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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 20, 2012, 9:44 PM   #1
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default GF-3 (2nd Lens Suggestions)

Hi, I'm about to receive my new discounted price Lumix GF-3 bundled with the 14mm pancake. I wan't suggestions for a second all around good lens. I plan to use the camera for family/friends reunions and vacations. My daughter loves the dof effect and if it is possible would like a lens capable of this. I also expect not to spend too much. Thanks
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old May 21, 2012, 4:38 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

Any one?
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2012, 5:15 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: New England, USA
Posts: 2,069
Default

well chiquito, it is hard to tell what would work for you. The 14mm is very wide. The most obvious answer would be a kit zoom like the 14-42mm Olympus kit lens or the 14-45mm Panasonic kit lens, the latter being better. For me because I like wildlife I would go for a 45-200mm panasonic and a 30mm Sigma DN lens (since you didn't want to spend too much). DOF is really a function of the sensor and a large aperture lens.
__________________
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 May 21, 2012, 3:24 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

An all around lens would be the Lumix 14-140mm but it's expensive. You could subsidize the lens by selling the 14mm. As ramcewan suggested, the kit lens is a cheaper alternative. I think the Lumix 14-42mm is reasonably cheap (the 14-45mm is well desired and consequently more expensive). The 45-200mm is good to have but it is not quite an all around lens as 45mm is a bit tight for indoors, landscape or photos in small places.
__________________

Tullio

Last edited by Tullio; May 22, 2012 at 12:06 AM.
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2012, 9:32 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

Thanks to you both guys. Tulio I get your point about the 45-200mm not being so right for my main use. So between the Olympus 14-42mm I and II witch one would be the best choice for the GF-3, or is it better to get the Lumix version and witch one of the 2 Panasonic versions is a better choice for the GF-3?

Last edited by chiquito3; May 21, 2012 at 9:54 PM.
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 21, 2012, 9:36 PM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

I also want to ask. Why is the 14-140mm so expensive?
How good would the Sigma Lens be and what features would I be sacrificing for not getting an original lens?

Last edited by chiquito3; May 21, 2012 at 9:44 PM.
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 12:15 AM   #7
Senior Member
 
Tullio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,370
Default

To answer your first question, the Zuiko 14-42mm I is the worse of all kit lenses. Your best choices are Lumix 14-42mm or Zuiko 14-42mm II. The best one is the Lumix 14-45mm but it costs more.

Just about any lens that covers a wide range of FL is expensive and the 14-140mm is no exception. Sigma does not have any zoom lens in m4/3 format. You can get old 300mm lenses from any brand (with the appropriate adapter) but they will be MF and I can tell you that shooting at 300mm with manual focus is no easy task and you will need a tripod. So, if you want to get a 300mm lens, I suggest you invest in the Lumix 100-300mm. It will be a good match for the GF3 since it has OIS. The same applies to the Lumix 45-200mm. The Zuiko lenses don't have IS so they are not as well suited for the GF3 as the Lumix lenses.
__________________

Tullio
Tullio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 1:01 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 294
Default

It's probably best to go with the Panasonic version of the 14-42 or 14-45 as they have the IS built into the lens. The 14-42 is a bargain at @$130 US. (Amazon) and it's a nice little lens, just not as good as the premium 14-45 but it is lighter and about half the price.



The 14-140 is expensive like all the broad range zoom lenses, especially with the IS built in. It's not really that expensive compared to comparable versions in dslr's, just seems like it compared to the better values available. It's also designed for video use.


The Sigma 30mm is a prime lens, meaning no zoom, and it has no IS, which might take some getting used to if you're not accustomed to it. You have the 14mm f/2.8, which is a very nice lens to get you started and easy to use at that focal length without the Image Stabilization.

The Sigma 30mm f/2.8 lens would be the most economical starting point if you really want the out of focus background, but it won't be that "dramatic" compared to a 50mm f/1.4 legacy lens. You could just activate the EZ zoom with the 14mm you have and see if that's what you want.


All the suggestions make sense if you have a baseline, but you don't as yet. I'd just go with the Panasonic 14-42 at the budget price and get an idea what focal length and apertures you need. That little lens will always come in handy and can take advantage of all the modes and features available in the Panasonic bodies.


If you think you'd use the long telephoto of the 45-200, watch for the recurring sale price. They're selling for $199 or less when available.

You do want to keep in mind, not everyone likes using the bigger, heavier lenses like the 45-200, 14-140, and 100-300 on the compact bodies. With the bulkier G-bodies with large EVF's and protruding grips, it's a lot easier.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 5:04 AM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

Thank you very much for the advises. I did not know about the Olympus lenses not having IS. So with the Panasonic 14-42mm I understand there are 2 versions one that is retractable and other that is not. Would it be any deference in performance with either of these 2 lenses? I see that the price of the retractable is twice the non retractable and that the reviews are not so favorable for the retractable one.

Last edited by chiquito3; May 22, 2012 at 5:07 AM.
chiquito3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 22, 2012, 6:44 AM   #10
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 76
Default

I also see that there are at least 2 variations of the non retrctable 14 - 42mm . One is supposed to be better build. Any suggestions about it?
chiquito3 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 5:09 PM.