I have shot Olympus/OM on and off going back to the E-1 in 2003 and a couple EPs and PenF over the years. I shoot quite a bit of GFX medium format, and last year gave up my M10R as rangefinder focusing has gotten harder and harder.In moving on from Leica, I grabbed a Nikon ZF and it was a good substitute, but have wanted something smaller with more small lens options, so I swapped the ZF for an OM-3. Love it.
I have the 17mm 1.8 II and 25mm 1.8 II, but the only thing I miss about the bulky ZF is the sweet 40mm f2 SE, a cheapish plastic lens but with tons of character. Im finding the OM lenses great fun, but a bit too clinical.
Im looking for recommendations for a nice 15mm to 30mm m43 lens that has some of that elusive, imperfect character of the Nikon 40mm. Im considering the OM 20mm 1.4, but maybe some of the m43 Leicas? Sigma? I would love some recommendations, samples, or insights into getting a little imperfect character out of the OM-3 in this focal range.
The Lumix 20 should be a contender, as should the Leica 15, 25, and the Sigma 30. The OM 20 is very sweet too. Can't go wrong with any of them. The only issue with the Lumix 20 is that it will not engage CAF on recent camera models with PDAF, which is a pity.
If you dont mind MF maybe the TTArtisans 25/2 at $64 would be a fun character lens? At the other price extreme for MF there are the Voigtlanders
As already mentioned the 20/1.7 was much loved for some character though Im not sure it is the same kind of character as the Z 40/2. It of course does AF though as petersm59 mentioned with some limitations. I owned it myself, but it never really got used as I preferred the Oly 17/1.8 and then the Panleica 15.
The Panleica 25/1.4 is nice but a bit bulkier than other options in m43 primes.
There are a lot of choices, and few of them very new, meaning there should be lots of sample photos and opportunity to purchase used if you prefer!
petersm59 wrote:
.....
The only issue with the Lumix 20 is that it will not engage CAF on recent camera models with PDAF, which is a pity.
To the best of my knowledge, the P20mm f/1.7 does not support CAF at all. As I recall, mounting it on my GX85 would reset the camera to SAF.
DavidZvi wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, the P20mm f/1.7 does not support CAF at all. As I recall, mounting it on my GX85 would reset the camera to SAF.
Honestly, it's only recently that I started using CAF on any camera, and that was when I got my OM-5's and G9II's. Otherwise the Lumix cameras worked really well in SAF, you just had to refocus for each shot, which was reliable, just not fast.
The Sigma 16mm is OK, but over large, the Sigma 30mm looks interesting. I would have liked to try that myself. The character lenses in this would be the Voigtlander 17mm 0.95, VC 25s 0.95, VC 29mm 0.85, OM 17mm pro, 20mm or 25mm Pros. Never tried the 25/1.4 Summilux. Many of us like the 17mm OM which you have already. No idea what the 40mm Nikon is like, but it would seem to me the 20mm OM is the one to try, as I think there is something special about a 40mm on FF. An issue is that the aspect ratio does make the two focal lengths not really equivalent. For example, I much prefer a 17mm on m43 compared to a 35mm on FF.
Thanks, all, for the ideas so far, especially on the Sigmas, as I'm not terribly familiar with them in use.
I've enjoyed FF Voigtlanders, so they're on the radar, but would love something with AF.
I agree about the format, and also have more of an appreciation of 17mm at M43/4:3 than I do for 35mm FF/3:2 (which I've never taken to). I may give the OM 20mm a try...
Hard to say what I like about the Nikon Z 40mm. An imperfection that isn't quite 'softness' as much as 'not clinical', slightly subdued colors (though I'm colorblind, so who knows), perhaps a bit of vignetting. All doable in post, but I'm on the hunt for that character in the lens.
jeffnesh wrote
Hard to say what I like about the Nikon Z 40mm. An imperfection that isn't quite 'softness' as much as 'not clinical', slightly subdued colors (though I'm colorblind, so who knows), perhaps a bit of vignetting. All doable in post, but I'm on the hunt for that character in the lens.
The Z 40/2 has more than one "character" to it.
At medium to long focus distances it is pretty sharp and the bokeh takes on a somewhat "busy" look to it. This is typical of simpler lens designs that have well corrected spherical aberration at a given focus distance - get pleasant smooth bokeh or get maximum sharpness, not both. This is also probably a bit like the Panasonic 20/1.7 which has a somewhat busy bokeh that gives it its "character" that some love and some hate.
At closer focus distances the Z 40/2 is not well corrected for spherical aberration which makes it act a fair bit differently than at longer distances. First, you get a modest loss in sharpness. Second, you get the typical spherical aberration "glow" that is common in many legacy wide aperture lenses. Third, because of the under corrected spherical aberration you get a fairly smooth and pleasant bokeh.
For some people this makes the Z 40/2 a pretty desirable lens because it can do two common tasks well. For close up still-life (e.g. food shots) or head and shoulders portraits you get nice smooth bokeh and an SA glow that is often not objectionable, or is even desirable, for those kinds of shots. For distant focus stopped down just a bit you get quite sharp results that are good for landscape and cityscapes and often there isn't much out of focus to notice the busier bokeh at these longer distances. Makes it really nice "walk around" or "travel" lens that does two common tasks pretty well despite being small and inexpensive.
I'm less certain of what the 20/1.7 does close up. I haven't owned it for more than a decade and hardly used it, but the few sample images I find online at close focus don't make it appear the bokeh smooths out very much close up. So I think you should expect to get the busier bokeh more frequently.
Anyway, point being maybe look back at your 40/2 shots and decide if there is a particular kind of shot that has the "character" you are looking for. What you describe above sounds a bit like you are describing its performance at closer shooting distances where spherical aberration is present. If that's the case then the 20/1.7 may not be a good choice. If instead it is distant subjects where there is busier bokeh then maybe the 20/1.7 is something to look at. If you can better characterize what it is about the 40/2 you like and in what conditions you were seeing that it might make it easier to find the m43 lens that best matches.
I'm not sure if what I'm saying is helpful or just comes across as techno gibberish, but I figured I try...
Robin Smith wrote:
The Sigma 16mm is OK, but over large, the Sigma 30mm looks interesting. I would have liked to try that myself. The character lenses in this would be the Voigtlander 17mm 0.95, VC 25s 0.95, VC 29mm 0.85, OM 17mm pro, 20mm or 25mm Pros. Never tried the 25/1.4 Summilux. Many of us like the 17mm OM which you have already. No idea what the 40mm Nikon is like, but it would seem to me the 20mm OM is the one to try, as I think there is something special about a 40mm on FF. An issue is that the aspect ratio does make the two focal lengths not really equivalent. For example, I much prefer a 17mm on m43 compared to a 35mm on FF....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
jeffnesh wrote:
Thanks, all, for the ideas so far, especially on the Sigmas, as I'm not terribly familiar with them in use.
I've enjoyed FF Voigtlanders, so they're on the radar, but would love something with AF.
I agree about the format, and also have more of an appreciation of 17mm at M43/4:3 than I do for 35mm FF/3:2 (which I've never taken to). I may give the OM 20mm a try...
Hard to say what I like about the Nikon Z 40mm. An imperfection that isn't quite 'softness' as much as 'not clinical', slightly subdued colors (though I'm colorblind, so who knows), perhaps a bit of vignetting. All doable in post, but I'm on the hunt for that character in the lens....Show more →
My PL 15mm f/1.7 used to live on my m43 gear. Now, the Voigtlander 42.5mm has taken it's place. (I've also got the 17.5mm.) Yeah, it doesn't have AF. But.... I find it much much much more engaging for taking pics. Soft and dreamy but it'll also sharpen right up if you stop it down a bit.
Thanks, kwalsh, for the insights and descriptions. That's a great breakdown and I hadn't considered it that way. It's probably the 'closer' version I'm going for as I look at shots (from many lenses) that I like. It's that 'glow' you've attributed to spherical aberration that appeals. It's missing from the more 'clinical' look of many of the smaller om/olympus lenses, and so many of the photos I find attributed to most m43s cameras/lenses.
It's that organic feel very much present in brainstorm's Voigtlander shots above. Maybe it's back to manual focus for that. I'm enjoying everything about the format again, just looking for a 'comfy like a worn shoe' lens to relax with.
Yeah, if you are looking for the more legacy rendering "glow" from a bit of spherical aberration (which sometimes comes with smoother background bokeh as well) you might want to look at some of the lower priced manual focus options from the various Chinese manufacturers (7Artisans, TTArtisans, Meike, etc.). These often appear to be "classic" low element lens designs that have been scaled down for practical m43 or APS-C focal lengths. (So like a classic 50mm FF SLR design scaled down to a 25mm m43 mirrorless design). They end up being compact and fairly lightweight typically and fit the m43 "ethic" pretty well. But MF only of course. If a lens is more pricey and advertising aspheric elements then you are more likely to end up with a "clinical" rendering. Even the most obscure ones usually have at least a YouTube review with some samples that might hint if it has the rendering you are after.
Alternatively, if you don't mind the additional bulk and cost, going with a ridiculously fast design like the Voigt 0.95 lenses tends to give you spherical aberrations because it is nearly impossible to avoid at those kinds of apertures (unless doing truly insane designs like the Nikon Z 58/0.95 Noct). There are some Chinese 0.95 designs that are a bit less pricey than the Voigts, but still weigh quite a bit.
Unfortunately it is hard to adapt old legacy glass to m43 and get that kind of rendering at normal to slightly wide focal length. Since you need 25mm or shorter that means the old SLR designs would be forced into retro-focus designs which often have a very different and more awkward rendering. This was the bane of the first m43 users when there were hardly any primes for the system! Easy to adapt legacy FF SLR lenses if you want telephoto fields of view, not so good for normal to wide. You can use old rangefinder lenses in some cases, but sort of few and far between and pricey for what they deliver.
Last thing, you could use something like a Metabones Speed Booster 0.64x converter. Lets you attach FF lenses and use them close to their original FoV while largely preserving their rendering. But that only makes sense if you want to do that with a lot of different lenses and your Zf was probably the better solution for that anyway!
Long story short, give the cheapo Chinese MF lenses around 20-25mm a look. One or the other might give the rendering you are looking for.
Understood, and they are long for how I normally shoot, but I do very much enjoy the Voigtlander photos in this thread!
Thanks all, the suggestions and feedback have both helped hone in on what Im hoping for, and given me some options to research. Im happy with my choice to move back to M43s and am enjoying the ease and comfort of the experience. Half the fun is the wide variety of lenses and looks in this system!
