How does it work w/ 4/3 lenses? I read that it still sucks & nowhere as good as E-5.
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 :)
503710
I have the 12-60 and the EM1, and it's quick in good light, can hunt a bit in low. I don't have my E-5 anymore, but my gut tells me it is a tiny bit bit slower than the E-5 in good light - nothing to get worked up about. I haven't tried cdaf. the 4/3 40-150 seems decently quick as well.
503711
I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a... » Read More I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. « Show Less
1467582
From the question, I take it that you are referring to the bokeh where things beyond the subject are not in focus??? If so, this lens is terrific. Its my favorite 4/3 lens. Its fast and great for low light. I rarely use a flash. If you are buying it for a newer 4/3 camera, keep in mind that you will have to buy an adaptor. Its still worth it.
1981823
I love my combo of this lens and my OM-D E-M5. I have no problems. Focus is plenty fast for me. That lens-body combo takes my highest quality pics.
79348
I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens.... » Read More I have used a 70-300mm EF and a 55-300mm AF lens with my D5100. Though the 70-300mm EF is a higher grade lens, I think that upon looking back at my results, the 55-300mm AF lens option gave me clearer images than the 70-300mm lens does. You will, however, be happy with either one. My 55-300mm lens was stolen last summer and I replaced it with a refurbished 70-300mm EF lens. If I were going to do it again, I'd probably get another 55-300mm lens. But on the other hand, the 70-300mm lens has a larger lens aperture and so it works better under lower light conditions than the 55-300mm AF lens. Life always seems to be about choices and trade-offs doesn't it.I hope this was helpful. « Show Less
1050518
Yep that is the way it performs with my camera also....but that is the way it is suppose to work. I have mine lens set at max to get rid of the circle.
1671060
Works great with the 70d. The key to getting great images is the lens. On my 18-135, the results were mediocre. On my 50mm, the results were excellent.
2246942
Well, I don't shoot w/ Canon, but i just tried it using a 70-300 Nikon f/4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S lens... since you asked. But why? Seriously,*I'm not well versed in things Canon*, but at least in the world Nikon, the 1.4x TC on a f/5.6 lens takes it to f/8 (you lose 1 stop, f/5.6 to f/8) w/ the 1.4XTC where it attempts to AF- but in less than optimal light, it just hunts. Usually, I wouldn't try a 1.4 X TC like this one you ask about- with a lens w/ a smaller max. aperture than f/4 (where takes it to f/5.6)... Also, depending on camera using, some won't AF beyond f/5.6 or limit to central AF focal point at f/8. hope this helps. Hopefully a Canon guru can answer this in Canonesse for you... good luck! Well, I don't shoot w/ Canon, but i just tried it using a 70-300 Nikon f/4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S lens... since you asked. But why? Seriously,*I'm not well versed in things Canon*, but at least in the world Nikon, the 1.4x TC on a f/5.6 lens takes it to f/8 (you lose 1 stop, f/5.6 to f/8) w/ the 1.4XTC where it attempts to AF- but in less than optimal light, it just hunts. Usually, I wouldn't try a 1.4 X TC like this one you ask about- with a lens w/ a smaller max. aperture than f/4 (where takes it to f/5.6)... Also, depending on camera using, some won't AF beyond f/5.6 or limit to central AF... » Read More Well, I don't shoot w/ Canon, but i just tried it using a 70-300 Nikon f/4.5-5.6 VR, AF-S lens... since you asked. But why? Seriously,*I'm not well versed in things Canon*, but at least in the world Nikon, the 1.4x TC on a f/5.6 lens takes it to f/8 (you lose 1 stop, f/5.6 to f/8) w/ the 1.4XTC where it attempts to AF- but in less than optimal light, it just hunts. Usually, I wouldn't try a 1.4 X TC like this one you ask about- with a lens w/ a smaller max. aperture than f/4 (where takes it to f/5.6)... Also, depending on camera using, some won't AF beyond f/5.6 or limit to central AF focal point at f/8. hope this helps. Hopefully a Canon guru can answer this in Canonesse for you... good luck! « Show Less
134990
Hello. I purchased tis lens and I can not be happier with it. The image quality comapred to the sigma to em is superior. LEss Chromatic Averration and way less distrotions on the edge of the frame on full frame cameras.Build is oustanding and I do used it for my paid jobs. Lokk at this link so you cna see some of the images of this magnificent and very good quality lens:http://fmta.com.mx/index.php/galerias-de-fotos/galeriasolimpiadas2014/64-olimpiadasclasificatorias2
405
Thanks everyone for your help. You've explained a lot and it really helps. After your explanations, I looked at my past photos. I'm thinking that maybe the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 will fill my needs. Thanks again.
1346889
I use the 50mm f/1.4 for almost everything. Although it is harder to get objects from far away, it is amazing what you can get out of it. The shallow depth of field is just top notch.
1477262
Many thanks for replying. Have just ordered an adapter ( cheaply), as I only wanted the lens to play around with. Lesson learnt ; Hubby cannot buy lenses without me knowing what he's paying out for !!
2122055
it works well.. you just have to move forward and back for the lens to detect the objecting, zooming didn't work with my lens, I've only tried it out with the 18-55mm lens. the picture looks clear.
1569208
I think you could use it with the e lenses but I doubt that you could get a full image circle with the fe lenses.
820537
Hi Enrique,I wish I had a clear cur answer. I use some new lenses and some 'E" series lenses made by Nikon. The adapters are different on each.The E series lenses were made in the early 1980's and are a GREAT value however their mounts are different than the 18-55. Sorry I cannot be of more help. Maybe go the B&H; photo and see if they have a close-up of your lens and compare that with the 18-55?Best,Haji Mahmood
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.
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
1186462
My answer to this is to set the lens at F8 either with Aperture Priority or Manual Mode. Having the lens wide open at F 4.5 just doesn't give the best results IMO. The results of learning this lesson is in the early results of seeing soft images at the edges of the pictures and loss of sharpness. F8 makes all the difference with this lens at least for me.