Newbie here with EPL1 and lens question

[pretzston]

I've had my e-pl1 a year now and haven't had any other lens apart from the Kit Lens. Can't say that I've had any problems with the size of it at all and have loved using and exploring the camera capabilities. I've only just started to think about my next lens which looks like I'm going to go for a telephoto.

Give some serious attention to these types of posts. I dove in deep and collected a nice group of legacy, m43 lenses.  I spent a lot while I was learning but I didn't have to. I thought I did. Fortunately, with the exception of some hazy legacy glass I made some great purchasing decisions with the help of this forum. But, V dub here consistently amazes me with what he achieves with only the kit lens.  There is some serious cred and safe advice in that.

That being said, I would not have 1/2 the shots I love today if I had been limited to the kit.

Now I roll everywhere with:

EP3
8mm Fisheye
9-18mm
20mm 1.7
45mm 1.8
50mm 1.8 Canon FD Legacy
45-200mm

That kit really almost does everything I want it to. A Raynox 50 thrown in and I can shoot almost anything I encounter.  I freaking love it and recommend every part of it.  That being said, $3,000 later and I still ogle at some shots with v dub's kit lens which I don't even carry anymore, and should.

[pretzston]

Correction: Raynox 250

[Blaufeld]

I know that an M4/3 14mm has the equivalent FOV of a 28mm, in full-frame format... but, if I buy an adapter for my legacy full-frame 50mm f/1.8, what  FOV I`ll have in M4/3? A 50 or a 100mm?

[mynameisjonas]

100mm. It doesn't matter if the lens is native m4/3 or if you're using an adapter, the FOV is always cropped by a factor of 2 when going from full frame to m4/3. All the adapter does is putting the lens at the distance from the film/sensor for which the lens was designed.

[Blaufeld]

Thanks!

[asterinex]

As second lens I would buy the 20mm 1.7 . Very sharp allround lens and ideal for indoors when there is not much light.

[GrandadHarry]

I have read this post with interest & it raises some questions about why use m4/3 & then add legacy lenses & adaptors ( BTW I have adaptors for some of my older lenses!)
 So Why do YOU use legacy lenses??
 A lot of Images are produce & shown , I enjoy them!
 I also use and like my Olympus lenses 17mm thro to 150mm. I particularly like the 17mm. some seem not too Why??  Over the years I have used many different make of camera / lens combinations & have not really found many 'duffers'. I wont name them!
 I enjoy trying both the E-P1& my G1 what evere lens I have on it.

So Come on! let this Oldie have your thoughs, reasonsor comments.

[Em5 Pete]

I have read this post with interest & it raises some questions about why use m4/3 & then add legacy lenses & adaptors ( BTW I have adaptors for some of my older lenses!)
 So Why do YOU use legacy lenses??
 A lot of Images are produce & shown , I enjoy them!
 I also use and like my Olympus lenses 17mm thro to 150mm. I particularly like the 17mm. some seem not too Why??  Over the years I have used many different make of camera / lens combinations & have not really found many 'duffers'. I wont name them!
 I enjoy trying both the E-P1& my G1 what evere lens I have on it.

So Come on! let this Oldie have your thoughs, reasonsor comments.

For one:
no one makes really fast longer primes (the 45mm f/1.8.. but, no more)

So my, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8, 105mm f/2.8, 135mm f/2.8,  200mm f/3.0 gives me a FOV of

100mm f/1.4
170mm f/1.8
210mm f/2.8
270mm f/2.8
400mm f/3.0, almost f/2.8

That's why!

[Jason C]

It's generally seen as the lowest performer of all Micro Four Thirds primes, because of its cheap price and sometimes unappealing focal length. Most people take the 20mm over it each time.

I once owned the Panny 20/1.7, but sold it and shot C-mount lenses instead.  The 20/1.7 is a nice lens, and every bit of what people say about it, but it did not 'rock-my-world' so to speak.

As time went on, I ended up needing one NATIVE lens for my E-P1 for some of what I shoot.  So I bought an Oly 17mm f/2.8, and it works well for what I need.  Actually, I was expecting it to not-so-good in the IQ department, due to most of the bad rap this lens has, but the 17mm turned out to be a better performer than I had expected.

Jason C

[GrandadHarry]

Hi M5, I tend to agree about the 'fast' prime lenses & have a range of Nikon & Pentax with adaptors i can use. The modern Zooms are good but some of the older 'primes' in longer lengths are superb to work with.
 I find my Russian 85mm & 135mm excellent also with the advantage of less weight.
 Nice to hear your thoughts.

[mynameisjonas]

It's generally seen as the lowest performer of all Micro Four Thirds primes, because of its cheap price and sometimes unappealing focal length. Most people take the 20mm over it each time.

I once owned the Panny 20/1.7, but sold it and shot C-mount lenses instead.  The 20/1.7 is a nice lens, and every bit of what people say about it, but it did not 'rock-my-world' so to speak.

As time went on, I ended up needing one NATIVE lens for my E-P1 for some of what I shoot.  So I bought an Oly 17mm f/2.8, and it works well for what I need.  Actually, I was expecting it to not-so-good in the IQ department, due to most of the bad rap this lens has, but the 17mm turned out to be a better performer than I had expected.

Jason C

I think the bad rap the 17mm gets is a bit exaggerated. People tend to prefer the 20mm cause it's sharper, faster and focuses quicker, but that doesn't mean the 17mm is a bad lens. Far from it.

[Em5 Pete]

It's generally seen as the lowest performer of all Micro Four Thirds primes, because of its cheap price and sometimes unappealing focal length. Most people take the 20mm over it each time.

I once owned the Panny 20/1.7, but sold it and shot C-mount lenses instead.  The 20/1.7 is a nice lens, and every bit of what people say about it, but it did not 'rock-my-world' so to speak.

As time went on, I ended up needing one NATIVE lens for my E-P1 for some of what I shoot.  So I bought an Oly 17mm f/2.8, and it works well for what I need.  Actually, I was expecting it to not-so-good in the IQ department, due to most of the bad rap this lens has, but the 17mm turned out to be a better performer than I had expected.

Jason C

I think the bad rap the 17mm gets is a bit exaggerated. People tend to prefer the 20mm cause it's sharper, faster and focuses quicker, but that doesn't mean the 17mm is a bad lens. Far from it.

I had a 17 before I got the 20.  I needed the faster glass, I do a lot of indoor stuff with my family, and at the time I had a G1, the ISO 800/1600 wasn't to my IQ for f/2.8... Now I have the G3, ISO 1600 is no problem w/o flash and f/2.8.. I have always liked the IQ of the 17, just wasn't fast enough at the time for the body I had.  My 14 is a sweet lens at f/2.5 and ISO 1600 inside..

Don't hesitate on the 17... it is a good lens.