View Full Version : 34mm f2.8 sound boring? 40mm f1.7!
A little thinking out loud here from me. The EP1 picture with the 17mm f2.8 which would be a 34mm lens in 135 terms does sound a little boring. Olympus has f2.8 in some of thier non pro zooms so having it in a fixed focal length lens almost seems insulting that they could not be bothered to make it faster ;)
Which brings me to my thought, Panasonic has an equivalent 40mm f1.7 micro 4/3 lens coming out who knows when and it does not look all that bigger then Olympus's 34mm offering...and since 4/3 system lenses are cross brand compatible it stands to reason that micro 4/3 will be the same so...get what I mean? The panasonic lens, unless it's a coke bottle bottom will be a much better choice for us low light junkies.
dazedgonebye
06-07-2009, 12:16
The 34 f2.8 would be a non-starter for me. I'm hardly a "speed junkie." Still, for the camera I'd want to have with me at all times, I would consider a fast lens an essential option.
back alley
06-07-2009, 12:28
i am looking forward to the 20/1.7 for some nice indoor shots.
but on my g1...
if it is really good, like the ZM 35/2.8, I am all for it. Otherwise, gimme the speed.
fotobiblios
06-07-2009, 12:35
Sorry if slightly off-topic and/or if covered already, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting the obvious use of the 'hotshoe' - with the right contacts, this could transmit all the info for an electronic viewfinder and cover all lenses.
Sorry if slightly off-topic and/or if covered already, but I haven't seen anyone suggesting the obvious use of the 'hotshoe' - with the right contacts, this could transmit all the info for an electronic viewfinder and cover all lenses.
A little off topic and yes it has been mentioned and imagined by many people especially since Ricoh did it with their gx100 and gx200 cameras.
I'd need something faster than 2.8 for it to be my main lens, especially depending on higher iso quality. The 20/1.7 sounds like it would work for me, although I'd rather be around 1.4.
I'll be getting both the 17mm f2.8 and the 20mm f1.7. Won't go wrong with either of them!
Certainly it will be interesting to see what the panasonic 20mm will be like an olympus body, seeing how olympus generally doesn't support the software correction that panasonic uses to make it's m4/3 kit lenses so good.
Though, I've read in a few places that olympus has faster lenses lined up for both of it's systems.
43 rumors has a thing that says the 17mm 2.8 olympus lens will have a filter thread of 37mm which is awfully small and makes me kind of wonder about the legitimacy of the rumor but lets play along for now and photos of panasonic's 20mm f1.7 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/keitaiblog/2869152037/) show it to have a 52mm thread. If this olympus lens has a 37mm thread it will be awfully small.
http://43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2aaecd1.jpg
very arousing but no filter threads
oh wait...I see them, they are on the inside of the name ring on the zoom lens
FrozenInTime
06-14-2009, 21:43
very arousing but no filter threads
The thread must be inboard of the text - it's clearer on the zoom.
A quick photoshoping and its ready for a night on the town
http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=70689&d=1245044827
me too although I don't mind the white/beige.
You know what would be cool is a gothic M on the front or the top plate, much like the original pens gothic F, which is think is a really beautiful and distinctive design.
The more I look at my picture of the black hand grip the more I like it, I like chrome cameras like my chrome Canon AE1 and such, I think I will get one of these in this chrome color with the black grip.
Filters aside I am slightly concerned there doesn't seem to be the normal bayonet mounts for clipping on a lens hood on either lens.
But the 'lock' button looks interesting on the 14-42. To lock it at certain focal lengths to match an adjustable finder perhaps?
Steve
Filters aside I am slightly concerned there doesn't seem to be the normal bayonet mounts for clipping on a lens hood on either lens.
But the 'lock' button looks interesting on the 14-42. To lock it at certain focal lengths to match an adjustable finder perhaps?
Steve
extremely doubtful as that is not what lock switches in the past were for. Usually they are to prevent zoom creep on poorly made zoom lenses and only locked at the widest setting.
shadowfox
06-16-2009, 08:28
I can live with 35/2.8. And considering that I am a 35mm focal length nut, that's saying something.
The IS can compensate for slower shutter speed if needed be (within reason, otherwise you get a sharp picture of moving subjects).
Now I know why Oly won't come out with a prime 17/2.x for the 4/3rd cameras because it'll fight on the market with this one. But still, I want one for my E-620... (sigh!).
nightfly
06-16-2009, 08:56
40mm is a non-starter for me. I really don't like that field of view. It's too in-between.
If the thing really is good with high iso who cares about the difference between 2.8 and 1.7? It's not even a full stop.
Honestly I've shot in low light with a Yashica t4 that tops out at 2.8 and had few issues. I realize some people feel they "need" lens speed but unless it's like 1.4 I think it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
where is sigma when you need them... they need to start building m4/3 lenses.
Robin Harrison
06-16-2009, 09:15
If the thing really is good with high iso who cares about the difference between 2.8 and 1.7? It's not even a full stop.
Um...afraid it's somewhere between a stop and a third and a stop and a half.
(2.8/1.7) ^ 2 = 2.71
log2 2.71 ~= 1.44
I wouldn't be put off this lens on speed grounds give the IS and given the attractively priced kit with the body and the viewfinder. If I end up buying this camera, I think my Zeiss Tevidon 25mm f1.4 will provide my need for speed, but I'm not sure the old MF lenses will be as useful given the lack of EVF/articulated screen (as per the G1).
dazedgonebye
06-16-2009, 09:19
40mm is a non-starter for me. I really don't like that field of view. It's too in-between.
If the thing really is good with high iso who cares about the difference between 2.8 and 1.7? It's not even a full stop.
Honestly I've shot in low light with a Yashica t4 that tops out at 2.8 and had few issues. I realize some people feel they "need" lens speed but unless it's like 1.4 I think it doesn't really make a lot of difference.
f2 to f2.8 is a full stop. f2.8 to f1.7 is about 1 1/3rd stops.
Assuming dof is adequate, I'd rather shoot at 1600 than 3200, 800 than 1600 etc...
Hi,
An MTF graph of the 17mm at full open is published:
http://www.olympus.co.uk/consumer/21693_pen-camera_m__zuiko_digital_17mm_1_2_8_pancake___-_details_21775.htm
Definition dies in the very corner (but so does my Xenar on my Rolleicord). Interesting question, how much does it improve at f/4 or f/5.6.
f2 to f2.8 is a full stop. f2.8 to f1.7 is about 1 1/3rd stops.
Assuming dof is adequate, I'd rather shoot at 1600 than 3200, 800 than 1600 etc...
I agree. I can't count the times with my R-D1 where I'm at the 1600 wall at f1.2 and I'm still @ 1/8 or something long like that. Me using the 35 1.2 over something slower is the difference between getting or not getting the shot. I don't think you can ever have too much speed really until sensors get to the point where noise isn't an issue.
dazedgonebye
06-16-2009, 12:11
I agree. I can't count the times with my R-D1 where I'm at the 1600 wall at f1.2 and I'm still @ 1/8 or something long like that. Me using the 35 1.2 over something slower is the difference between getting or not getting the shot. I don't think you can ever have too much speed really until sensors get to the point where noise isn't an issue.
1600 iso and f2 is pretty much good for me with film. Digital must accomplish the same thing with pretty darn clean files because grain is nice and noise is not.
So, we're really getting there with the current tech (for my purposes only, of course).
Panasonic lenses have IS built in, Oly bodies have IS built in, are the two compatible?
dazedgonebye
06-16-2009, 12:32
Panasonic lenses have IS built in, Oly bodies have IS built in, are the two compatible?
I don't believe the 20mm panny will have IS.
Not sure how the others would work.
From what I understand, they are compatible. I have an E520. The manual says to turn in-camera stabilization off if using a lens with stabilization.
The ep-1 has a sensor that moves and compensates for camera shake---apparently improving hand held ability up to 4 stops. Impressive!! It reduces the size of the lens too.
The lens lock is not used in the traditional way with this ep-1 zoom. Traditionally a zoom lock was for large heavy size compressed zooms to reduce the chance that the lens would drift out when you point the camera down. The ep-1 zoom lock is related to how the lens compresses, shrinking an astonishing 1/2 its size once the camera is not in use. At least, that is how I understood the dpreview description.
You know what would be cool is a gothic M on the front or the top plate, much like the original pens gothic F, which is think is a really beautiful and distinctive design.
Hey! Check-out the lens cap....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcwang/3631874686/
digitalintrigue
06-16-2009, 15:33
Get a sign shop to print up some black vinyl gothic Fs of the proper size to fit on the front of the camera, right where the F was on the original Pen F. :)
You know what would be cool is a gothic M on the front or the top plate, much like the original pens gothic F, which is think is a really beautiful and distinctive design.
Hey! Check-out the lens cap....
http://www.flickr.com/photos/pcwang/3631874686/
heyyyy now thats what I'm talkin bout!
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.