Hi, i have the G5 with the 14-42mm kit lens but i would like to know how big is the difference in light gathering between the 14-42mm and 14mm 2.5 ? Does really worth to invest $200.00 ? Thanks i appreciate any response or advice in order to take...
326828
The 14mm f/2.5 will give you a little less than a stop of difference, which is quite a bit, it will mean on it's widest setting, you can gather light almost twice as fast as with the 14-42mm. But where the real difference comes in is the sharpness of the lens. A prime lens is always going to be sharper than a zoom lens. It is also a tiny lens, making the camera ultra portable.
1139200
It's a phenomenal lens ... One of my favs ! It does however have a very specific place in my lenses , meaning : it's not for everything . It's an ultra wide lens and in as much there is image distortion around the outer rim (like a bubble /fisheye but not as pronounced) ...when used correctly it's breathtaking though -- I also shoot a lot of weddings and this lens may only come out once or twice at a wedding ...maybe you're looking for something a little more rounded (productivity wise) ? You can see some sample images on my Facebook page Dreamshift Photography ...my cover photo (among others ) are with the 14mm ...if you have any further questions I'll be glad to answer them :) Jeremiah.gribble@gmail.com or dreamshift photography on Facebook :)
503709
I have only shot it with the 14-35 f/2 and it was VERTY fast to AF even in indoor conditions. It is much much faster than the E-M5 from what I hear. Maybe not as fast as the E-5 but the 14-35 was plenty fast for me. I can not comment on other lenses as I have not tried them, and probably will not be as A: I am not a fan of large lenses and B: I can not afford to buy them all to test them :)
760811
Hi xynobis. Both those lenses are excellent. The 17-55 likes to flare when a light source is in the frame, so a hood is a must. Other than that, they both have great AF, IS and produce equally awesome pictures. So I think it's a matter of what you'll be using it for. The 15-85 is ideally suited for sightseeing, and outdoors. It's usually bright outside, so a narrower aperture is fine and this lens is much more civilized when it comes to flare. It also has more reach, and a little more breadth. The 17-55 is much better for indoor/event and evening shooting. I love having both, but I only ever use one at a time, depending on where/what I'm shooting. If I could only have one, it would be the 15-85. I find I can never have enough focal length, and I'm willing to up my ISO a stop or two to get the shutter speed I need.
1331054
For the extra $100, the G10 has 3" LCD 460Kp vs 2.5" 230Kp and lens 28-140 vs 33-133 also full PASM modes. All would be important to me. Many post attest to how much owner enjoy G10. G10 significantly larger 109x78x46 vs 97x62x28. You can tell I am comparing these 2 also. Go for the G10.
364835
Basically just more distance. In my opinion, i never ever use the kit lens, so get the cheaper one and get a couple primes with much much better quality. Thats just my opinion. Honestly, just watch some reviews and based off what kind of photography you're doing its your call!
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
1078011
The G5 does surprisingly well in low light! I am a bit amazed at the pictures I can take with street lights as the only illumination. There is sensor noise; somewhat more than with my Nikon D600, about the same as my Nikon D7000. Noise elimination post-processing cleans it up fairly nicely. On the other hand, consider that most Micro 4/3 lenses are fairly slow. So unless you get one of the fast lenses, you'll be using the "low-light" capabilities more than you would if you had a camera with an fast lens. The lens based anti-shake system works OK, but it's not as effective as some costlier systems, so a tripod is a must for "available dark" shooting.
1037163
I have to respectfully disagree with the recommendation for a 16-85mm VR. I have that lens, use it with my D90 and it's great for outdoor situations. Indoors, the 16-85mm is fine if you are using a flash. I can see using the 16-85mm for some interior church shots, but most of wedding shots are going to be of people. things, little details like bouquets, etc. You will want a lens that can handle low-light and can isolate a subject well (subject in focus - remaining areas blurry). You should check out primes. Fast zooms are nice, but they will defintiley set you back a lot of money. Look into these lenses: 1. Nikkor 50mm 1.8 - The poor man's lens for low light, decent bokeh, depth of field interestingness. $100 Everyone should have at least one fast lens and since this one is cheap, it's a good place to start. 2. Sigma 30mm 1.4 More money, but since it's wider than the above lens, a little more versatile, especially with DX sensor. $300 or more 3. Nikkor 85mm 1.8 - Like the 50mm but is more telephoto, so this is good if you are standing far from your subject but want to fill the frame with your subject. Good for concerts, theater, etc. 5. Nikkor 85mm 1.4 - This is a money-making lens for pro wedding photographers and portrait photographers. People fall in love with and worship this lens. Do a web search and you'll find out why. Very, very pricey. $1K but worth it. One thing about primes is that there is a definite learning curve to using them - especially at the wider apertures since the depth of field is SO narrow. You have to really work on learning to use them to maximize the number of keepers you have. BUT, these fast lenses help you to examine more work more critically, to look at your composition, technique, etc in ways that your kit lens never will :) Good luck with your photography!
739838
I suppose it has nothing to do with the cameras and all to do with that particular lens. For the price of the 50mm 1.4G plus it being a prime lens I figured it would focus super quick. It's funny that you bring up the 35mm 2.0 D lens having problems. I own that lens also and mine focuses just fine and much faster than the 50mm 1.4G. I'd love to hear what you find out from Nikon about this problem.
1876554
I need to look at my sizes, but the problem is that this is a very nice lens and you might benefit from a better light. My problem with this light is that it does not illuminate things very close to the lens 2-3cm away. Otherwise its a very cheap way to get light at 5-10cm distance.
797772
According to the Panasonic lens chart for the 14-45 lens, the minimum focus distance is 1 foot or 12 inches. I haven't tested the G1 in the more traditional macro/close-up type approach. I didn't get the impression that the camera likes getting closer than 12". From @2-3', I was able to engage the Extended Zoom (2x) + 4x digital + a Tcon 1.7 teleconverter (1200mm) and got surprisingly good results. I'm not suggesting you do it, but it worked.
2177809
I have several bodies including the 5D mk1 and mk2. I also have both lenses you mentioned. Without a doubt the 24 - 70 is a more useful lens. The 24 - 105 is soft at f4. I find it only to be super sharp from F5.6. The 24 - 70 is fairly sharp when wide open at 2.8. It creates a shallow depth of field where you can blur out your background and focus only on the couple. Remember for a wedding you often dont get to choose your backgrounds during the ceremony. For me I much more prefer to use the 24 - 70. Yes the 24 - 105 is a great lens, so much so that i have 2 of them. But since buying the 24 - 70 I think its better. See images made with it here www.visionphotographyinc.com most were made with the 24 - 105 but the last three I think at the bottom were the 24 - 70.
1346883
I have the 50mm f1.8 and love everything about it. My only problem is the focusing speed. I don't mind spending $340 for the 1.4 but I read alot of people had problem with it and have to send it in for repair. This made me very nervous. Anybody familiar with this problem? One more thing, if you want to choose between the 50mm or 85mm, check the crop on your camera first. Ex. T3i have a 1.6 vs 5D have a 1.0 meaning a 50mm on a T3i is equal to a 80mm on a 5D.
1359914
hi there yes i have a g6 and a gf1 and the 14-140 lens works fine on the gf1 i use this lens all the time it is very good regards Noel
205330
Two completely different "animals". The Lumix 14-45 is a general purpose "workhorse wide angle" to portrait perspective moderate telephoto zoom. I have two of them and find them to be very good. As with any gear you must learn it's limitations, maximum aperture of f3.5-f5.6 can limit low and marginal lighting applications. The Rokinon T1.5 I had briefly was an 85mm (bit over 3x) telephoto prime. It was reasonably sharp and the T1.5 aperture made it useful in low light. The geared focus ring and "clickless" aperture ring were nice but I don't use a follow focus and didn't need the "clickless" aperture. It was also quite heavy. The lens I really wanted was the Olympus m.Zuiko 75mm f1.8 so I sold the Rokinon and "coughed up" the price of the Oly. The Oly "ran circles" around the Rokinon in terms of sharpness, color, and image tonal values; also had far less "flare" at night. Hope this helps.
1019877
I did NOT buy the kit lens...bought camera with the 18-200mm lens instead....love this lens....a bit heavy but just great....no need for multiple lenses.