Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [OM] Lens

Subject: Re: [OM] Lens
From: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2017 15:15:46 -0500
Moose:
Thanks, again, for all that information, which gave me lots to think about.

Some comments:
The 12-100 seems to be really, really good. Not sure, however, if I could ever justify the cost (size, I assume I would get used to).

I hadn't been checking the E-M5 updates for a while now. Before 2.2, the only improvements were not of interest (e.g., video performance, 40-150 pro), so I'd left them alone. Obviously, I will do the 2.2 update when I get home in April.

I looked at my custom menus, and couldn't find anything relating to IBIS or OIS priority. From memory, I thought I could only use IBIS. I've never tried an E-M5-2, so I was blissfully ignorant of its improvements. Who knows, maybe an E-M5-3 will be in my future.......

While I usually use the camera outside, dim/dark/night situations are not uncommon. With that in mind, I do have some faster primes (17, 45, 75) so I'm generally covered (unless it's wet). I also recognize that the 2.8 zooms may be marginal for these same dim/dark/night conditions, compared to primes. However, at the moment, they or the 12-100 are really the only way to go for WR lenses for the FLs I'm interested in. It took me a while to realize that the 12-50 was quite acceptable (given the many criticisms online).

The Panny 35-100/2.8 is not particularly large (360g, 3.9 inches long) and doesn't extend (12-50 is 211g and 3.26 inches long, by way of comparison). I also realize that the Panny 12-60 will be here soon; however, it will only have an extra 10mm of reach compared to the 12-50, which doesn't appeal very much.

I've also read about the purple artifacts when using (some) Panny lenses on Oly cameras. So far though, I've not read of that issue with the 35-100/2.8.

Totally undecided, though not confused (I hope)
Martin


On 2017-02-18 7:59 PM, Moose wrote:
On 2/17/2017 2:58 PM, Martin Walters wrote:
Moose:
Thanks for that. I kind of assumed that one could choose either IBIS or dual IS with the 12-100 and 300/4. From what you are saying the E-M1-2 and the E-M5-2 automatically use dual IS with those lenses.

Yup, it's both or nothing.

I realize that extra-long exposures really only work with static subjects. Nevertheless, the apparent ability to get up to two second exposures hand held would keep the ISO down in dim settings (e.g., churches etc) and more than compensate for the F4 max aperture.

The serious dim interior lens is the Panny 12/1.4. If you read TOP, and have a good memory, you may recall Ctein going on about his disappointment with the Oly 12/2. His search for a great 12 mm went on, with several failures. It finally ended with this Panny. It is, however many $$. The Panny 14/2.5 is quite a good lens, tiny and light (stealthy), and 1 1/3 stops faster.

Most of my photography is outdoors, and mostly @ f5.6-f9, so the big, heavy f2/8 zooms don't interest me; faster than I need/want outside, slower in side. The 12-100/4 is already quite a bit faster @ 50 mm than the 12-50 I've used for so long. If I expect to encounter dim/dark, I take along a couple of faster primes, or the whole accessory bag with 14/2.5, 25/1.8, 42.5/1.7 and 75/1.8 and other stuff. 28, 50, 90 and 150 mm would be quite a complete kit in OM days. ;-)


On 2/18/2017 2:15 PM, Martin Walters wrote:
At the present time, I only have an E-M5 (mk 1), so the dual IS capability of any lens is strictly a potential benefit if/when I get a new body in the future.

You may be underrating the improvement in IBIS from Mk I to Mk II, looking past it to an imagined improvement over what you have, when there is an intermediate point that's a big improvement. I would have never tried shots like that robin, had there not been a firmware glitch in the Mk II. In A Mode, Auto ISO, with Silent on, the algorithm that sets ISO and shutter speed is wonky. It holds ISO low to ridiculously low shutter speeds, then suddenly jumps ISO way up.

Before I figured out what was going on (Oly support was equally puzzled), I ended up with quite a few shots at shutter speeds I'd never have chosen. I was, in turn, blown away at the improvement in IBIS.

Reports are that the E-M1 II improves it even more. so, with a 5 II or 1 II, you might find you are already where you need to be.

Oops, hold the 'phone. Have you updated firmware to v. 2.2?

"E-M5 Firmware Updates Ver 2.1 to Ver 2.2 <http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/cpg_downloads_updater_info.asp> - Compatible with Olympus lens with a built-in image stabilizing function. * The camera body recognizes the IS built into the lens, allowing for optimal image stabilizing effects.
   Not compatible with 5 axis Sync IS.
* You can get the effects of rolling stabilization from the IS function of the body, along with the effects of image stabilization from the IS function of the lens."

As I read it, this is NOT the cooperative XY stabilization of "5 axis Sync IS", but possibly an improvement over Mk I IBIS alone (else why would they bother?). Should you go with the 12-100, you should get some improvement from that alone.

On my body, any Panny lens would be IBIS only (i.e., the OIS is off or disabled). In that sense, I'm no worse off than with any of my other Oly lenses.

I guess they didn't implement Olympus Custom Menu C item "/Lens I. S. Priority"? /I know they fixed the Panny OIS connection with that entry in Custom Menu C, which is a switch between IBIS and Panny OIS. It's not in the manual, but my E-PM2 and E-PL6 both have it. Maybe added in a firmware update? No Mk I here to check anymore.

I read somewhere that the 35-100 may focus a little more slowly on an E-M5 than on a Panny body. I suspect that I wouldn't really notice any difference in real life settings.

Mike briefly mentioned an issue with (some?) Panny lenses on (some?) Oly bodies. If you are interested in shooting in the dim, wide open, with spots of bright light, you might want to do a test before keeping one. This is the clearest example I've seen, about half way down the review. <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_G_42-5mm_f1-7_H_HS043E/>


I'd like to cover the 50-100mm FL with a WR lens (i.e., beyond the 12-50 that I already have). The cheapest option seems to be the Panny 35-100/2.8, which is quite small. While the 12-50 and 35-100 combined weigh pretty much the same as the 12-100 alone, the weight on the camera is quite a bit less. The 12-100, while an ideal FL and with seemingly excellent IQ, appears to be a 'big' lens and is considerably more expensive at this time.

OTOH, it "is" a very fine lens. I did some testing when I got it, sort of hoping it wouldn't be great, and I could skip the size, weight and $. But - It's better than the 12-50 in every IQ way, mostly better in the center and always better, lots better, at the edges and corners. Better than the Panny 20/1.7, as good as the Oly 25/1.8 and 45/1.8 and close to the famously sharp 75/1.8. I only looked closely at the test charts center and edge @ f5.6 and f8, but believe generalizing from there will be valid. I did take some outdoor comparison shots. While less definitive, they support the conclusions from the test charts.

BTW, I did check out a Panny 12-60/F3.5-5.6. While a bit better than the 12-50 in most cases, I was unimpressed, and sent it back. The 12-100 is a much better lens. Whether it was representative or a poor example, I don't know. There is a new PLeica 12-60/2.8-4 coming soon.

Lens Whisperer Moose


--
_________________________________________________________________
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