6.04.2012

An interesting lens for the micro four thirds cameras.


I am sometimes at the mercy of my readers and my lust for fun stuff.  But I'm generally happy when someone points out a useful piece of gear that doesn't break the bank.  That's what the Sony DT lenses seem to be and that's what this particular lens seems to be.

As most of you know I've been using the MFT cameras since the introduction of the Olympus EP2 and the VF-2 finder.  I have both the 25mm f1.4 PanLeica lens and the very cute, cuddly and capable 45mm 1.8 lens but there are times when I'm looking for something more in the middle.  That's where the 60mm would come in handy.  It's just long enough to give me a better perspective than the 25mm but just short enough to give me more atmosphere than the 45mm.  From reports I've heard around the web it's a good performer and nicely sharp, even wide open. While some of my friends (Andy?) swear by the 20mm Panasonic I got rid of mine because I found it to be too wide for my tastes.  The performance of the lens was great but I found myself always wanting or needing to crop before it would start singing for me.  

The 25mm is just in the ball park and the 30mm focal length would seem to me to be ideal for street shooting.  I'm still deciding but in the meantime I'm getting great results from an old Olympus classic, the 38mm 1.8 for the Pen film cameras.  It's a nice performer an a decent focal length.

And there is a companion 19mm f2.8 for those who cringe at the Panasonic 20mm price: 



15 comments:

Gregg Mack said...

Kirk, I went to check out this 30mm lens, but the Amazon.com link that you have here takes me to a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 lens.

Frank Grygier said...

As an Olympus full frame and micro full frame shooter I am amazed at the array of prime beauties available to the micro four thirds full framers. That was the only downside to the full four thirds full frame. All we have are fast constant aperture zooms for full four third full frame shooters who want to the full range.

kirk tuck said...

Thanks Gregg, I fixed the link. It now goes to the right lens. Crazy stuff this internet...

kirk tuck said...

Pretty much all you'd ever need to do great work.

wjl (Wolfgang Lonien) said...

Yup - I know at least one who called those 'a bag full of primes' ;-)

Virtual Garrett said...

I'm glad you mentioned this lens - I picked it up on a lark (what the hell, $200), and have been more than happy with its performance as a general walk arounder. I hope Sigma does well with this one - I want to see more in this price to performance range.

Dmitry said...

I have this lens as well and the only downside I see in it is a second or so delay between when the camera turns on and the lens is ready. I got used to turn the camera off (I have Panasonic GF2) because after turning on it's always ready to shoot to the moment you raise it and start aiming (which is handy in the street), but with this lens it's not the case.

Pseeker said...

How many out there other than us old timers have shot extensively with 35mm(135) cameras. It's a digital world out there now. Comparing lens focal lengths to a format that is only one of many only adds to the confusion. Maybe some think the have something bigger than what they really have.

When I was starting out in photography working in a camera department many years ago the industry never compared lens equivalents to 35mm. A normal lens was about equivalent to the diagonal of the film format and lense were either wider or longer from there. I owned a 35mm and a Hasselblad and never once tried to compare lense focal lengths between to two formats other than knowing a 50mm was normal for the 35mm and the 80mm was the normal for the Hasselblad.

Can you understand the confusion of trying to explain to someone the equivalence of the differing 120 size formats, 35mm half frame, 110, disk format, instamatic, minox and other formats to 35mm? No one cared then and they should care now.

Lenses focal lengths should be compared to the sensor size.

FotoEdge said...

I just picked this one up for my OM-D... I like the slower aperture of f/2.8 because the shallow depth of field with a f/1.4 for me results in too many unintentional out of focus areas in the frame. With the OM-D I can shoot at 800 ISO and have nice smooth skin with no noise. Also the Stabilizer System is Rock Steady in the OM-D. The Sigma 30mm has wonderful skin colors!

Dave Jenkins said...

Maybe you didn't care about focal length comparisons, but a lot of us did. I have a magazine article from around 1970 giving comparison charts.

BLB said...

With your current use of the Sony's, and here your mention of the sony lenses, any temptation to give the Nex system another try? Seems that it would be a great fit for your love of the older...er....traditional lenses. I can't remember what turned you off to them except for the few recent comments about the size of the lens compared to the size of the body which is definitely more of a subjective thing - not that there's anything wrong with that - my biggest complaint with the nex 5n is that it doesn't hang flat against my chest... Just wondering.

Ron Preedy said...

When I had my Nikon D7000, I found the 35 not wide enough and the 50 not long enough. So in MFT-land, I didn't miss the gap between my 9-18 and the 40-150. But I got my EM5 with the 12-50, which I didn't need, and swapped it for the Sigma 30mm. Much better than I thought it would be, super sharp and long enough for discreet candid portraits (especially with the tilt screen, Rolleiflex-style).

kirk tuck said...

I've never really warmed up to the NEX system. The bodies seem small and not well laid out. The lenses are all out of proportion to the bodies. But really I just couldn't think about yet another system of lenses. Finally, the only body I'd be interested in would be the 7 and then just for the finder.

Ron Nabity said...

I have a few old Canon lenses from the AE-1 days and they have a new life on my Panasonic G cameras (with adapter). They are the 28mm (2.8), 35mm (2.8) and 50mm (1.4). I like each of them for different reasons, but the one that rides on my camera most of the time is the 28. Seems like a great FOV.

The 50mm is beautiful at around f/2.8.

E. Huybrechts said...

That's interesting, many people are also very skeptic of the Pentax DA 40mm f/2.8 (same effective field of view as a 30mm on MFT). For them it always seem to long or too short. But I find it ideal in many situations, in particular street shooting.