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: Martin Walters <mwalters@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:19:28 -0500
I used a pretty much wide-open 50/1.4 when we took our grandson to the 
Aviation Museum. Trouble was, he was always moving. Too many times the 
plane of focus was one foot or so behind him. With CDFO asking "How 
come?", and likely thinking "why did he buy that new camera?", I decided 
to get the 45/1.8, so at least the focus should now keep up with moving 
three year olds.

For the wider angles, there seems to be some discussion starting about 
the relative merits of the 14/2.5, 17/1.8, 20/1.7 and 25/1.4. Almost an 
embarrassment of riches, though there seems to be a range of opinions on 
the relative merits of each lens (and I forgot the two Sigma lenses).

In the 35-40mm range, seems like the 20mm is cheaper than the 17mm in 
the US, but not up here where they are the same price. In deed, all four 
fall in the range 450(14mm) to 599 (25mm).

Martin

On 20/01/2013 6:43 PM, Moose wrote:
> Something odd happened last week. Apparently under the control of some 
> internal process over which I have little
> conscious control (Previously undiagnosed GAS?), I now have one of these cute 
> little thingies.
>
> I can think of logical reasons. Much as I love the zooms, and the E-M5s high 
> ISO performance, I've been carrying a
> 50/1.4 around on most trips as a 'just in case it's really dark' lens. But 
> I've also discovered that 100mm eq. really
> isn't ideal for many/most indoor, existing darkness shots.
>
> But I still haven't figured out what to do with it in the meantime ... :-)
>
> 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.
>
>> 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.
>
>> 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. I've never
> been a WA and in your face street shooter, so this aspect that appeals to 
> those folks doesn't mean anything to me.
>
> Time for some Dawid style images? ;-)
>
> 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'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:
>
> "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've seen in more than one place on the web that the B&W rubber hood (for 
> normal lenses, not WA) doesn't vignette on
> this lens and collapses nicely for storage. I've ordered an $8, 9 condition, 
> used one and a $2 used 46 mm filter.
>
> If the hood interferes with the lens collapsing fully, I plan to take the 
> glass out of the filter and use it as a
> spacer. If that results in vignetting, hey, it's rubber. :-)
>
> Hooded Moose
>
> * At least in view of this opinionated 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