the slowest/loudest AF outside of maybe the PL45.
The cheaper 14mm is actually faster and the Panasonic 14-45mm as well as the Oly 14-42 R MSC lenses are way way faster and much quieter in AF.
Yes, maybe not fast, but more importantly, I find it to be accurate. Which is better than many fast primes out there, hence the good AF rating I give it. But I agree that it definitely isn't the best because of it's lack of speed.
