On 12/30/12 15:09 : , Moose wrote:
>Or, if you really prefer the 35mm angle of view, wait for the Oly 17/1.8.
>Available for pre-order at $499, so should
>appear soon. $150 more than the Panny, and a little lighter (no in-lens IS).
>The optical design looks much more
>sophisticated than the 17/2.8.
>Given what the reviewers and market have told Oly about their 17/2.8 and the
>Panny 20mm, and their history with premium
>MZ lenses, it will probably be excellent. Won't know for sure until
>reports/reviews show up, though.
>Did you buy the body with 12-50? You might want to compare samples and reviews
>of it to the 20/1.7. The old assumption
>that zooms are inferior to primes is often wrong these days. You may gain only
>speed, which may or may not be that many
>$ important to you.
It's a combination of speed and smallerness. 40mm EFL should be
comfortable. The extra $150.... not willing to go there at the moment.
$350 for the Panny 20/1.7 is right where we're willing to go. I did get
the 12-50, but I can definitely see carrying the wee lit'l beastie
around more with the smaller lens as an option.
>> ... I am correct in my assumption that stacking the OM-4/3 adapter on top
>> of the 4/3-MFT adapter is not a good thing?
> No, you are not correct. It should work fine, unless the OM-4/3 touches the
> contacts in the
> 4/3-MFT. I had that problem with an LTM-EF adapter on the Canons. A piece of
> tape on the back resolved it.
>
>
I'll give it a shot. I've got the Olympus OM-FT and the Panny FT-MFT on
the way, so we'll see when it gets here.
--
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/
|