Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Olympus Micro Four Thirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 26, 2012, 10:28 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
James Emory's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Bay City, MI
Posts: 2,380
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa View Post
Eh, it's fine if you don't need the newest and brightest. I can shove it in a coat pocket, get it through lines at the Park without questions, etc.

Hopefully, as new models come out, the prices will gradually go down because people have more choice. It's already doing that a bit--I got this (used) for around 280, which would have been impossible just a few months ago. It didn't seem like you'd be able to even sniff one until around 350 or so.

That said, I don't understand how 50mm /1.7-2.0ish was the standard given-out-free-with-the-camera lens "back in the day" but you'll be paying a premium for that now.
I agree, I grew up in the film days and every SLR I ever bought came with a 50-55mm f1.8 lens. Now you are lucky to get a f3.5 kit lens.
__________________
Olympus OMD-M5, HLG6 grip, Olympus 4/3rd 35mm macro lens, Panny/Leica 25mm, f1.4, Olympus 17mm, Canon Pro 9000 Mk II Printer, Canon MP990 Printer, Slik U212 Tripod, Manfrotto monopod, MMF3 converter.
James Emory is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 10:46 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by James Emory View Post
I agree, I grew up in the film days and every SLR I ever bought came with a 50-55mm f1.8 lens. Now you are lucky to get a f3.5 kit lens.
I think it is important to recognize that a 50mm equivalent 24-25mm lens for MFT is optically much harder to construct then a 50mm film lens. This is why a 24mm f1.4 Canon USM lens is $1599, because it is hard to make an optically good lens of this focal length without getting into fancy designs. A new Nikon 24mm f1.4 will set you back over two grand. If you spend some time shopping for under 28mm film lenses you will find they are all very expensive or not so good. An Olympus OM mount 24mm f2.8 will fetch $250 all day on ebay even though it is an old lens for a camera mount that no longer exists.

The point being that the wider you go the more optically complex the lens needs to be in order to have a wide max aperture without showing distortions. This in my opinion is the one weakness of MFT, that the lenses must be made 2x wider than the film equivalent and therefore the lenses must be more complex and more costly.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 10:57 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ramcewan View Post
I think it is important to recognize that a 50mm equivalent 24-25mm lens for MFT is optically much harder to construct then a 50mm film lens. This is why a 24mm f1.4 Canon USM lens is $1599, because it is hard to make an optically good lens of this focal length without getting into fancy designs. A new Nikon 24mm f1.4 will set you back over two grand. If you spend some time shopping for under 28mm film lenses you will find they are all very expensive or not so good. An Olympus OM mount 24mm f2.8 will fetch $250 all day on ebay even though it is an old lens for a camera mount that no longer exists.

The point being that the wider you go the more optically complex the lens needs to be in order to have a wide max aperture without showing distortions. This in my opinion is the one weakness of MFT, that the lenses must be made 2x wider than the film equivalent and therefore the lenses must be more complex and more costly.

Well things are more complicated now in general, yeah. But they could cut the costs a bit if they just sacrificed some size and included a moderately bright lens as the kit lens (say a 2.0/25mm non-pancake for example). I'm sure part of the reason why those 50s were so cheap is because they made a million of them. They'd rather include a kit zoom, and wait for you to grow impatient with that and buy a few primes.

Last edited by SammyKhalifa; Nov 26, 2012 at 11:17 AM.
SammyKhalifa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:20 AM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SammyKhalifa View Post
Well things are more complicated now in general, yeah. But they could cut the costs a bit if they just included a moderately bright lens as the kit lens (say a 2.0/25mm non-pancake for example). They'd rather include a kit zoom, and wait for you to grow impatient with that and buy a few primes.
Yeah I think they include a zoom because it is deemed more useful for those people who will never buy another lens. If you look at DSLRs most get sold with a kit lens zoom and they mostly fall in the f/3.5 max aperture range. Honestly I think many DSLR buyers are fine with the 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom they got with the camera, it suites most needs and many people rely on flashes indoors instead of lens speed. Olympus and Panasonic both did the same thing with MFT except made it a few notches wider at 12-42mm but the same f3.5-5.6, because that was what works well in the DSLR world and why wouldn't it work for MFT.

If you look at the new PEN commercials I think the target market is the soccer mom who wants better than P&S quality, for them the 12-42mm makes perfect sense. For those users looking for more than that they have the OM-D and the new 12-50mm zoom.
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:34 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The sigma lenses that are in the 150 range are pretty poor lenses, the olympus lenses are actually allot better. The sigma 70-300 that is 150 dollar is a bottom of the barrel lens, I fine the $220 panasonic 45-200 allot better lens optically for the same focal length.

I really would compare apples to apples and not apples to oranges. For a lens that is about as good as the panasonic 45-200 say for canon is the ef-s 55-250. And the canon is a bit more expensive.

For a all arounder lens the olympus 14-150 sells for 550 dollars the equivalent for canon are the ef-s 18-200 is about the same price, 500 dollars on sale maybe 475. The sigma 18-250 is 550 and the tamron 18-270 around 600 dollars. And the olympus is sharper then the canon, signa and tamron. And I really like the tamron.

I have a canon dslr system and olympus m4/3 and for the same level quality lens the olympus and canon are around the same price within 50 dollars.

Now if you crappy lenses, there are way more options for dslr out there. They are not sharp have vig issue or pf issues that are allot more apparent example the sigma cheapo 70-300, has all the issues I mention.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:38 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
The sigma lenses that are in the 150 range are pretty poor lenses, the olympus lenses are actually allot better...
Just to clarify that we were talking about the micro four thirds sigma 19mm and 30mm f2.8 primes which are on sale for $149 right now. While I don't own either SLR gear did give both pretty good ratings;

http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1484/cat/30
http://slrgear.com/reviews/showprodu...ct/1483/cat/30

I agree with your assessment otherwise of the Sigma DSLR line, the good ones carry a higher price tag than the low end ones (for a reason).
__________________
in my bag: e-m1, 7-14mm pro, 14-54mm mk ii, 50-200mm mk i, 70-300mm
in my pocket: e-pm2 lumix 12-32
ramcewan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:49 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

Well both those lenses are available for m4/3, and while I have played around with them, the olympus lenses are way better with the 25 2.8, and the 12 2.8 is exceptional. And the 50 1.8 is a deal for the sharpness and clarity in the photos. It is lenses you pay for what you get.

The sigma 2.8 lens line up is a cheaper option, and are good. But there is a reason they are cheaper.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:55 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

PS

I forgot to mention, since sigma is a third party lens, they tend to be less expensive then the OEM for the equivalent lens. They are not zeiss or leica, sigma is not is that league in professional level lenses, so they can not command a higher price then the OEM.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 11:55 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Beaver, PA
Posts: 903
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shoturtle View Post
Well both those lenses are available for m4/3, and while I have played around with them, the olympus lenses are way better with the 25 2.8, and the 12 2.8 is exceptional. And the 50 1.8 is a deal for the sharpness and clarity in the photos. It is lenses you pay for what you get.

The sigma 2.8 lens line up is a cheaper option, and are good. But there is a reason they are cheaper.
Oh yeah, no question they're probably a step or two below the other options. Still, it's good to have options. I've never tried them, but what I hear they're pretty dang sharp but of course lose to Oly/Panny in speed and size.

And of course since I now have the 20mm, I wouldn't see much point in getting a 19mm or 30 anyhow.

Now a long prime, or a wide 10mm-ish lens for a reasonable price, that could be something I'd look at.

Last edited by SammyKhalifa; Nov 26, 2012 at 12:02 PM.
SammyKhalifa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 26, 2012, 12:03 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
shoturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Frankfurt AM
Posts: 11,348
Default

The 30 2.8 is actually a decent focal length on m4/3, I just wish is was 30 or 35mm 1.8 or F2. It would go great with the 20 1.7 and 50 1.8 very well place between the two FL. I ask for allot in primes. I love prime lenses over zoom for creative shooting. I have 28 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 and 100 2.8 for my canon. And I would love to completely match that line up with my m4/3 setup.
__________________
Super Frequent Flyer, no joke. Ex Patriot and loving it.
Canon Eos 60D, T1i/500D, Eos1, Eos 630, Olympus EPL-1, and a part time Pentax K-X shooter.
shoturtle is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:08 AM.