Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Confession, and a little confusion [was Panny 20mm/1.7 DOF]

Subject: Re: [OM] Confession, and a little confusion [was Panny 20mm/1.7 DOF]
From: Paul Braun <pbraun42@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:37:28 -0600
On 1/20/13 17:43 : , Moose wrote:
> On 1/20/2013 8:15 AM, Paul Braun wrote:
>> I have noticed over the past couple of weeks that when I use the 20/1.7
>> wide open, that little sucker has a really, really shallow DOF.
> I sort of thought that was one of the points of a fast prime, no? Also a 
> major reason I am mostly happy to use slower
> lenses, like the µ4/3 zooms. Sounds like you want what I want, fast, but with 
> lots of DOF. Physics says no, at least
> until one of the completely different image forming designs pans out for our 
> sort of use.
Yeah, that is one of the points of a 1.7, but I'm just not used to it 
yet.  What I also want is the equivalent of a 14-300/2.8 or better with 
razor-sharp focus that's as light as the u43 12-50 for $250.  I don't 
think I ask too much... :-)
>> It's caught me out more than once - I'm starting to get a handle on it, but 
>> when
>> I had to crank it open because of low light, I have to be extremely careful
>> where my focus point is....
> Nothing new there. It is the same with fast lenses for 35mm. Both Tina and 
> Dawid, among list lovers of fast lenses with
> shallow DOF, have had their share of slightly missed* focal plane placement 
> on images they have shown. Imagine what the
> outtakes may be like! ;-)
>
> Bracket focus when you can, stop down when you want more DOF, otherwise, 
> practice and hope for the best.
Yep.  I will practice more.  That's why it's become my walkaround lens.  
I really like the compactness and lightness of that combo.
>> Otherwise, I'm really liking that lens.
> Well, it is certainly small and light, and sorta cute. Size is useful for 
> finding a place in the bag for it.
>
> Have you run into any flare problems? Panny doesn't even make a hood for it. 
> There are a couple of similar designs of
> metal hood Leica lookalikes all over the place, as well as a few rubber 
> designs. Many are designed for WA, which this
> lens isn't, @ 40 mm eq., so I don't see any point in them.
I always keep a metal lens hood on it, so not yet.  For me, it's 
permanent flare protection and also serves as a cheap bumper to protect 
that front element in case I whack something.  A definite possibility 
for a "carry it with me most of the time" camera.
> I'm a little concerned, as I can't tell if any are of small enough outer 
> diameter at the base, just above their mounting
> threads. The front of the lens retracts slightly behind the surrounding bezel 
> when turned off. Thus, the manual says:
I've never had a vignetting problem that I can tell or a problem with focus.
> "Accessories other than filters, such as conversion lenses or adaptors [sic], 
> cannot be mounted on this lens. It may
> interfere with the focus operation or damage the lens."
>
> So, mounting just any old 46mm screw-in hood, and some other ideas I found on 
> the web, could damage the lens.
I haven't run into a problem with mine.


-- 



Paul Braun
Valparaiso, IN


"It's such a fine line between stupid, and clever." - David St. Hubbins

"Music washes from the soul the dust of everyday life" - Harlan Howard

-- 
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz