campbellcj
Established
Am I losing my mind or are there no fast (i.e., f/2.8 or faster, preferably <f/1.8) autofocus lenses in the 70-105mm 35mm-equivalent range for micro 4/3rds?
I have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and love it but would really like something similar at around 2X the focal length.
I'm aware that I can use various other glass with adapters as I've got several CV lenses including the 40mm f/1.4 SC but manual focus is just not always viable for me when shooting subjects like my fast-moving kids!
Happy New Year!
I have the Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 and love it but would really like something similar at around 2X the focal length.
I'm aware that I can use various other glass with adapters as I've got several CV lenses including the 40mm f/1.4 SC but manual focus is just not always viable for me when shooting subjects like my fast-moving kids!
Happy New Year!
Sam N
Well-known
There's the Leica 45/2.8 Macro, but it's pretty expensive, not super fast, and a lot of reviewers don't particularly like it.
I like using the ZM 35/2 but I'd prefer something with AF. I'm hoping someone comes out with a nice sharp 45/2 with AF soon, but neither of the m43 companies have one on their roadmap. Olympus is planning a ~50mm macro which might be more affordable than the Leica.
I like using the ZM 35/2 but I'd prefer something with AF. I'm hoping someone comes out with a nice sharp 45/2 with AF soon, but neither of the m43 companies have one on their roadmap. Olympus is planning a ~50mm macro which might be more affordable than the Leica.
Last edited:
Frank Petronio
Well-known
It's pretty stupid, I agree
PCB_RF
Established
The only native m4/3 option is the L/P 45/2.8, which isn't cheap, but does cover both portrait and macro needs. Reviews seem to be mixed, but I think it's more along the lines of "not as superb as I'd expect for the name/price," or "the 4/3 50/2 is better in some respects."
The 50/2 4/3 lens should also work well, with an adapter. I don't think it's compatible with 1st-gen Panny G1/GH1, though.
You can check on opinions about these lenses. The 45/2.8 goes 1:1 and has OIS, the 50 is faster but only goes 1:2, has no OIS, needs an adapter, and doesn't focus nearly as fast. My recall on optics is the 50/2 is slightly sharper in the corners wide-open, while the the 45/2.8 has less chromatic aberration.
I've tried both, owned the 50/2 for a few days, ditched it quickly due to slow af. I've got a 55/2.8 Nikkor Ai ($80?) for macro and a jillion fast 35-50mm mf lenses for portraits. I don't need af for these, so I'll spend the $800+ for the 45/2.8 elsewhere.
If you're willing to look at 4/3 alternatives, the 12-60/2.8-4 might still be close to 2.8 at 35-40mm, and though big/heavy, the 50-200/2.8 is 2.8 all the way through. I think both will af on all Oly and later Panny m4/3. I'm not sure about G1/GH1 compatibility, that's easy to check.
As to the holes in the current lens lineup, there's no doubt they exist. But everybody wants something different, and it's barely been 2yrs since the system hit the market. It's going to take some time to flesh out the lens offerings.
I have close to zero need for a native m4/3 40-50/2.0-1.4, doesn't seem at all stupid to me that's missing. Don't need it, move on. But I'd dedicate a body to a 10/2.8. The 14/2.5 is on my short list, that was a great move, but I'd inform on my neighbors for a 17/1.2. Not offering _those_ is stupid.
The 50/2 4/3 lens should also work well, with an adapter. I don't think it's compatible with 1st-gen Panny G1/GH1, though.
You can check on opinions about these lenses. The 45/2.8 goes 1:1 and has OIS, the 50 is faster but only goes 1:2, has no OIS, needs an adapter, and doesn't focus nearly as fast. My recall on optics is the 50/2 is slightly sharper in the corners wide-open, while the the 45/2.8 has less chromatic aberration.
I've tried both, owned the 50/2 for a few days, ditched it quickly due to slow af. I've got a 55/2.8 Nikkor Ai ($80?) for macro and a jillion fast 35-50mm mf lenses for portraits. I don't need af for these, so I'll spend the $800+ for the 45/2.8 elsewhere.
If you're willing to look at 4/3 alternatives, the 12-60/2.8-4 might still be close to 2.8 at 35-40mm, and though big/heavy, the 50-200/2.8 is 2.8 all the way through. I think both will af on all Oly and later Panny m4/3. I'm not sure about G1/GH1 compatibility, that's easy to check.
As to the holes in the current lens lineup, there's no doubt they exist. But everybody wants something different, and it's barely been 2yrs since the system hit the market. It's going to take some time to flesh out the lens offerings.
I have close to zero need for a native m4/3 40-50/2.0-1.4, doesn't seem at all stupid to me that's missing. Don't need it, move on. But I'd dedicate a body to a 10/2.8. The 14/2.5 is on my short list, that was a great move, but I'd inform on my neighbors for a 17/1.2. Not offering _those_ is stupid.
Frank Petronio
Well-known
I recently got a Jupiter 50/2 and adapter for my G1 and find focusing manually to be pretty easy for portraits, but after using the nice 20/1.7 with it's snappy AF, it sure would be nice to have a 35-40/2 portrait lens along the lines of 50/1.8 on APS or 85/1.4 on FF.
If anything the shorter lenses could be manually focused ;-)
If anything the shorter lenses could be manually focused ;-)
PCB_RF
Established
You wanna dance, Frank? I'm ready to start 2011 handing you a bruising! :^}
I was just trying to illustrate that there are competing needs amongst we end users, and it's likely going to be a while before we're all satisfied.
BTW, should mention here that whatever Frank needs, Frank should get, 'cause his work is AWESOME! Bought his Blurb.com book for a XMas prezzie, great stuff. Thanks, Frank!
Just be knowing, before you go googling, many images are in the Not Safe For Work (NSFW) category.
I also forgot to wish one and all a very happy new year, filled with health, happiness, prosperity, great images and hardware you really need. Happy New Year!
Frank Petronio
Well-known
Likewise!
Yeah if they came out with another lens then I'd have to get another body and be left dillying over decisions, probably better just to stick with that 40mm-equivilant and be grateful the G1 fits in my pocket so easily!
Yeah if they came out with another lens then I'd have to get another body and be left dillying over decisions, probably better just to stick with that 40mm-equivilant and be grateful the G1 fits in my pocket so easily!
Neare
Well-known
Get the m4/3 to 4/3 adapter from Olympus then use the 4/3 lens line up. That will solve your problem.
campbellcj
Established
Thanks for the idea - I'll check out what they've got in (full) 4/3rds format!
Alternatively maybe I'll bite on a Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar or something like that, and just work on my manual focusing. I admit I've never gotten the hang of the CV 40mm f/1.4 SC. Something about its handling and the focusing tab just trips me up.
Or I'll just stick with the Pany 20mm and move closer.
campbellcj
Established
Hmmm, all I see in (full) 4/3rds that might do the trick is the Oly 50mm f/2 macro but it's got some shaky reviews on B&H in terms of autofocus speed and noise. IQ is apparently nice, but with crappy AF performance there's no benefit for me.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301932-REG/Olympus_261003_50mm_f_2_0_Macro_ED.html
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/301932-REG/Olympus_261003_50mm_f_2_0_Macro_ED.html
PCB_RF
Established
Thanks for the idea - I'll check out what they've got in (full) 4/3rds format!
Alternatively maybe I'll bite on a Zeiss 50mm f/1.5 C-Sonnar or something like that, and just work on my manual focusing. I admit I've never gotten the hang of the CV 40mm f/1.4 SC. Something about its handling and the focusing tab just trips me up.
Or I'll just stick with the Pany 20mm and move closer.
Just to be sure we're understanding, 4/3 and m-4/3 have identical sensor size, 4/3 has mirror, m-4/3 does not. "(Full) 4/3" kinda sounds like "full frame" to my ears.
4/3 Fastish Portrait Lenses:
50/2: Outstanding optics; slow/noisy AF
12-60/2.8-4: Outstanding optics; need adapter, fast enough?
50-200/2.8: Outstanding optics; big/heavy
Looks like you're using an E-P2? If you don't have the EVF, you should try one with your 40/1.4, it makes manual focus a lot easier. the 40/1.4 with M-adapter makes a much smaller package than any SLR lens & adapter.
You could grab almost any sub-$150 50/1.4 SLR mf lens to play with that configuration. I'm not saying you shouldn't jump into a Zeiss 50/1.5, great lens, but you can experiment for a lot less $$.
Stepping closer with your 20/1.7 gives you more facial distortion than you'd get from a longer lens, and the dof will be deeper as well.
robertro
Newbie
14-54 Mark 2
14-54 Mark 2
If you want AF, you might want to look at the 4/3 Zuiko 14-54mm/2.8-3.5 Mark II lens.
It's shorter, lighter, and a half-stop faster at portrait lengths than the 12-60 mentioned above. Because the Mark 2 version supports CDAF, it has much faster AF on m4/3 than the 50/2 or even the 12-60 - in my tests, it focuses as quickly and reliably as the kit m4/3 14-42 - no speed demon, but it does the job. With its rounded aperture blades, it also provides smooth bokeh and at ~$450 it's reasonably priced as well.
It balances well on my E-PL1 using the Panasonic adapter.
IMHO, this is the lens that Olympus needs to shrink down for m4/3.
Two other alternatives:
The 40-150/4-5.6 - either version - inexpensive though harder to blur backgrounds at f4. I've used the 4/3 version (again the Mark 2 that supports CDAF) and it's an absolute bargain. The Olympus m4/3 version seems to be smaller and lighter.
The 50/2, with good lighting, does a superb job at portraits and is substantially smaller and lighter than any of the above. When light is low and contrast is low, the focus hunts quite a bit. As for noise, the 50/2 is the noisiest, the 14-54 is more similar to the 20/1.7 or 14-42, and the Panny 14-140 is wonderfully silent!
14-54 Mark 2
If you want AF, you might want to look at the 4/3 Zuiko 14-54mm/2.8-3.5 Mark II lens.
It's shorter, lighter, and a half-stop faster at portrait lengths than the 12-60 mentioned above. Because the Mark 2 version supports CDAF, it has much faster AF on m4/3 than the 50/2 or even the 12-60 - in my tests, it focuses as quickly and reliably as the kit m4/3 14-42 - no speed demon, but it does the job. With its rounded aperture blades, it also provides smooth bokeh and at ~$450 it's reasonably priced as well.
It balances well on my E-PL1 using the Panasonic adapter.
IMHO, this is the lens that Olympus needs to shrink down for m4/3.
Two other alternatives:
The 40-150/4-5.6 - either version - inexpensive though harder to blur backgrounds at f4. I've used the 4/3 version (again the Mark 2 that supports CDAF) and it's an absolute bargain. The Olympus m4/3 version seems to be smaller and lighter.
The 50/2, with good lighting, does a superb job at portraits and is substantially smaller and lighter than any of the above. When light is low and contrast is low, the focus hunts quite a bit. As for noise, the 50/2 is the noisiest, the 14-54 is more similar to the 20/1.7 or 14-42, and the Panny 14-140 is wonderfully silent!
Last edited:
Andy Kibber
Well-known
I agree, it would be very nice to have a 75-90mm-e lens for micro 4/3. I'd be fine with something moderately fast, say f/2.5.