Thread: So tell me about lenses...

I have located the thread Collapsible lenses - Micro Four Thirds User Forum The problem is perhaps more likely to be with the collapsed lens making contact with the electrical contacts in the m4/3 body rather than the actual sensor.

Barrie

added additional thoughts :- certainly in my Panasonic m4/3 cameras there are stepped baffles in front of the sensor. These will reduce the volume available to accommodate the collapsed lens when compared to an original full frame Leica body, a further reason to suggest great caution in collapsing such a lens on a m4/3 camera.

B.

I would recommend the 45mm f/1.8 for portraits. If you want to go ultra-wide, then the 9-18mm Olympus zoom is a cracker and good value. For shooting in low light and at moderate wide angles, the Olympus 12mm f/2 cannot be beaten but it isn't a cheap lens.

Another to consider if you want a reasonably compact fixed focus lens is the new Olympus 17mm f/1.8. This would be the better lens for the Olympus E-P3 than the Panasonic 17mm f/1.7 (I have one) as the Panasonic AF is noisy and not the speediest on an Olympus body although it should perfectly adequate if you want to keep costs down and it is quite compact.

I also have the Panasonic 45-200 zoom and I don't recommend it on the E-P3. It was a real dog focussing on the E-P1 and while better on the E-P3 tends to have too many miss-focus shots to be considered worthwhile. I am sure it focuses fine on Panasonic bodies (and I have yet to use it on my OM-D) but it isn't happy with the E-Px cameras and I have lost so many shots with it.

The Lumix 45-200 is a real deal. It's soft at 200, so don't go there. I try not to go past 150 or so. It's heavy, but it does the job. My main kit is the 14, 45 1.8, and the 45-200. I have the 17 as well, but tend to grab the 14. I never use the 14-45.

Actually, the idea of dropping the 50mm into the body was only a passing thought. In fact, I'd be chary of using any 1950s lens on a digital body without first giving it a thorough service: there can be all kinds of crud in collection lenses. They really need to be stripped down all the way, too, since internal elements can be fogged.

Anyway, thanks for the caveats, folks, it's appreciated. Also for the selection of lenses to consider. I should think I'll be looking for a quiet, fast-focusing, fairly wide street prime and a longish zoom. I cover cycle events for the local committee of the FFCT. For the outdoor ones with bikes zooming about I use the D300s, but for the (deadly boring) AGMs and other functions a longish zoom and a high ISO on the E-P3 would probably suffice. The shots only ever go on the web, unless a few reach the local newpaper, where resolution is even worse than on a 1990s monitor.

Originally Posted by Yeats

I have a "Dream kit" involving the EPL3, but who knows if I'll ever get it?

Anyway, have you considered the Olympus WCON-P01? Seems like an intriguing and affordable way to go wide... Amazon.com: Olympus WCON-P01 Wide Angle Converter For Olympus 14-42mm MFT Lens: Camera & Photo

Thanks again for this. The WA converter hasn't been off the lens since I opened the box. It gives a 22mm equiv that I find very attractive.

Originally Posted by Fuddlestack

Thanks again for this. The WA converter hasn't been off the lens since I opened the box. It gives a 22mm equiv that I find very attractive.

What's also nice about this converter is that you're getting a 22mm field of view at f/3.5. It blocks virtually no light from entering the kit 14-42 lens. I'm chiming in quite late... but as you can see in my signature, I have the Panny 14 and 20, and Oly 45. I use and recommend them all. If you can afford it, the brand-new Oly 17mm f/1.8 might be a better choice for an Oly body like yours than the Panny 20.

Yes, that 17mm 1.8 is tempting, but the budget has taken a whack in the back of the knee so it'll be a while yet. I'm going with an OM adapter next: I have the old Zuiko 50 mm 1.8 and a 24-45 zoom from Soligor that I used to have a lot of fun with. A wee bit of manual work won't hurt my technique.

Funny how none of the modern digitals have mimicked a split-prism finder yet.