- Messages
- 557
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
I have not used my Nikon in the year since I went over to Olympus. I just can't make that jump to actually sell the Nikon yetJust be prepared to sell the canon in a few months due to lack of use
I have not used my Nikon in the year since I went over to Olympus. I just can't make that jump to actually sell the Nikon yetJust be prepared to sell the canon in a few months due to lack of use
I have not used my Nikon in the year since I went over to Olympus. I just can't make that jump to actually sell the Nikon yet
More thank you's and thank you for your comprehensive post, Alan @woof woof
Got to be worth much more investigation now - you've convinced me it's a good idea!
Being a newcomer to Olympus having just got an EM1, I am considering purchasing the new Panasonic 100-400 lens if it turns out to be as good as people are predicting. My question is, are Panasonic lenses a good option on Oly bodies? I can't stretch to the new Oly 300 f4 lens so am wondering if the Panny is a viable alternative and will interact well with my system?
I know to some extent it's speculative as neither lens has been released but I would be interested to know of people's experiences using other Panasonic lenses on Oly bodies, in particular with the EM1.
I'd noticed a few people recently were using or wanted thecPanasonic 35-100 lens with omd so assumed from that there aren't issues but spending just shy of £1400 on a lens, I wanted to be sure. I may wait a while anyway as I'm sure after the initial rush prices will drop and also by then hopefully there will some informed opinions of just how good or bad the Panny lens is. If it means then waiting a while longer for the Oly 300 + extender combination, then that may still be the way to go.AFAIK Panasonic lenses are fine on OM bodies as the Olly has built in stabilisation, as do the panasonic lenses.
On the other hand Olly lenses, not having internal stabilisation are not the best choice on a Panny body as they have no stabilisation either
Hope this makes sense
I'm waiting on a Panny 35-100 to use on my EM10 and there are a lot of others that use the OMD body/Panny 35-100 combo
PS...................welcome aboard the OMD train
Not if she gets hold of my iPad and looks up my historyI wont tell her, your secret is safe with me!
Sounds like you've had a great result, well done.Who'd have thunk Facebook would be such a good place to source gear...In the last couple of weeks I've managed to bag myself a em10, Samyang 12mm and now I've just got a nissin i40, all at very reasonable prices to boot
Also had my new (to me) 12-40mm arrive today as well ☺
Remember.....................Google is your friend (especially if you work for the Inland Revenue)
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3054181
May help you decide
which groups Milster?
I've never used them but only ever heard bad things. The internet's skewed thoughSlr hut claim the tax is inculded in the price. I thought i'd read posts on this very forum from people who have used slr hut in the past with good service.
Think i will stay away from slr hut and check some websites! Cheers
+1 for Richmond cameras, no hidden extras, Uk based and very fast delivery, usually next day. Great guy to deal with too.HDEW does not charge import tax as such as it's in the price and you know you won't get stung
Panamoz will pay you back if you are stung
The rest I think you are on your own unless they have a shipping base here in the uk
Heard good things about Richmond Cameras on ebay
Not tried the Panny but the Olly is very good IMO for across the frame sharpness. But won't comparisons be skewed as Olly applies lens corrections to Olly lenses and not Panny ones and vice versa. Whilst not effecting sharpness directly it may have an impact on perceived sharpness????Looking purely at across frame sharpness for landscape work, which is better - the Oly 12-40mm or Panny 12-35mm - or is there not much in it for real world shooting?
Cheers,
Simon.
Not tried the Panny but the Olly is very good IMO for across the frame sharpness. But won't comparisons be skewed as Olly applies lens corrections to Olly lenses and not Panny ones and vice versa. Whilst not effecting sharpness directly it may have an impact on perceived sharpness????
Looking purely at across frame sharpness for landscape work, which is better - the Oly 12-40mm or Panny 12-35mm - or is there not much in it for real world shooting?
Cheers,
Simon.
Both are excellent zooms, I took a punt and sold my 12-35 f/2.8 for the 12-40 /2.8 a while ago.
In my experience the 12-35 exhibited just a small reduction in corner/edge performance in comparison to my 12-40.
Reviews and forum feedback is 50/50 from what I've seen, and I've read quite a number. I think one of the reasons is people's varying levels of acceptance which is why it's always good to try for yourself if you canWhilst on the subject of these wider zooms, can anyone back up what I've read about the Oly 12-50 - is it really a bad lens or are most of the reviews I've read incorrect?
It seems to have great flexibility, especially having the macro feature, which to be fair, has been said to be really good.
I just wondered if it's massively worse than the 12-40 pro as a general purpose lens?
Hoping for some informative real world comments from users of both as review opinions do differ quite a lot.
I guess that's true, some people accept that lenses comparisons are generally only valid when comparing like for like in price but there can be exceptions and I just wondered if this could be one of them. Accepted low light advantages would be obvious at f2.8 throughout the range of the 12-40 but I would imagine at the wider end, as there isn't a massive difference, as I believe there's only 1 stop difference here? Also macro is at 43mm from what I've read but at f6 so I guess that may be an issue too.Reviews and forum feedback is 50/50 from what I've seen, and I've read quite a number. I think one of the reasons is people's varying levels of acceptance which is why it's always good to try for yourself if you can
TBH I've never been totally blown away with the sharpness of the 12-40mm, although it is undoubtedly a very good lens and also renders nicely. It is the best m4/3 zoom lens I've used though, although admittedly haven't used them all. The 14-42mm EZ, 14-42mm II, and 12-32mm pancake lenses are all surprisingly good and not far off the 12-40mm sharpness wise. They don't render quite as nicely, and of course there's the aperture difference and weather sealing.I guess that's true, some people accept that lenses comparisons are generally only valid when comparing like for like in price but there can be exceptions and I just wondered if this could be one of them. Accepted low light advantages would be obvious at f2.8 throughout the range of the 12-40 but I would imagine at the wider end, as there isn't a massive difference, as I believe there's only 1 stop difference here? Also macro is at 43mm from what I've read but at f6 so I guess that may be an issue too.
I bought the 12-40 pro lens but am now thinking that maybe I could have got away with the cheaper option.
That's a very comprehensive run through and I really appreciate it. I'm new to M43 having only recently acquired my system and I went for the EM1 / 12-40 kit package and some other lenses, having looked through many posts here and reviews. I'm finding the whole thing pretty daunting at the moment, the camera is no doubt a great piece of kit but the menu & features are so complicated for me - maybe because I'm so used to Canon DSLR which I am very familiar with and know like the back of my hand, at least up to my own abilities and photographic style.TBH I've never been totally blown away with the sharpness of the 12-40mm, although it is undoubtedly a very good lens and also renders nicely. It is the best m4/3 zoom lens I've used though, although admittedly haven't used them all. The 14-42mm EZ, 14-42mm II, and 12-32mm pancake lenses are all surprisingly good and not far off the 12-40mm sharpness wise. They don't render quite as nicely, and of course there's the aperture difference and weather sealing.
With the 12-50mm you have to accept the aperture limitations as you do with the pancake zooms, but for some reason it's the sharpness of the 12-50mm that gets conflicting views. Some say it's poor, some say it's pretty decent. A while back I found some RAW sample photos from the 12-50mm online somewhere and they were 'ok'. Not as sharp as the 14-42mm's or 12-32mm though. However, as I did not take the shots with the 12-50mm myself I could not rule out user influence on the sharpness of course. Best option is to try one out for yourself.
So back to your comment about the 12-40mm, I'm sure you could have "got away with the cheaper option" but I'm also sure it wouldn't be able to deliver what your 12-40mm can. Purely in terms of sharpness then it wouldn't be far off, but rendering, out of focus areas, micro contrast, and of course weather sealing* would be better on the 12-40mm (except for the 12-50mm which is also weather sealed IIRC).
They're all really nice shots Alf, and the info is much appreciated.I have the 12-40 f2.8, 12-50 EZ 3.5-6.3 and the 12-42 EZ f3.5-5.6
I use them all but mostly the 12-40 f2.8
Here are a cuple to comapre
E-M5 and 14-42 handheld
Beach-sunset-pool-E-M5 by Alf Branch, on Flickr
E-M1 and 12-40 tripof and ND grad filter
Beach-sunset-pool by Alf Branch, on Flickr