Panasonic, PLEASE give us a faster wide!! 7mm @ 4.0 isn't going to cut it!!!

[Kevin McRoberts]

Originally Posted by Luc Spencer

Kevin, does using a 0.7x wide adapter affect image quality at all? ...

Can you recommend a brand of adapter or are they all ok?

I'm using a Canon WD-58 that dates back to my PD-150. Yes, it does degrade IQ... generally softer and there's blooming of blown out areas, but not much worse than I've seen with the SLR Magic 12.

Some wide adapters are downright atrocious (for instance, any Chicom-branded WA) so you have to be careful.

[Luc Spencer]

Thank you for the info. I just looked it up online on our local stores, it costs almost as much as my Leica 25mm. It's $580. And on bhphoto it's $250. I despise my country with a passion. Would be actually cheaper for me to get a 3rd lens. Not to mention I would also need to buy a step-up ring for it. Oh well, at least I know which way to go. Thanks again.

[Bruce Foreman]

Originally Posted by Luc Spencer

Kevin, does using a 0.7x wide adapter affect image quality at all? My currently widest lens is the 25mm Leica f/1.4, and since my budget was pretty much spent on a GH3, I'd rather get that adapter to attach to the Leica than buy a wider lens (would make it equivalent to your Voigtlander with no adapter).

There is NO WAY I would attach an inferior piece of glass to this lens!

Originally Posted by Luc Spencer

Can you recommend a brand of adapter or are they all ok?

No, they are not all OK. A few may approach "acceptable", but many will approach varying degrees of "atrocious". Most are NOT quality optics

In the old "film days" no pro or other image quality conscious photographer would even consider attaching auxiliary wide angle or telephoto "adapters" to the front of SLR lenses. These were items targeted and marketed to "clueless" beginners and amatuers.

If you really need a wide and fast optic, go with the Olympus 12mm f2. I haven't seen any reference to unhappy users of that one.

[Luc Spencer]

Right, so here's my problem.

Thanks to you guys, I found the answer to what wide lens I should buy for my GH3. I have to mention I currently own 2 primes, a Panny Leica DG Summilux 25mm f/1.4 and an Olympus 45mm f/1.8. Both really good. The Olympus having the "MSC" is EXCELLENT at focusing really fast and really well, better than the much more expensive Leica, so I thought that buying another Olympus MSC lens would be a smart thing to do.

That, combined with your recommendation of the 12mm f/2 (MSC), has given me my answer. So, you may ask, where is the problem? Right here:

http://img194.imageshack.us/img194/2697/by3v.png

This guy also appears to have the exact lenses I also have, that is the only reason why I even bothered to care about what he has to say. I know most reviews of this lens are positive, but I can't help checking with you guys before spending $750 on a lens. I never like saying this, but I live in Romania, where a decent monthly paycheck is somewhere around $400, and minimum pay is $220 / month. Just to put things into perspective.

Thank you!

PS: The main reason for buying this lens is to use it while the camera is on a stabilizer (thinking about a Wondlan Ares), and secondly because the 25mm Leica is just not wide enough at times. I have indeed considered the much cheaper Panny 14mm f/2.5 pancake lens, but someone with years of professional video experience who's bought it said that "it's a crappy lens", with (significant) barrel distortion and vignetting, which apparently is really unusual for a MFT lens. It's also not as good for filming wedding receptions and inside churches, being f/2.5. Well, to be honest, not sure how much better the Olympus is, considering the difference is very small.

Bottom line is, if you guys think the Olympus is WORTH the extra money, then I will buy it. Thanks again.

[Jeff Harper]

The 12mm lens is, in my opinion, the best prime lens for M4/3. I loved it, and will miss it more than any other of the lenses I have owned.

The reviewer who expected more? Hmmm, he did not specify what he felt was wrong with the lens, which makes his "review" immediately suspect to me.

Do you "need" it? Can you afford it? You might be better off with the 12-35mm zoom, for the money. It is the route I would try.

I suggest you buy the 12mm and try it. You won't be happy until you see for yourself. If you do not like it, return it. Simple. You are not stuck with it if you buy from a reputable source who accepts returns. Only by trying it out for yourself will you ever know.

On a stabilizer the 12mm would be very very nice.

[Luc Spencer]

Thank you for your reply, Jeff. The kit lens you mentioned, the 12-35mm, is $1300 on bhphoto and $1139 on amazon. Huge difference for me, and it's not a prime lens (I obsess about image quality). I do like that it's a fixed aperture, par-focal lens with stabilization, but I can't afford to spend that much on it.

The Olympus would give me better low light performance and better optics for a lower price. In addition, even though I haven't checked, I'm pretty sure it's significantly lighter than the Lumix G lens (my Panny Leica lens is much heavier than my Olympus lens).

Since I already have 25mm & 45mm primes in my set, I doubt I will choose to use the zoom instead of switching to a higher quality lens. Because of the primes I have, I am already used to walking when needed. Which, I know, is not a good idea without a stabilizer, but that's next on my list!

[Luc Spencer]

Quick question:

If you had a budget of $700 and were given 2 choices:

1. Spend $220 on the Panasonic 14mm f/2.5 and spend the rest on either lens filters (ND & polarizers), stabilization tools (shoulder rigs / steadicams) or whatever else you need for your camera

OR

2. Spend all of it on the Olympus 12mm f/2.


I seriously do not know what to do. Everyone is giving such high praise to the Olympus that it has become extremely hard for me to buy anything else. Even though the image quality difference is supposedly negligible.

Sigh.

[Noa Put]

Eventhough the 14mm pancake looks and feels like a toy it's sharper then my samyang 14mm, could be that the Olympus is even a bit sharper then the pancake but I was surprised how well that tiny pana lens performed.

If you need the wider angle (12mm vs 14mm) then you don't have a choice but if 14mm is ok for you I"d get the pancake and spend what you have left on accesories.

[Luc Spencer]

Well, it's not like 14mm is the end of the world and 12mm is perfectly fine. I need a wider lens because I recently panicked when I had to film a commercial for a dental clinic, and once inside I proudly took out the GH3 out of my camera bag, turned it on, after which I proceeded to put it back in the bag, much to my disappointment.

The widest lens I had on it, the 25mm, was not nearly enough to get everything I needed in the frame. Had to revert to the Panasonic TM900, which I inspected right now and I think it has a 35mm focal length (probably much less considering sensor size, but 35mm full-frame equivalent), as it's significantly wider than the GH3 with the 25mm stuck on it. Which means even a 17mm lens would be (just) fine on the GH3.

Thank you for the info, Noa. Does the lens make noticeable noise when you refocus with the touch AF feature (or by pressing the shutter)? And, more importantly, would you use it for weddings and well paid events? The list of defects mentioned in this review is what's making me hesitate...

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm f/2.5 ASPH Lens REVIEW - YouTube

[Noa Put]

Does the lens make noticeable noise when you refocus with the touch AF feature (or by pressing the shutter)?

Don't know and don't plan on using any auto focus on this camera, with a dslr I always do focus and exposure manually but maybe someone els here knows?

And, more importantly, would you use it for weddings and well paid events?

Definetely, it's sharper then my samyang 14mm and for me size doesn't matter, only how it performs. :D )

But it looks like a crap lens in terms of buidl quality though I must say the focus ring is quite smooth, the same applies for my 14-42 f3.5/f5.6 lens I got but again I realy like the image I can get out of this one. I"m pretty sure you will see the difference with a leica lens but it's quite some price difference, I don't see anything wrong with the footage that guy shot from the video you posted.

[John Hedgecoe]

Originally Posted by Bill Bruner

Noa - you don't need an adapter. You can get the Rokinon 7.5mm f3.5 in native micro 4/3 mount for $254 at Amazon (as of this post).

But, as James says, it's a fisheye.

It's a full frame (ie it is not a circular fisheye) 180 degree diagonal UWA fisheye. So I guess it depends on what you mean by fisheye.

These were taken with the Samyang 7.5mm on a Panasonic GX1.